Projective Geometries

Action at a Distance

Now ths statement might seem counterproductive to the ideas of projective geometry but please bear with me.

In physics, action at a distance is the interaction of two objects which are separated in space with no known mediator of the interaction. This term was used most often with early theories of gravity and electromagnetism to describe how an object could "know" the mass (in the case of gravity) or charge (in electromagnetism) of another distant object.

According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action-at-a-distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. If one of the interacting objects were suddenly displaced from its position, the other object would feel its influence instantaneously, meaning information had been transmitted faster than the speed of light.

Test of the Quantenteleportation over long distances in the duct system of Vienna Working group Quantity of experiment and the Foundations OF Physics Professor Anton Zeilinger

Quantum physics questions the classical physical conception of the world and also the everyday life understanding, which is based on our experiences, in principle. In addition, the experimental results lead to new future technologies, which a revolutionizing of communication and computer technologies, how we know them, promise.

In order to exhaust this technical innovation potential, the project "Quantenteleportation was brought over long distances" in a co-operation between WKA and the working group by Professor Anton Zeilinger into being. In this experiment photons in the duct system "are teleportiert" of Vienna, i.e. transferred, the characteristics of a photon to another, removed far. First results are to be expected in the late summer 2002.

One of the first indications to me came as I looked at the history in regards to Klein's Ordering of Geometries. Now I must admit as a layman I am very green at this understanding but having jumped ahead in terms of the physics involved, its seems things have been formulating in my head, all the while, this underatnding in terms of this "order" has been lacking.

In Euclidean geometry, the basic notions are distances and angles. The transformations that preserve distances and angles are precisely the rigid motions. Effectively, Klein's idea is to reverse this argument, take the group of rigid motions as the basic object, and deduce the geometry. So a legitimate geometric concept, in Euclidean geometry, is anything that remains unchanged after a rigid motion. Right-angled triangle, for example, is such a concept; but horizontal is not, because lines can be tilted by rigid motions. Euclid's obsession with congruent triangles as a method of proof now becomes transparent, for triangles are congruent precisely when one can be placed on top of the other by a rigid motion. Euclid used them to play the same role as the transformations favored by Klein.

In projective geometry, the permitted transformations are projections. Projections don't preserve distances, so distances are not a valid conception projective geometry. Elliptical is, however, because any projection of an ellipse is another ellipse.

So spelt out here is one way in which this progression becomes embedded within this hisotry of geometry, while advancing in relation to this association I was somewhat lifted to question about Spooky action at a distance. WEll if such projective phase was ever considered then how would distance be irrelevant(this sets up the idea then of probabilistic pathways and Yong's expeirment)? There had to be some mechanism already there tht had not been considered? Well indeed GHZ entanglement issues are really alive now and such communication networks already in the making. this connection raised somewhat of a issue with me until I saw the the phrase of Penrose, about a "New Quantum View"? Okay we know these things work very well why would we need such a statement, so I had better give the frame that help orientate my perspective and lead to the undertanding of spin.



Now anywhere along the line anyone can stop such erudication, so that these ideas that I am espousing do not mislead. It's basis is a geometry and why this is important is the "hidden part of dirac's mathematics" that visionization was excelled too. It is strange that he would not reveal these things, all the while building our understanding of the quantum mechanical nature of reality. Along side of and leading indications of GR, why would not similar methods be invoked as they were by Einstein? A reistance to methodology and insightfulness to hold to a way of doing things that challenegd Dirac and cuased sleepless nights?



Have a look at previous panel to this one.

While indeed this blog entry open with advancements in the Test in Vienna, one had to understadn this developing view from inception and by looking at Penrose this sparked quite a advancement in where we are headed and how we are looking at current days issues. Smolin and others hod to the understnding f valuation thta is expeirmentally driven and it is not to far off to se ehosuch measure sare asked fro in how we ascertain early universe, happening with Glast determinations.

Quantum Cryptography

Again if I fast forward here, to idealization in regards to quantum computational ideas, what value could have been assigned to photon A and B, that if such entanglement states recognize the position of one, that it would immediately adjust in B?

