Where Spacetime is flat?

......A Condensative Result exists. Where "energy concentrates" and expresses outward.

I mean if I were to put on my eyeglasses, and these glasses were given to a way of seeing this universe, why not look at the whole universe bathed in such spacetime fabric?

This a opportunity to get "two birds" with one stone?

I was thinking of Garrett's E8 Theory article and Stefan's here.

On March 31, 2006 the high-resolution gravity field model EIGEN-GL04C has been released. This model is a combination of GRACE and LAGEOS mission plus 0.5 x 0.5 degrees gravimetry and altimetry surface data and is complete to degree and order 360 in terms of spherical harmonic coefficients.

High-resolution combination gravity models are essential for all applications where a precise knowledge of the static gravity potential and its gradients is needed in the medium and short wavelength spectrum. Typical examples are precise orbit determination of geodetic and altimeter satellites or the study of the Earth's crust and mantle mass distribution.

But, various geodetic and altimeter applications request also a pure satellite-only gravity model. As an example, the ocean dynamic topography and the derived geostrophic surface currents, both derived from altimeter measurements and an oceanic geoid, would be strongly correlated with the mean sea surface height model used to derive terrestrial gravity data for the combination model.

Therefore, the satellite-only part of EIGEN-GL04C is provided here as EIGEN-GL04S1. The contributing GRACE and Lageos data are already described in the EIGEN-GL04C description. The satellite-only model has been derived from EIGEN-GL04C by reduction of the terrestrial normal equation system and is complete up to degree and order 150.

How many really understand/see the production of gravitational waves in regards to Taylor and Hulse?

To see Stefan's correlation in terms of "wave production" is a dynamical quality to what is still be experimentally looked for by LIGO?

As scientists, do you know this?

6:41 AM, November 11, 2007

See here

Thus the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 provides a powerful test of the predictions of the behavior of time perceived by a distant observer according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Since we know the theory of Relativity is about Gravity, then how is it the applications can be extended to the way we see "anew" in our world?

A sphere, our earth, not so round anymore.

Uncle has tried to correct me on "isostatic adjustment."

Derek Sears, professor of cosmochemistry at the University of Arkansas, explains. See here

Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it. With its large body and internal heating from radioactive elements, a planet behaves like a fluid, and over long periods of time succumbs to the gravitational pull from its center of gravity. The only way to get all the mass as close to planet's center of gravity as possible is to form a sphere. The technical name for this process is "isostatic adjustment."

With much smaller bodies, such as the 20-kilometer asteroids we have seen in recent spacecraft images, the gravitational pull is too weak to overcome the asteroid's mechanical strength. As a result, these bodies do not form spheres. Rather they maintain irregular, fragmentary shapes. K. Shumacker. Scientific America

Do not have time to follow up at this moment.

7:02 AM, November 11, 2007

.....and here.


In context of the post and differences, I may not have pointed to the substance of the post, yet I would have dealt with my problem in seeing.

In general terms, gravitational waves are radiated by objects whose motion involves acceleration, provided that the motion is not perfectly spherically symmetric (like a spinning, expanding or contracting sphere) or cylindrically symmetric (like a spinning disk).

A simple example is the spinning dumbbell. Set upon one end, so that one side of the dumbell is on the ground and the other end is pointing up, the dumbbell will not radiate when it spins around its vertical axis but will radiate if it tumbles end-over-end. The heavier the dumbbell, and the faster it tumbles, the greater is the gravitational radiation it will give off. If we imagine an extreme case in which the two weights of the dumbbell are massive stars like neutron stars or black holes, orbiting each other quickly, then significant amounts of gravitational radiation would be given off.

Given the context of the "whole universe" what is actually pervading, if one did not include gravity?



So singularities are pointing to the beginning(i), yet, we do not know if we should just say, the Big Bang, because, one would had to have calculated the energy used and where did it come from "previous" to manifest?

So some will have this philosophical position about "nothing(?)," and "everything as already existing."

Wherever there are no gravitational waves the space time is flat. One would have to define these two variances. One from understanding the relation to "radiation" and the other "perfectly spherically symmetric."

Production of Gravitational Waves

"My heart leaps up when I behold A rainbow in the sky."
William Wordsworth-- My Heart Leaps Up

This post is based on "the production" and not the detection of gravitational waves.

It does serve it's purpose, that I explain what I have in terms of detection, that one moves from that process, to actual production of them.:) Now I am not talking about Taylor and Hulse and PSR 1913+16 either.


Dr. Kip Thorne, Caltech 01-Relativity-The First 20th Century Revolution

Weber developed an experiment using a large suspended bar of aluminum, with a high resonant Q at a frequency of about 1 kH; the oscillation of the bar after it had been excited could be measured by a series of piezoelectric crystals mounted on it. The output of the system was put on a chart recorder like those used to record earthquakes. Weber studied the excursions of the pen to look for the occasional tone of a gravitational wave passing through the bar...

Einstein@Home

LIGO:

Nor am I talking about Kip Thorne, Webber, or Ligo operation for that matter.

I am actually talking about the creation of gravitational waves.

Now imagine that you see this "slide of light," and you were to think that in front of you, this would help you see where the gravitational field would be falling away from you. You would be sliding "ahead" from where you pointed and created this effect.

So now you get the idea here of what I propose in the production of gravitational waves versus the detection of them?:)

Up until this point in time, I've used the term "generate" to describe the capability of producing a gravitational field, but since I'm not aware of any way of creating a gravitational field from nothing, a more accurate term might be to "access and amplify" a gravitational field. And this is what I mean when I use the term "generate". To understand how gravity is generated or "accessed and amplified", you must first know what gravity is.

While watching a television program I listened to what he had to say. For people interested in gravity, Quantum or otherwise, this topic helped captured my change in thinking that is postulated, and one I am giving thought right now.