Spooky At any Speed

If a pair of fundamental particles is entangled, measuring an attribute of one particle, such as spin, can affect the second particle, no matter how far away. Entanglement can even exist between two separate properties of a single particle, such as spin and momentum. In principle, single particles or pairs can be entangled via any combination of their quantum properties. And the strength of the quantum link can vary from partial to complete. Researchers are just beginning to understand how entanglement meshes with the theory of relativity. They have learned that the degree of entanglement between spin and momentum in a single particle can be affected by changing its speed ("boosting" it into a new reference frame) but weren't sure what would happen with two particles.

So there is this "distance measure" here that has raised a quandry in my mind about how such a projective geometry could have superceded the idea of "spooky things" and the issues Einstein held too.

So without understanding completely I made a quantum leap into the idealization in regards to "logic gates" as issues relevant to John Venn and introduced the idea around a "relative issues" held in my mind to psychological methods initiated by such entanglement states.

As far a one sees here this issue has burnt a hole in what could have transpired within any of us that what is held in mind, ideas about geomtires floated willy Nilly about. How would such "interactive states" have been revealled in outer coverings.

The Perfect Fluid

Again I am fstforwding here to help portray question insights that had been most troubling to me. If suych supersymmetrical idealizations arose as to the source and beginning of existance how shall such views implement this beginning point?

So it was not to unlikely, that my mind engaged further problems with such a view that symmetry breaking wouldhad tohave signalled divergence from sucha state of fluid that my mind encapsulated and developed the bubble views and further idealizations, about how such things arose from Mother.

What would signal such a thing as "phase transitions" that once gauged to the early universe, and the Planck epoch, would have revealled the developing perspective alongside of photon developement(degrees of freedom) and released information about these early cosmological events.

So I have advance quite proportinately from the title of this Blog entry, and had not even engaged the topological variations that such a leading idea could have advanced in our theoretcical views of Gluonic perceptions using such photonic ideas about what the tragectories might have revealled.

So indeed, I have to be careful here that all the while my concepts are developing and advanced in such leaps, the roads leading to the understanding of the measure here, was true to form and revalled issues about things unseen to our eyes.

It held visionistic qualities to geometric phases that those who had not ventured in to such entanglement states would have never made sense of a "measure in the making." It has it's limitation, though and why such departures need to be considered were also part of my question about what had to come next.

Trademarks of the Geometer II

John g,



Lubos had some claim about Martian ancestry, but we know that he jests?:)

So I do not want to use up to much more of Lubos's blog for this conversation even though he pushes the envelope. Perhaps, you will start your own blog?

Genuis at Work
(Picture credit: AIP Emilio Sergè Visual Archives)

Lastly, I have know certain "trademarks of people" like Dirac as "the geometer" is inherent at the foundations of such psychologies(even I like to dabble in model developement ex: John Venn), with current information Peter Woit brought forward, are key indicators to me of visualization capabilties that are every advanced for this abstract world. Clifford demonstrates like a Rorshach Ink blot as an experiment, with the picture on that "blackboard"?

Wassily Kadinsky

His art and in composition? As a reference made in the comment section of another artist in realtion to Clifford's article, Wassily came to mind.

The term "Composition" can imply a metaphor with music. Kandinsky was fascinated by music's emotional power. Because music expresses itself through sound and time, it allows the listener a freedom of imagination, interpretation, and emotional response that is not based on the literal or the descriptive, but rather on the abstract quality that painting, still dependent on representing the visible world, could not provide.

How would it be possible to extend let's say the idealization to a history of geometries without establishing this basis in thought? There had to be expanded frontiers that would let people develope towards objective goals in science, based on science and herein lies the difficulites with the INKBLOt. As by subjective interpretaion based on current knowledge bases, these views would be very much different then what someone "well trained might see"? Let alone, classify it to any geometric formulation.



Surely inkblot below is a mask? I have one in relation, drawn from the antiquities of evolution. If you ever visit the Drumheller museum, in Alberta Canada, you'll identify it for sure?:) So what is this "projection" based on?



Keep it simple

I like to keep it simple, and fragmentary indications of my blog entries can be accumulative of something deeper and very revealing about such a nature of these geometers I like to talk about. I had to learn this history in order to understand where we had been taken with Einstein's General Relativity. Another one, who understood after Grossman that such geoemters were needed to bring consistancy to the undertanding of theoretical developement.