The Problem

Gravitational waves are produced when there is a change in the curvature of spacetime. Since the shape of spacetime depends only on how mass is distributed, events that change the distribution of mass cause gravitational waves. It takes events with a lot of energy to make gravitational waves that we can detect because spacetime is not very elastic. Remember the bowling ball analogy? Space-time is like a stiff trampoline, one that only sinks when you put something very heavy on it.

So if we are to consider such a thing how would I go about it? Perhaps, "jumping up and down?":)

“Every time you accelerate—say by jumping up and down—you’re generating gravitational waves,” says Rainer Weiss, Professor Emeritus of Physics at MIT. “There’s no doubt of it.” But just standing there won’t cut the mustard. To make a wave, your mass has to both move (have velocity) and have acceleration (change the rate of motion, direction, or both).

Still, don’t get your hopes up. No matter how fast you jump, sprint, or cartwheel, the resulting warp your waves make on space is so weak that it’s utterly unmeasurable—perhaps 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times less so than the warp made by massive exploding space objects. And LIGO has a tough enough time measuring those.

So there are questions on my mind, about gravity creation.

Plato writes:

Dorigo,

I am interested as a lay person in the collider experiments and wondered about "gravitational wave production."

Considering quark gluon levels reached I wondered about the strength and the weakness as a measure of gravitational waves within that collider action. If microscopic blackhole are created then would it be wrong to observe, variation of gravity within the domain of the collider itself?

regards,

See following comment posted here.

Dear Plato,

quarks are microscopic bodies. The gravitational effects associated with the motion and interaction of masses that small are ridiculously small.

In theories contemplating a low quantum gravity scale, black holes could in principle be created in high energy collisions, but if a chance of detecting their creation exists, it is not by gravitational effects, which remain billions of billions of billions of billions (and then some) of times smaller than those caused by strong interactions.

Please check my post on Lisa Randall’s seminar (Sept. 29th), or the one on the seminar given by Steve Giddings last March. There is reading material that I tried to make accessible to most there.

Cheers,
T.

I will be loking at this in much more detail. Something that immediately came to mind is Gran Sasso. "Muon creation" from the particle collisions. See: Neutrino Mixing in Sixty Seconds.

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


The Distorted Lense

It would seem to me that if any lens could direct "the focus of our vision" then why not the focus of the gravitational waves? I mean if there is a "inverse calculation" to waves, it would seem t me that such a process could point to a heavy concentration in terms of blackhole production?


As one of the fields which obey the general inverse square law, the gravity field can be put in the form shown above, showing that the acceleration of gravity, g, is an expression of the intensity of the gravity field.

As I am reading different thoughts are manifesting and one of these has to do with the "escape velocity of the photon." Why I am not sure at the moment. This used as a measure of determination of whether a blackhole exists? How did we arrive at such a point?


Albert Einstein (1879–1955)

One part of the theory of Relativity was inspired when a painter fell off a roof. Einstein found out that while the painter was falling freely, he felt weightless. This led Einstein to realize that gravity was a form of inertia, a result of the way things moved through space - and General Relativity was born.

It is important for me to recognize the collider process in context of what it is experimentally doing. For me this is demonstrating a "geometrical process" even if it is being taken down to the such "weak gravitational ranges" that I would point to what would manifest,if a tunnelling effect occurred from one location to the next.

Time travel

Plato: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?Tunneling in Faster then Light

Warp Drives", "Hyperspace Drives", or any other term for Faster-than-light travel is at the level of speculation, with some facets edging into the realm of science. We are at the point where we know what we do know and know what we don’t, but do not know for sure if faster than light travel is possible.

The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible. This is an artifact of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Yes, there are some other perspectives; tachyons, wormholes, inflationary universe, spacetime warping, quantum paradoxes...ideas that are in credible scientific literature, but it is still too soon to know if such ideas are viable.

One of the issues that is evoked by any faster-than-light transport is time paradoxes: causality violations and implications of time travel. As if the faster than light issue wasn’t tough enough, it is possible to construct elaborate scenarios where faster-than-light travel results in time travel. Time travel is considered far more impossible than light travel.

It would be suspect to me that such travelling in space would allow for the manufacture of gravitational influences to be pointed in the "direction of travel" and allow such slippage away from that current position.

Gravitational Mass for a Photon

The relativistic energy expression attributes a mass to any energetic particle, and for the photon



The gravitational potential energy is then



When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency




Since it is reduced in frequency, this is called the gravitational red shift or the Einstein red shift.

Escape Energy for Photon

If the gravitational potential energy of the photon is exactly equal to the photon energy then



Note that this condition is independent of the frequency, and for a given mass M establishes a critical radius. Actually, Schwarzchilds's calculated gravitational radius differs from this result by a factor of 2 and is coincidently equal to the non-relativistic escape velocity expression

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

For more see "Time as a measure.

By allowing new physics to emerge, what basis is being held relevant then to what is being created in the particle collisions that are indeed faster then light?

As we know from Einstein’s theory of special relativity, nothing can travel faster than c, the velocity of light in a vacuum. The speed of the light that we see generally travels with a slower velocity c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium through which we view the light (in air at sea level, n is approximately 1.00029 whereas in water n is 1.33). Highly energetic, charged particles (which are only constrained to travel slower than c) tend to radiate photons when they pass through a medium and, consequently, can suddenly find themselves in the embarrassing position of actually travelling faster than the light they produce!

The result of this can be illustrated by considering a moving particle which emits pulses of light that expand like ripples on a pond, as shown in the Figure (right). By the time the particle is at the position indicated by the purple spot, the spherical shell of light emitted when the particle was in the blue position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open blue circle. Likewise, the light emitted when the particle was in the green position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open green circle, and so on. Notice that these ripples overlap with each other to form an enhanced cone of light indicated by the dotted lines. This is analogous to the idea that leads to a sonic boom when planes such as Concorde travel faster than the speed of sound in air

See also information on What is Cerenkov Radiation?

Fifth Dimensional General Relativity

It was a gradual process that using Grace to help me see the earth in new ways was paramount to the inclusion principle of electromagnetism contained within the move to GR.I may be mixed up here, and I have no one to say.

"Color of gravity" assumes that you have seen the colour of gravity in relation to this slide of light. So seeing in such a way would seem relevant in the fifth dimensional perspective.

In Kaku's preface of Hyperspace, page ix, we find a innocent enough statement that helps us orientate a view that previous to all understanding, is couched in the work of Kaluza.

In para 3, he writes,

Similarily, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and gravity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained in the fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensions.

I would think such a thought here by Kaku would have stimulated the brains of people to see that a direct result is needed in our reality to which such thoughts I am giving would allow you to see gravity in new ways?



Lagrangian views with regards to relations between the Earth, Moon and Sun would help one to see the general outlay of gravitational influences in space. That is also part of the work I have been following to understand the spacetime fabric and how we may see this in our dealings.

Symmetries Can be Chaotically Complex

Imagine in an "action of a kind" you start off from one place. A photon travelling through a slit of Thomas Young's, to get through "a world" to the other side. Sounds like some fairy tale doesn't it? Yet, "the backdrop" is where you started?


Thomas Young (June 14, 1773 – †May 10,1829)

was an English scientist, researcher, physician and polymath. He is sometimes considered to be "the last person to know everything": that is, he was familiar with virtually all the contemporary Western academic knowledge at that point in history. Clearly this can never be verified, and other claimants to this title are Gottfried Leibniz, Leonardo da Vinci, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Johann Wolfgang Goethe and Francis Bacon, among others. Young also wrote about various subjects to contemporary editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His learning was so prodigious in scope and breadth that he was popularly known as "Phenomenon Young."

Simplistically this "massless entity" is affected by the "geometrics of gravity?" Is affected from it's "first light." All the way to some "other point in reality" to some image, called the spectrum.

I am dreaming. I am walking down the street and there is this "N category cafe."

Imagine walking off the street into this very public venue and seeing the philosophy shared is also held to certain constraints. :)Philosophy? Yes, we all have our "points of view."

Travelling the Good Life with Ease

So in this travel how is one to see this "curve of light" or "slide" and we get this sense of what gravity can do.

Imagine indeed, "a hole cosmological related" in the three body problem, it has to travel through, and we get this sense of "lensing and distortion," abstractually gravitationally induced?



So as we look at the cosmos what illusion is perpetrated on our minds as we look into the "great distance of measure" that somehow looking to the journey of "an event local," from our place on and about earth, has not been "chaotically entrained in some way, as we look deep into space?


The Magic Square

Plato:Like Pascal, one finds Albrecht has a unique trick, used by mathematicians to hide information and help, to exemplify greater contextual meaning. Now you have to remember I am a junior here in pre-established halls of learning, so later life does not allow me to venture into, and only allows intuitive trials poining to this solid understanding. I hope I am doing justice to learning.

Moving in abstract spaces

It was necessary to explain why I added "the image" to the right in my index.

Some would think me so "esoteric" that I had somehow lost touch with the realities of science? That to follow any further discussion here "has to be announced" to save one's dignity? What ever?:)I am esoteric in that my views of the world come from a different place, not unlike your expression of where you had come from living your life. How would I come to know all that you are in a "single sentence." A single and very short equation? It's really not that easy is it?:)

So I read you from all the things that you say and get the sense of who you are no different then what is implied in the language of poetic art implied carefully from choosing your words?

Artistically Inclined?

I tried to give some hint of the "ideas floating" around in my head. I understand quite well that my challenge has been to get those "images in my head" transmitted onto paper, in a way that one would not become confused as to what is being implied.

So a good writer I may not be, a "not so good scientist" whose mathematics very ill equipped.

Thus I am faced with these challenges in the new year? A "recognition" of trying to produce that clarity. Whether in "latex" the symbols of mathematics, it is quite a challenge for me, whilst all these things are still engaged in abstract views of reality.

So someone like Clifford, may look at Robert by what he has written and say, "hey, my fellow scientists are indeed in trouble" from what Robert has learnt. So I Clifford will provide "the latex sandbox" for you to play in?

It "appears" I am not alone. My struggle, are to be many a struggle.

Art and the Abstract

But to my amazement this morning in checking up the links associated of Clifford's, I was amazed to see the article of, Hooking Up Manifolds

Now how interesting that what is being displayed there in terms of fun, mathematics, art, could have been so abstractly appealing? "Moving over these surfaces" in ways that one might never appreciated, had you not known about how one can look at the universe in the "two ways mentioned previously," and by simple experiment, transcend such things to art.

N category and the Hydrogen spectrum

Picture of the 1913 Bohr model of the atom showing the Balmer transition from n=3 to n=2. The electronic orbitals (shown as dashed black circles) are drawn to scale, with 1 inch = 1 Angstrom; note that the radius of the orbital increases quadratically with n. The electron is shown in blue, the nucleus in green, and the photon in red. The frequency ν of the photon can be determined from Planck's constant h and the change in energy ΔE between the two orbitals. For the 3-2 Balmer transition depicted here, the wavelength of the emitted photon is 656 nm.

In atomic physics, the Bohr model depicts the atom as a small, positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons that travel in circular orbits around the nucleus — similar in structure to the solar system, but with electrostatic forces providing attraction, rather than gravity.

Introduced by Niels Bohr in 1913, the model's key success was in explaining the Rydberg formula for the spectral emission lines of atomic hydrogen; while the Rydberg formula had been known experimentally, it did not gain a theoretical underpinning until the Bohr model was introduced.