I would not have gotten this far without bloggists, like Lubos, Peter, Sean, Clifford, Mark and the rest of the Cosmic Variance group, who are most kind in helping us lay people to recognize issues in ways and helping to develope info according to the academic world. This has been truly a grace.

Entries of my own, would have past as incoherent states of unfamiliar words, on a very simple level dealing with the societal world we live in. I now find comfort, that I am not so strange, in this geometer sense.

Have I excelled myself? On the contrary, its about learning about ourselves and who we are, is all. If it past the stage of pure mathematics( towards that center), then why would we not see that this outward development had some psychological model in which to adorn oneself in this mandalic sense.

Sean, makes brief link entree in that blog of Cliffords on Cosmic Variance.

Indeed, this is where such models helped me understand from a Jungian sense, that such a map had to exist, and models built. This can only come from experience, and from the direction of coming from that center. Why I ask Lubos, or anyone for that matter, about where ideas come from. Here you would see such a flavour and distinction in Plato's ideology, about what could manifest in any mind, and not just any one select part of this society.

No doubt, that like any fisherman's hook, you would need to have some valuation and inclination to manifest. As you develope through any model apprehension, where you could add more ideas to the pot. For a further invitation for probilities to manifest in our everyday conversations. Are some of these "inductions and deductions" always right? Of course not, and this is where our education comes in, and the saving grace of bloggists in general.

Who would of thought by using "internet world" the bloggists could have ever reached the "periphery" of this society? I'll intoduce you to another foreigner whose concept defintiely challenges the mind in this bubble sense. In a way I helped him to develope further, and him, I.

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

Special Lagrangian geometry

Dr. Mark Haskins

On a wider class of complex manifolds - the so-called Calabi-Yau manifolds - there is also a natural notion of special Lagrangian geometry. Since the late 1980s these Calabi-Yau manifolds have played a prominent role in developments in High Energy Physics and String Theory. In the late 1990s it was realized that calibrated geometries play a fundamental role in the physical theory, and calibrated geometries have become synonymous with "Branes" and "Supersymmetry".

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

This conjecture stimulated much work by mathematicians, but a lot still remains to be done. A central problem is to understand what kinds of singularities can form in families of smooth special Lagrangian submanifolds. A starting point for this is to study the simplest models for singular special Lagrangian varieties, namely cones with an isolated singularity. My research in this area ([2], [4], [6]) has focused on understanding such cones especially in dimension three, which also corresponds to the most physically relevant case.

I am execising the geometrical tendencies here in how Sylvester surfaces might have revealled the interior space of a Reimann sphere( Calabi Yau rotations exemplified and complete), while these points located on the sphere's surface, brane, reveal a deeper interactive force within this sphere. Again I am learning to see here, hopefully it's right. The bloggers out there who work in this direction are most helpful, P.P Cook, Lubos Motl and others, who help point the way.

Differences in the gravitational forces speak directly to dimensional relevances In Lagrangian, by association to the energy valuations? Euclids postulate from 1-4, had to be entertained in a new way, from a non-euclidean world of higher dimensions? It was well evident that supergravity, would find solace in the four dimensional relevances of spacetime? How did Kaluza and Klein get there? Cylinders?

Yet the dynamical world of the way in which the satelitte can move through space helps one to adjust to how these dynamcial avenues can propel this satelitte through that same space. Circular orits chaotically predictable, yet quite diverse shown in the poincare model representation, shows how bizzare the ability of the Lagrangian points become. Can one see well with this new abstractual quality?

Einstein's equations connect matter and energy (the right-hand side) with the geometry of spacetime (the left-hand side). Each superscript stands for one of the 4 coordinates of spacetime; so what looks like one equation is actually 4 x 4 = 16 equations. But since some are repeated there are really 10 equations. Contrast this with the single gravitational law of Newton! That alone gives a hint of the complexity of these equations. Indeed, they are amongst the most difficult equations in science. Happily, however, some exact solutions have been found. Below we discuss one such exact solution, the first, found in 1916 by Karl Schwarzchild.

So it was important to understand how this view was developed further. The semantics of mathematical expression was a well laid out path that worked to further our views of what could have been accompished in the world of spacetime, yet well knowing, that the dynamcial revealled a even greater potential?