The Bohr model is a primitive model of the hydrogen atom. As a theory, it can be derived as a first-order approximation of the hydrogen atom using the broader and much more accurate quantum mechanics, and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, and its correct results for selected systems (see below for application), the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics.

For one to picture events in the cosmos, it is important that the spectral understanding of the events as they reveal themselves. So you look at these beautiful pictures and information taken from them allow us to see the elemental considerations of let's say the blue giants demise. What was that blue giant made up of in term sof it's elemental structure

The quantum leaps are explained on the basis of Bohr's theory of atomic structure. From the Lyman series to the Brackett series, it can be seen that the energy applied forces the hydrogen electrons to a higher energy level by a quantum leap. They remain at this level very briefly and, after about 10-8s, they return to their initial or a lower level, emitting the excess energy in the form of photons (once again by a quantum leap).


Lyman series
Hydrogen atoms excited to luminescence emit characteristic spectra. On excitation, the electron of the hydrogen atom reaches a higher energy level. In this case, the electron is excited from the base state, with a principal quantum number of n = 1, to a level with a principal quantum number of n = 4. After an average dwell time of only about 10-8s, the electron returns to its initial state, releasing the excess energy in the form of a photon.
The various transitions result in characteristic spectral lines with frequencies which can be calculated by f=R( 1/n2 - 1/m2 ) R = Rydberg constant.
The lines of the Lyman series (n = 1) are located in the ultraviolet range of the spectrum. In this example, m can reach values of 2, 3 and 4 in succession.


Balmer series
Hydrogen atoms excited to luminescence emit characteristic spectra. On excitation, the electron of the hydrogen atom reaches a higher energy level. In this case, the electron is excited from the base state, with a principal quantum number of n = 1, to a level with a principal quantum number of n = 4. The Balmer series becomes visible if the electron first falls to an excited state with the principal quantum number of n = 2 before returning to its initial state.
The various transitions result in characteristic spectral lines with frequencies which can be calculated by f=R( 1/n2 - 1/m2 ) R = Rydberg constant.
The lines of the Balmer series (n = 2) are located in the visible range of the spectrum. In this example, m can reach values of 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in succession.


Paschen series
Hydrogen atoms excited to luminescence emit characteristic spectra. On excitation, the electron of the hydrogen atom reaches a higher energy level. In this case, the electron is excited from the base state, with a principal quantum number of n = 1, to a level with a principal quantum number of n = 7. The Paschen series becomes visible if the electron first falls to an excited state with the principal quantum number of n = 3 before returning to its initial state.
The various transitions result in characteristic spectral lines with frequencies which can be calculated by f=R( 1/n2 - 1/m2 ) R = Rydberg constant.
The lines of the Paschen series (n = 3) are located in the near infrared range of the spectrum. In this example, m can reach values of 4, 5, 6 and 7 in succession.


Brackett series
Hydrogen atoms excited to luminescence emit characteristic spectra. On excitation, the electron of the hydrogen atom reaches a higher energy level. In this case, the electron is excited from the base state, with a principal quantum number of n = 1, to a level with a principal quantum number of n = 8. The Brackett series becomes visible if the electron first falls to an excited state with the principal quantum number of n = 4 before returning to its initial state.
The lines of the Brackett series (n = 4) are located in the infrared range of the spectrum. In this example, m can reach values of 5, 6, 7 and 8 in succession.

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz

This is a historical reference as well as leading to a conclusion I won't say it for you just that I present the idea, "written word," and then you decide what that message is. You might have thought it disjointed, but it's really not, as you move through it.


Internet Philosphy-Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) Metaphysics

There are reasons why this article is being put up, and again, developing a little history to the "line up Lee Smolin prepared" is an important step in discerning why he may have gone down a certain route for comparative relations in terms of "against symmetry."


Click on link Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

I have no one telling me this, just that any argument had to have it's "foundational logic of approach" and learning to interpret why someone did something, is sometimes just as important as the science they currently pursued, or adopted, in light of other models and methods. It does not necessarily make them right. Just that they are delving in model apprehension and devising the reasons why the model they choose to use, "is" the desired one, from their current philosophical development and understanding.

So they have to present their logic.

The Identity of Indiscernibles

The Identity of Indiscernibles (hereafter called the Principle) is usually formulated as follows: if, for every property F, object x has F if and only if object y has F, then x is identical to y. Or in the notation of symbolic logic:

F(Fx ↔ Fy) → x=y

This formulation of the Principle is equivalent to the Dissimilarity of the Diverse as McTaggart called it, namely: if x and y are distinct then there is at least one property that x has and y does not, or vice versa.

The converse of the Principle, x=y → ∀F(Fx ↔ Fy), is called the Indiscernibility of Identicals. Sometimes the conjunction of both principles, rather than the Principle by itself, is known as Leibniz's Law.

It is almost if the computerize world is to be developed further, "this logic" had to be based on some philosophical approach? Had to be derived from some developmental model beyond the scope of "the approach to quantum gravity" that it had it's basis designed in the area of research, a university could be exploiting itself?


In 1671 Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646-1716) invented a calculating machine which was a major advance in mechanical calculating. The Leibniz calculator incorporated a new mechanical feature, the stepped drum — a cylinder bearing nine teeth of different lengths which increase in equal amounts around the drum. Although the Leibniz calculator was not developed for commercial production, the stepped drum principle survived for 300 years and was used in many later calculating systems.

This is not to say the developmental program disavows current research in all areas to be considered. Just that it's approach is based on "some method" that is not easily discernible even to the vast array of scientists current working in so many research fields.

Why Quantum Computers?