So now you engaged the views inside and out, about bubble natures, and from this, a idea that is driven. That while Michio Kaku sees well from perspective, the bridge stood upon, is the same greater comprehension about abstract and dynamical processes in that same geometrical world. Beyond the sphere, within the sphere, and the relationship between both worlds, upon Lagrangian perspective not limited.

Placed within the sphere, and this view from a point is a amazing unfoldment process of views that topological inferences to torus derivtives from boson expressed gravitational idealizations removed themself from the lines of circles to greater KK tower representations?

The following is a description of some of the models for the hyperbolic plane. In order to understand the descriptions, refer to the figures. They may seem a bit strange. However, a result due to Hilbert says that it is impossible to smoothly embed the hyperbolic plane in Euclidean three-space using the usual Euclidean geometry. (Technical note: In fact it is possible to have a C^1 embedding into R^3, according to a 1955 construction of Nicolaas Kuiper, but according to William Thurston, the result would be "incredibly unwieldy, and pretty much useless in the study of the surface's intrinsic geometry."[William Thurston, "Three Dimensional Geometry and Topology," Geometry Center Preprint, 1991, p.43.]) Since there is no such smooth embedding, any model of the hyperbolic plane has to use a different geometry. In other words, we must redefine words like point, line, distance, and angle in order to have a surface in which the parallel postulate fails, but which still satisfies Euclid's postulates 1-4 (stated in the previous article). Here are brief descriptions of three models:

This process had to be thought of in another way? Point, line, plane, became something else, in terms of string world? M theory had to answer to the ideas of supergravity? How so? Great Circles and such? Topological torus forms defined, inside and out? Completed, when the circle become a boson expressed? A point on a brane now becomes something larger in perspectve? Thanks Ramond.

Mathematical Enlightenment

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Who is going to argue with this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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?

Larry Summers Issue Reveals Deeper Implications

All the informtaion is gathered material, that held the Larry Summers issue in context. I was revealing aspects of this issue on another level, that many would not have understood. I wanted to bring it together here because the understanding of rhythmns, is at the core of my belief system. I have expounded on this greatly throughout this blog. It is not altogether clear sometimes even for myself.:)

So I hope the suttle implications here are understood not only from a psychological point of view, but also from a scientific one as well. It is a strange thing when the mind has jumped in model apprehension about how it might look at the world in a new way(Quantum Harmonic Oscillators).

I don't know when it happened, and how, it's just that I don't look at the world in a normal way anymore.:) Model apprehension if adopted, will color one's thinking. If life was so simple as the circle would have implied, then it's varying attributes topologically would be listed deeply embedded within our thinking? Thinking that extends far beyond the earth and it's solid form, to the far reaches of the cosmo to all of our suns and balckholes, in our thinking?

Without this cyclical nature, the universe does not make much sense to me. Of course I have to bite my tongue here, so that I do not loose many good minds that are speaking to the finer details of our views theoretically developing at the forefront of the physics and theoretic examination of those same "fields" of endeavor.

Anyway to the below information gathered.

For some who wanted to know? Have a good look at what took place today in a Harvard vote. Of course this is date dmaterial so looking back one should look forward, to what is presented today here.

I present on the one hand, material for revealing a closer views of the "source material." I have refrained from commenting as well, until now.

I tend to look at the ideas here as more inclined to questioning the dynamics of geometry. Male and female, as a dynamical expression, not only in the cosmos(Friedmann equations) but in how this may be deeply inserted in our psychological processes.

I inserted previously, the subject of Liminocentric structures under the title of PI day, as part of this comprehension and expression.



Maybe see a ole rerun of the movie PI and wonder if the Show Numb3rs was based on it?



Or think about the Perimeter Institute(PI) for those less familiar.

....or even contemplate John Baez's Fool's Gold PHI and the golden ration begininng from some sort of mandalic interpretation, coming from a psychological model based on Liminocentric structures? :)

This might seem a little kookish as well? :)

I try to reserve judgement on characters, while maintaining a view of the situation as it is reported. I do not look at the character of who is reporting but maintaining awareness of the bend they might have to that same reporting.

European attitudes, are they different then Canadians views on men and woman?

So I try and move past these stereotyping behaviors to look deeper in the process of the human structure of thinking. You know, right brain left brain? :)

Induction ad Deduction

In looking past to the origins of expression, to undertand, what it is that both sexes use to express either of these nurturing, or abstract tools of mathematics? As moving beyond the home, where the ability is quite feasible in either sexes, when implored.