On the atomic scale matter obeys the rules of quantum mechanics, which are quite different from the classical rules that determine the properties of conventional logic gates. So if computers are to become smaller in the future, new, quantum technology must replace or supplement what we have now. The point is, however, that quantum technology can offer much more than cramming more and more bits to silicon and multiplying the clock--speed of microprocessors. It can support entirely new kind of computation with qualitatively new algorithms based on quantum principles!

Increasing complexity makes it very hard to describe complex systems and imagine if your were going from the top down, what constituent descriptors of reality we would have to manufacture, if we wanted to speak about all those forms and the complexity that makes up these forms?

Moore's Law

Moore's law is the empirical observation that the complexity of integrated circuits, with respect to minimum component cost, doubles every 24 months[1].

Against Symmetry

The term “symmetry” derives from the Greek words sun (meaning ‘with’ or ‘together’) and metron (‘measure’), yielding summetria, and originally indicated a relation of commensurability (such is the meaning codified in Euclid's Elements for example). It quickly acquired a further, more general, meaning: that of a proportion relation, grounded on (integer) numbers, and with the function of harmonizing the different elements into a unitary whole. From the outset, then, symmetry was closely related to harmony, beauty, and unity, and this was to prove decisive for its role in theories of nature. In Plato's Timaeus, for example, the regular polyhedra are afforded a central place in the doctrine of natural elements for the proportions they contain and the beauty of their forms: fire has the form of the regular tetrahedron, earth the form of the cube, air the form of the regular octahedron, water the form of the regular icosahedron, while the regular dodecahedron is used for the form of the entire universe. The history of science provides another paradigmatic example of the use of these figures as basic ingredients in physical description: Kepler's 1596 Mysterium Cosmographicum presents a planetary architecture grounded on the five regular solids.

The basic difference that I see is the way in which Lee Smolin adopts his views of what science is in relation too, "Two traditions in the search for fundamental Physics."

It is strange indeed to see perfection of Lee Smolin's comparison and having a look further down we understand the opening basis of his philosophical thoughts in regards to the title "against symmetry?"

Some reviews on the "Trouble With Physics," by Lee Smolin

Seed Magazine, August 2006

Time magazine August 21, 2006

Discover Magazine, September 2006 &

Scientific American, September 2006

Wired September 2006:15 :

The Economist, Sept 14, 2006

The New York Times Book review, Sep 17, 2006 by Tom Siegfried

The Boston Globe, Sept 17, 2006

USA Today, Sept 19, 2006

The New York Sun, by Michael Shermer, Sept 27, 2006

The New Yorker,  by Jim Holt Sept 25,2006

The LA Times, by K C Cole, Oct 8, 2006

Nature,

by George Ellis (Nature 44, 482, 5 Oct. 2006)

San Fransisco Chronicle , by Keay Davidson, Oct 13, 2006

Dallas Morning News, by FRED BORTZ, Oct 15, 2006

Toronto Star, by PETER CALAMAI, Oct 15, 2006

But before I begin in that direction I wanted people to understand something that is held in the mind of the "condense matter theorist." In terms of the building blocks of nature. This is important basis of understanding, that any building block could emergent from anything, we had to identify where this symmetry existed, before it manifested in the "matter states of reality."

Everyone knows that human societies organize themselves. But it is also true that nature organizes itself, and that the principles by which it does this is what modern science, and especially modern physics, is all about. The purpose of my talk today is to explain this idea.

So it is important to understand what is emergent and what exists in the "theory of everything" if it did not consider the context of symmetry? AS a layman trying to get underneath the thinking process of any book development, it is important to me.

Symmetry considerations dominate modern fundamental physics, both in quantum theory and in relativity. Philosophers are now beginning to devote increasing attention to such issues as the significance of gauge symmetry, quantum particle identity in the light of permutation symmetry, how to make sense of parity violation, the role of symmetry breaking, the empirical status of symmetry principles, and so forth. These issues relate directly to traditional problems in the philosophy of science, including the status of the laws of nature, the relationships between mathematics, physical theory, and the world, and the extent to which mathematics dictates physics.

The idea here then is to find super strings place within context of the evolving universe, in terms of, "the microseconds" and not the "first three minutes" of Steven Weinberg.

So it is important to see the context with which this discussion is taking place, in terms of the high energy and from that state of existence to what entropically manifests into the universe now.

Confronting A Position Adopted By Lee Smolin


A sphere with three handles (and three holes), i.e., a genus-3 torus.

This is only "one point of contention" that was being addressed at Clifford Johnson's Asymptotia.

Jacques Distler :

This is false. The proof of finiteness, to all orders, is in quite solid shape. Explicit formulæ are currently known only up to 3-loop order, and the methods used to write down those formulæ clearly don’t generalize beyond 3 loops.

What’s certainly not clear (since you asked a very technical question, you will forgive me if my response is rather technical) is that, beyond 3 loops, the superstring measure over supermoduli space can be “pushed forward” to a measure over the moduli space of ordinary Riemann surfaces. It was a nontrivial (and, to many of us, somewhat surprising) result of d’Hoker and Phong that this does hold true at genus-2 and -3.

There is no doubt that the "timeliness of statements" can further define, support or not, problems that are being discussed. I don't mind being deleted on the point of the post above, because our good scientist's are getting into the heat of things. I am glad Arun stepped up to the plate.

Part of finally coming to some head on debate, was seeing how Peter Woit along with Lee Smolin were being challlenged for their views, while there had been this ground swell created against a model that was developed, like Loop quantum gravity was developed. One of the two traditions in search for the fundamental physics. Loop qunatum Gravity and String theory(must make sure there is the modification to M theory?) Shall this be included?


Click on link Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

But as they are having this conversation, it is this openness that they have given of themselves that we learn of the intricacies of the basis of arguments, so the public is better informed as to what follows and what has to take place.


Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

So while this issue is much more complex then just the exchange there, I have not forgotten what it is all about. Or why one may move from a certain position after they have summarize the views they had accumulated with regards to the subject of String/M theory as a model that has out lived it's usefulness, in terms of not providing a experimental frame work around it.

Finiteness of String Theory and Mandelstam

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

I was lead into this subject of Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin's book called, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity." As a lay person reading what our scientist's have to say, I have a vested interest in what can start one off and find, that changes are being made to the synopsis first written. Did I understand his position correctly from the very beginning? I'll have to go back over my notes.

But with this format now I have the opportunity to...ahem... get it..directly from the horses mouth(no disrespect intended and written based on knowing how to read horses). As I said, I tried early on to see how the situation of string theory could be refuted. I "instigated" as a comparative front for Lubos Motl and Peter Woit to speak from each of their positions. I had to disregard "the tones" set by either, as to the nature of whose what and how ignorant one might be, and comparatively, one might be to intelligent design? To get "some evidence" of why string theory might not be such a good idea?

Now I believe this is a more "civil situation" that such a format has been proposed and that Lee Smolin can speak directly. As well as, "further information" supplied to counter arguments to Lee's position.


A sphere with three handles (and three holes), i.e., a genus-3 torus.

Jacques Distler :

This is false. The proof of finiteness, to all orders, is in quite solid shape. Explicit formulæ are currently known only up to 3-loop order, and the methods used to write down those formulæ clearly don’t generalize beyond 3 loops.

What’s certainly not clear (since you asked a very technical question, you will forgive me if my response is rather technical) is that, beyond 3 loops, the superstring measure over supermoduli space can be “pushed forward” to a measure over the moduli space of ordinary Riemann surfaces. It was a nontrivial (and, to many of us, somewhat surprising) result of d’Hoker and Phong that this does hold true at genus-2 and -3.

Just a reminder about my skills. While I do things like carpetry, plumbing, electrical, I do not call myself a Carpenter, a Plumber or a Electrician. Nor shall I ah-spire to be more then I'm not, as I am to old this time around.

Greg Kuperberg:

The string theorists are physicists and this is their intuition. Do you want physical intuition or not?

Okay, Smolin is also a physicist and his intuition is radically different from that of the strings theorists. So who is right?

Yet, least I not read these things, can I not decipher "the jest" while it not being to technical? Shall I call it a Physicists intuition or I will only call my intuition what it is?

Jacques Distler:

When most people (at least, most quantum field theorists) use the term “finiteness,” they are referring to UV finiteness.

While the things above talked about from Jacques are served by hindsight, "the jest" follows what comes after this point.

The Jest of the Problem?

My present research concerns the problem of topology changing in string theory. It is currently believed that one has to sum over all string backgrounds and all topologies in doing the functional integral. I suspect that certain singular string backgrounds may be equivalent to topology changes, and that it is consequently only necessary to sum over string backgrounds. As a start I am investigating topology changes in two-dimensional target spaces. I am also interested in Seiberg-Witten invariants. Although much has been learned, some basic questions remain, and I hope to be able at least to understand the simpler of these questionsStanley Mandelstam-Professor Emeritus Particle Theory

Gina has asked questions in context of "academic excellence" in relation to what is being seen in relation to string theory. Of course we thank Clifford for providing the format for that discussion.

“The Trouble With Physics,” by Lee Smolin, Index page 382, Mandelstam, Stanley, and string theory finiteness, pages 117,187, 278-79, 280, 281, 367n14,15

For reference above.

Gina:

I raised 16 points that I felt Lee’s arguments were not correct or problematic. This is an academic discussion and not a public criticism, and I truly think that such critique can be useful, even if I am wrong on all the 16 points.

Three of my 16 points were on more technical issues, but I feel that I can understand Lee’s logical argument even without understanding the precise technical nature of “finiteness of string theory” (I do have a vague impression of what it is.) I think that my interpretation of this issue is reasonable and my critique stands.

I find this interesting based on what information has been selected to counter the arguments that Lee Smolin used to support his contentions about what is being defined in string theory.


Stanley Mandelstam Professor Emeritus Research: Particle Physics

My research concerns string theory. At present I am interested in finding an explicit expression for the n-loop superstring amplitude and proving that it is finite. My field of research is particle theory, more specifically string theory. I am also interested in the recent results of Seiberg and Witten in supersymmetric field theories.

So of course, here, I am drawn to the content of his book and what is the basis of his argument from those four pages. I hope my explanation so far summarizes adequately. For the lay person, this information is leading perspective as to the basis of the argument.

Lee Smolin:

Perturbative finiteness is a major element of the claim of string theory as a potential theory of nature. If it is not true then the case for string theory being a theory of nature would not be very strong.

-Perturbative finiteness has not been proven. There is evidence for it, but that evidence is partial. There is a complete proof only to genus two, which is the second non-trivial term in an infinite power series, each term of which has to be finite. The obstacles to a complete proof are technical and formidable; otherwise we would certainly have either a proof or a counterexample by now. There is some progress in an alternative formulation, which has not yet been shown to be equivalent to the standard definition of string theory.

-This is not an issue of theoretical physicists rigor vrs mathematical rigor. There is no proof at either level. There is an intuitive argument, but that is far from persuasive as the issue is what happens at the boundaries of super-moduli space where the assumption of that argument breaks down. In the formulation in which there is a genus two result it is not clear if there is an unambiguous definition of the higher order terms.

Is string theory in fact perturbatively finite? Many experts think so. I worry that if there were a clear way to a proof it would have been found and published, so I find it difficult to have a strong expectation, either way, on this issue.

It should be known here and here that all along I have been reacting to Lee Smolin's new book. The title itself should have given this away?

The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Thomas Kuhn

So of course knowing the basis of my thought development is a "good idea" as the links show what spending our dollars can do, having bought what our good scientist Lee Smolin has written.