If you wanted to understand democracies, first principles this is where I began my journey.

Matter condensed physics under the likes of Robert Laughlin and his buildings blocks of matter, or a deeper look into the structure of our universe? Some reject the Mother principle of M theory,and preferred to stay in the coordinates of a euclidean world.

This does not reject, what we could apply in our non-euclidean thinking. Maxwell and Gauss and Riemann are all part of this process in enlighened thinking? Einstein moved it further, in the use of GR with the help of Grossman? Now there is this attempt to join the cosmological world of the very large with the very small(reductionism views).

You just had to know how to get there in the expression using the Fifth postulate. Emmy Noether and others tell me that we can all use this faculty for inductive/deductive processes in our expressions?



Even Thales, recognized the Arche of reason? Parts of this picture, are pasted throughout this site linked above.


Thales might of called it the primary principal and used water. It is a very defining I think that we understand this fluid nature as a contiuity of expression, while we like discrete things as well. Plato solids eventually lead to a defintion of what God might be? :)

Discrete things could be viewed as solidification processes, we like to see consolidating in the shadows of things, while the sun can be a very abtract thing topologically in revealing the energy that we can use? :)

I tend to look at the ideas here as more inclined to questioning the dynamics of geometry. Male and female, as a dynamical expression, not only in the cosmos(Friedmann equations) but in how this may be deeply inserted in our psychological processes.

One may tend back to philosophical questions about these differences, but they are innnate features in all of us? Jung's determinations, in the animus or anima, and the response's too, the male and female that seeks balance in it's life?

The distinction may be domineering at one point or another, but there is this balance contained, much as we would define the relationship of Maxwell in electric/magnetic fields? That one would ask where good common sense should rule?

The humanities in science should then beg the question, that neither of these things should ever be considered separate, or not equal, for they would be interchangeable and contained deeply in our extensions and consolidations of expressive thought?

That these distinctions are never really separate issues contained in the brain's alternating features of the brain's capacity to Babble, left/right? :) Topologically it would be difficult to distinction of the inner from the outer, but this is not to say that this can't be done in perspective.

....or even contemplate John Baez's Fool's Gold PHI and the golden ration begininng from some sort of mandalic interpretation, coming from a psychological model based on Liminocentric structures?

The mind, all the time engaged in heavy thought can easly recognize, when it has all come together in model apprehension. It's own image, for complete acceptance, we then undertand well the forays the mind has ventured through to come to such forms of consolidate thought and image reproduction? :)

It is not until well into the high school years that males begin to close the gaps in terms of Language and social skills. Unfortunaly the boys, society, and educators continue to view boys as poor communicators and as doing poorly in L.A., therefore boys don't view their language skills as strong.

There are just plain busy elsewhere? It's the primal words spoken of beating drums and far off places? :)

Maybe, the educational system is not intune with the developing scenarios of male/female attributes??

I was reading the other day a opening in regards to Plato's academy for learning. Although this was in context of early historical developement, I couldn't help be drawn to the the views that were developed alongside of, perspective. I will have to go back and look at this.

One thing that attracted my interest was the role music would play in developing rythmns of youth that were conducive to awareness and steady developement? Now I don't like to be called ole fashion, but the rhythms in youth were attractive to me because they might have taught the basis of movement in life, much like, and in concert with, the expansion and contraction scenarios of thinking and developement. Now remember focus on the rhythm

Of course I always come back to the regress of reasons to explain this intuitive leap that developed trends found in new realities emerging. Arche means elements, and any reductionistic system asks us to delve into the reasons why, even though on large scale media observation, the Summers might have had issue with deeper implications to consider?

Not fully understanding the emotive developement and differences between both, mental enhancement through age aggression to advance thinking, these rhythmns would have helped to place, societal thinking above the aggressions of war, our own human struggle to rise above those things that would hold us to the earth? :)

Calming the Fears by Making Aware

If we discover the Planck scale near the TeV scale, this will represent the most profound discovery in physics in a century, and black hole production will be the most spectacular evidence of that new discovery

It is important to understand where this research has lead some of us to looking. We mentioned Steve Giddings earlier and Lubos has provide some of this information that helps to further enlighten. Because there are fundamental processes unfolding in high energy considrations it is well that we are aware of the encounters that can come forward in the production of these particles?

Published on KurzweilAI.net June 26, 2003.

Parallel worlds

What do you think of Sir Martin Rees' concerns about the risk of creating black holes on Earth in his book, Our Final Hour?
Michio Kaku:

I haven't read his book, but perhaps Sir Martin Rees is referring to many press reports that claim that the Earth may be swallowed up by a black hole created by our machines. This started with a letter to the editor in Scientific American asking whether the RHIC accelerator in Brookhaven, Long Island, will create a black hole which will swallow up the earth. This was then picked up by the Sunday London Times who then splashed it on the international wire services, and all of a sudden, we physicists were deluged with hundreds of emails and telegrams asking whether or not we are going to destroy the world when we create a black hole in Long Island.

So the very idea that creation of blackholes, might have seemed somewhat strange then what is postulated in terms of being possible here, would help to further enlighten? We have been directed already to what is available around us in our new perspective views. So we have advanced here:)We do not overwhelm cosmological idealizations, with "false ideological statements" about it's uselessness.

The Quantum Universe

The LHC and a Linear Collider will address many questions about extra dimensions: How many extra dimensions are there? What are their shapes and sizes? How are they hidden? What are the new particles associated with extra dimensions? Through the production of new particles that move in the extra space, the LHC will have direct sensitivity to extra dimensions 10 billion times smaller than the size of an atom. A Linear Collider would determine the number, size and shape of extra dimensions through their small effects on particle masses and interactions. There is also a chance that, due to the existence of extra dimensions, microscopic black holes may be detected at the LHC or in the highest energy cosmic rays.

We can now see, where such applications, have further been developed. It was somebody else's being short sighted, that one realizes that there is a particle concern to how we percieve the nature of our universe:)



Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time:The Case for the e+ e- Linear Collider

Other ideas to solve the hierarchy problem postulate extra spatial dimensions beyond the three that we know, or new particles at the several TeV scale. If such ideas are correct, we again expect observable consequences at the LHC and the LC and a synergy will exist between them. For example, the LC and LHC combined can deduce both the size and number of extra dimensions. The new states expected from extra dimensions could perhaps be sensed directly at the LHC, but the precision measurements at the LC can measure their effects even for particles well above the range of the direct measurements.

So ever closer now one must pay attention to what does "not make sense" and we find that tidbits being left around actually if perceptive enough, will help you to explore other things. See, if I am told once and you read, the depth of perception will never make sense if you don't follow those leads and Lubos gave us one to consider:)

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




And if you are even more thick skinned, what focused can be developed from that to here. So if you do not understand the question, it is obvious you have not followed what was put before you for consideration. Hence Crackpotism or senseless?

It is a easy hand, under chin contemplating, playing games like rock, paper, or scissors ( that one can wave off) as to what is not understood as being senseless.

It is a better hand that can point up with the finger(heaven) or a open hand(ground) to say, look around you?:)We would like to develope these concepts further, under the Arche. We may be old personalities, but we still like to discuss the nature of the universe.:)

What is the Ultimate Theory of Physics?

It is always very interesting for me to try and understand how such short distances could have begun to have some visual world possibilities? When mathematics begins to develope a method to describing that same small world.

Shahn Majid's research explores the world of quantum geometry, on the frontier between pure mathematics and the foundations of theoretical physics. He uses mathematical structures from algebra and category theory to develop ideas concerning the structure of space and time. His research philosophy drives a search for the right mathematical language for a unified expression for the ideas of quantum physics, founded on the notion of non-commutative geometry

It is not always clear to me what would have arisen out of the possibilties of what could possibly lies beneath, but any emergent principal wuld have to be able to describe its origination(the geometry)?



If we thought for a moment that there was a guiding principal in the higg's field, how would we have perceptably explained this in conglomerations of students who would gather around their professors? In a strange sense, one could intuitively feel this gathering consequence, as a consolidation of dominante principles, around which the matter states could easily have resigned themselves?