There is a little "tit for tat" going on right now, but I think the point has been made sufficiently clear as to where Gina's thoughts in regards to the points on Finiteness is being made beyond 2?

In these lectures, recent progress on multiloop superstring perturbation theory is reviewed. A construction from first principles is given for an unambiguous and slice-independent two-loop superstring measure on moduli space for even spin structure. A consistent choice of moduli, invariant under local worldsheet supersymmetry is made in terms of the super-period matrix. A variety of subtle new contributions arising from a careful gauge fixing procedure are taken into account.

Yes I think I have to wait now to see if the discussion can now move beyond the first three points raised? Hopefully Lee will respond soon?

How do you fight sociology

Because this by any of the leaders of string theory. it was left to someone like me, as a quasi "insider" who had the technical knowledge but not the sociological commitment, to take on that responsibility. And I had done so because of my own interest in string theory, which I was working on almost exclusively at the time. Nevertheless, some string theorists regarded the review as a hostile act.

The trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin, Page 281

I have discovered one of Lee Smolin's objection to a string theorist. They are only craftsman, and not seers.

Theoretical Challenges

Stephen Hawking from the University of Cambridge, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists, addresses the audience during a ceremony in Beijing, June 19, 2006. Hawking, author of the best-selling 'A Brief History of Time,' said on Thursday humans must colonise other planets in different solar systems or face extinction. (Jason Lee/Reuters)

However, by using "matter/antimatter annihilation", velocities just below the speed of light could be reached, making it possible to reach the next star in about six years.

It's just one of those things that attracts our attention as we ponder the nature of the universe and how our modelling may change the way we see now. What proof for such things and we look at the basis of what we had been doing and we make changes accordingly.

More modern variations of tomography involve gathering projection data from multiple directions and feeding the data into a tomographic reconstruction software algorithm processed by a computer. Different types of signal acquisition can be used in similar calculation algorithms in order to create a tomographic image. With current 2005 technology, tomograms are derived using several different physical phenomena including X-rays, gamma rays, positron electron annihilation reaction, nuclear magnetic resonance, ultrasound, electrons, and ions. These yield CT, SPECT, PET, MRI, ultrasonography, 3d-TEM, and atom probe tomograms, respectively.

It never made much sense to me as time progressed, yet, I found myself challenging the very notions of what physics and experiment leads us, and what thoughts generated, could help propel our thinking forward. Why sound? If we thought such analogies are going to serve us then why would scientists be so misleading as to say "sound is the way we think about the universe?"

Now it is something much different that I think about these things. What caused this?

A way in which one can think and see and not have noticed the universe looks much differently from adopting these views. So of course I speak about lagrangian views and gravitational influences as a much different picture of the cosmos then the one we see as we look up. Or, as how we might look at the sun. The sun's eye?

So as usual today as I move through the "bloggeries of scientists," I look at what they are displaying. The post previous to this one of my article was instigated by reading John Baez's site and what he had there of course sparked what had written previous on the topic of, "Megalithic carved stone balls from Scotland." Yes that was in December of 2004 I wrote my article.

Artifacts of our thinking?

Now this morning of course I went over to Clifford's Blog, "Asymptotia" to have a look there to come to see what he had posted today. The Antikythera Mechanism



Now considering the information about our beliefs of what transpired in our history about gears and such, how is it we could have lost sight of mechanisms like this to have to re-invent the gear?

While occasional discoveries, such as the Antikythera mechanism, have forced scientists to reassess the technology of ancient civilization, critics regard most cases of OOPArt as the result of mistaken interpretation or wishful thinking. Supporters regard them as evidence that mainstream science is overlooking huge areas of knowledge, either willfully or through ignorance.

For me it has been an interesting journey having the freedom's to explore. Try and make sense of the world. Now I am experiencing the frustrations I have about the trends towards capitalism and sociological deconstruction of those things I would think should be the basis of our social fabric "as signs" of our sisterly and brotherly of caring for each other.

Plato:

So should we let the resistance of fear insight distrust of the media, and have good science minds disrupt by instigating false reports like the one did by Alan Sokal in regards to quantum gravity? Nice way to treat those who move up to face the challenge of a theoretical world that expects the same validation as any process?

AS if the Sokal affair wasn't enough, that one could use a computerized program to write a paper on quantum gravity? That those of us being ignorant of the process could be so easily fooled, has some how taken on a new thought here. About what String theory has done? What Peter Woit has placed in his information?

Hopefully this was not the nefarious intent of such information being divulged to the public as a speculation on "science's part" to do battle with the "evil forces of disinformation?"


Alone in the Universe?

So left alone to ponder the nature of the universe how can we not be affected by what has been put out there by scientists for us lay people to ponder about the directions we are going. That in our own thinking now biased, we move forward?

What will become of the understanding of our nature as we explore those things with which we are not accustomed to seeing? Do we "shake the resolve to do the things we have done in a logical and developmental thinking?" To destroy what has been the leading theories toward what goal? Of course not.

But it is such things that ask us to consider the "anomalistic nature" that we delved ever further into the wonders of science and what will become of us? What may be revealed by discovering more of our history, and what is yet to be "reawakened" in our continuance forward.

We must look deeper into the "fabric of reality" that we can see the world in much different way. At first, some might have only recognized the "beauty of the cosmos" and it's natural designs. Then, some wondered what are these things that they become what they are?

So we were forced to consider a much greater dimension to the reality then what was just there on appearance. Of course we might have wondered what made these move the way they do, and again we ask ourselves, "what is the motivator behind these things." How is it we might see what drives this process?


This is a computer-rendered model of a partially telescoped nanotube with a Leonardo DaVinci manuscript as the background. In the manuscript, DaVinci considers the construction of bearings, and also the frictional forces that might be encountered in bearings and sliding surfaces. He also has a drawing of a constant force spring (a mass hanging from a cord over a pulley). A nanotube bearing may be the ultimate realization of some of DaVinci's dreams.

Breakthrough Propulsion Physics?

Shuttle Main Engine Test Firing-1981-A remote camera captures a close-up view of a Space Shuttle Main Engine during a test firing at the John C. Stennis Space Center in Hancock County, Mississippi.

Spacecraft propulsion is used to change the velocity of spacecraft and artificial satellites, or in short, to provide delta-v. There are many different methods. Each method has drawbacks and advantages, and spacecraft propulsion is an active area of research. Most spacecraft today are propelled by heating the reaction mass and allowing it to flow out the back of the vehicle. This sort of engine is called a rocket engine.

While the topic here is about how travel is possible, it is the idea that "new physics" can some how propelled forward the mass in space to do the things of travel necessary.

In addition, a variety of hypothetical propulsion techniques have been considered that would require entirely new principles of physics to realize. To date, such methods are highly speculative and include

Within the definitions of the literature it is then possible to deduce what is required? So this saves me the time while speaking to the new physics, of having to explain the rudimentary understandings of how I can leaped forward. No less, the idea of the "thought experiment" that is put in front of us that we create the dialogue necessary, with or without impute, to advance one's thinking.


Credit: NASA CD-98-76634 by Les Bossinas. Artist's depiction of a hypothetical Wormhole Induction Propelled Spacecraft, based loosely on the 1994 "warp drive" paper of Miguel Alcubierre.

Introduction

The term breakthrough propulsion refers to concepts like space drives and faster-than-light travel, the kind of breakthroughs that would make interstellar travel practical.

For a general explanation of the challenges and approaches of interstellar flight, please visit the companion website: Warp Drive: When? The Warp-When site is written for the general public and uses icons of science fiction to help convey such notions. This website, on the other hand, is intended for scientists and engineers.

How is a Blackhole Determined?

PLato:Remember the "closed loop process?"

From the "blackhole horizon" what value would, "to e or not to e" speak too, if "one" was falling into the blackhole and "one" was out? Are they separated? What is our "state of the universe" then?

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

IN the process of discovering the gravitational variances in space of "gravitational effects" how is it that a spaceship could become sensitive to the variations of that travel and slow down, if it did not have a way in which to calculate these fluctuations?

There’s a place from which nothing escapes, not even light, where time and space literally come to end. It’s at this point, inside this fantastic riddle, that black holes exert their sway over the cosmos … and our imaginations.

There’s a place from which nothing escapes, not even light? So I have to re-educate some people so that they understand the limtiations that have been applied to current thinking, by what is currently out there in terms of what we know about blackholes. So breaking from of those limitation on perspective is very important with what we know now. How we can determine a blackhole.

So here to then is a wider perspective about lagrangain perspective of space that is needed in the understanding of travel in space. Implications of ways and means to determine the needed velocities of the space craft to move forward within context of determinations of gravitational influences.

Special Lagrangian geometry in particular was seen to be related to another String Theory inspired phenomenon, "Mirror Symmetry". Strominger, Yau and Zaslow conjectured that mirror symmetry could be explained by studying moduli spaces arising from special Lagrangian geometry.

Dr. Mark Haskins

So while our imagination is being captured by this "gravitational concentration" in the cosmos what use to discern the nature of the "closed loop process" if we did not consider the "thought experiment" of Susskind as I have spoken to it in the last couple of posts?

Hawking radiation owes its existence to the weirdness of the quantum world, in which pairs of virtual particles pop up out of empty space, annihilate each other and disappear. Around a black hole, virtual particles and anti-particles can be separated by the event horizon. Unable to annihilate, they become real. The properties of each pair are linked, or entangled. What happens to one affects the other, even if one is inside the black hole.

The first order of business here is that we use methods based on the understanding of the "link of entanglement" around what is inside the blackhole as a measure? What that photon is telling us in relation to the gravitational considerations influencing the space craft? IN this way, "calibration technique" allows for variances in the determination of what we see in the perspective of the cosmos as a vital differential understanding of that pathways through space.

IN "weak field understanding" we know the loop process is symmetric? Also, if gravity is combined to electromagnetism, what value the photon for determination if we had not understood this relation to gravitation effects in the cosmos? So this process then is understood in terms of developing the means to travel in space that was before not so easily determined(escape velocities for mass in space), but has now been shattered by moving beyond the paradigms of previous thought processes?

This is the benefit of thinking "thought experiments" to progress any idea. Now what has been written here, is it right or wrong?

The Propulsion System?


AIRES Cosmic Ray Showers


Also no where have I revealed the propulsion system need in order for the space craft to exceed the gravitational variances within the cosmos

Gamma Ray production in particle creation?

The Pierre Auger Observatory in Malargue, Argentina, is a multinational collaboration of physicists trying to detect powerful cosmic rays from outer space. The energy of the particles here is above 10¹⁹eV, or over a million times more powerful than the most energetic particles in any human-made accelerator. No-one knows where these rays come from.

Such cosmic rays are very rare, hitting an area the size of a football field once every 10 000 years. This means you need an enormous 'net' to catch these mysterious ultra high energy particles. The Auger project will have, when completed, about 1600 detectors.

Understanding the collision process within context of our own planet, and what information is received from other events within the cosmos allows us "to rebuild" what happens no less then what "LIGO operations" and it's gathering techniques, allows us from the complexity of the information to a thing of beauty?


The H.E.S.S. telescope array represent a multi-year construction effort by an international team of more than 100 scientists and engineers

So how shall we identify such sources if we had not considered the "light house effect?"


Black Hole-Powered Jet of Electrons and Sub-Atomic Particles Streams From Center of Galaxy M87