Braided independence is another of the conceptual ideas going into the modern approach to quantum geometry. When electrons pass each other either in physical space or lexicographically during a calculation, their exchange involves an additional -1 factor. Building on this idea, one is led to a kind of braided mathematics in which the outputs of calculations are `wired' into the inputs of further calculations much like the way information flows inside a computer. Only now, when wires cross each other there is a nontrivial operator, in fact a different one for when one wire goes under the other and when it goes over. Here is a typical calculation in braided-mathematics

Noncommutative Geometry, Monday July 24th 2006 - Friday December 22nd 2006

Noncommutative geometry aims to carry over geometrical concepts to a a new class of spaces whose algebras of functions are no longer commutative. The central idea goes back to quantum mechanics, where classical observables such as position and momenta no longer commute. In recent years it has become appreciated that such noncommutative spaces retain a rich topology and geometry expressed first of all in K-theory and K-homology, as well as in finer aspects of the theory. The subject has also been approached from a more algebraic side with the advent of quantum groups and their quantum homogeneous spaces.

The subject in its modern form has also been connected with developments in several different fields of both pure mathematics and mathematical physics. In mathematics these include fruitful interactions with analysis, number theory, category theory and representation theory. In mathematical physics, developments include the quantum Hall effect, applications to the standard model in particle physics and to renormalization in quantum field theory, models of spacetimes with noncommuting coordinates. Noncommutative geometry also appears naturally in string/M-theory. The programme will be devoted to bringing together these different streams and instances of noncommutative geometry, as well as identifying new emerging directions.

Inverse Fourth Power Law

By moving our perceptions to fifth dimenisonal views of Kaluza and KLein, I looked at methods that would help me explain that strange mathematical world that I had been lead too geometrically. If such a bulk existed, then how would we percieve scalable features of the energy distributed within the cosmo?

The angular movements needed to signal the presence of additional dimensions are incredibly small — just a millionth of a degree. In February, Adelberger and Heckel reported that they could find no evidence for extra dimensions over length scales down to 0.2 millimetres (ref. 11). But the quest goes on. The researchers are now designing an improved instrument to probe the existence of extra dimensions below 0.1 mm. Other physicists, such as John Price of the University of Colorado and Aharon Kapitulnik of Stanford University in California, are attempting to measure the gravitational influence on small test masses of tiny oscillating levers.

In previous posts I have outline the emergence and understanding of hyperdimensional realities that we were lead too. Our early forbearers(scientifically and artistic embued with vision) as they moved through the geometrical tendencies, that if followed , made me wonder about that this strange mathematical world. How would we describe it, and how would it make sense?

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

Quantitative studies of future experiments to be carried out by LHC show that any signatures of missing energy can be used to probe the nature of gravity at small distances. The predicted effects could be accessible to the Tevatron Collider at Fermilab, but the higher energy LHC has the better chance.
These colliders are still under construction, but results also have consequences for "table-top" experiments, being carried out here at Stanford, as well as the University of Washington and the University of Colorado. Here’s the basic idea: imagine there are two extra dimensions on a scale of a millimeter. Next, take two massive particles separated by a meter, at which distance they obviously behave according to the well-known rules of 3-D space. But if you bring them very close, say closer than one millimeter, they become sensitive to the amount of extra space around. At close encounter the particles can exchange gravitons via the two extra dimensions, which changes the force law at very short distances. Instead of the Newtonian inverse square law you’ll have an inverse fourth power law. This signature is being looked for in the ongoing experiments.

As you look at the issue of two points(introduction to hyperdimensional realites of quark confinement as a example), it is well understood, by this point that such emergence had to be geometriclaly consistent on many levels. That such royal roads leading too, culminate in some realistic measure? In that mathematical realm, we had left off, and in recognition of the fifth postulate of euclid. By acceptance and creation of this extra dimension, it was well apparent, that such tendencies were developing along side with the physics as well.

But we had to determine where this mathematical realm had taken us, in terms of measure? We are quckly reminded of the place in which such measures become the constant rallying point around important questions of these views.



Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.

It wasn't a game anymore, that we did not suspect that reductionism might have taken us as far as the energy we could produce could take us? So we had to realize there was limitations to what we could percieve at such microscopic levels.

High energy particles have extremely small wavelengths and can probe subatomic distances: high energy particle accelerators serve as supermicroscopes:

To see What?

The structure of matter

(atoms/nuclei/nucleons/quarks)

Faced by these limitations and newly founded conceptual views based on the quantum mechanical discription of spacetime as strings, how would we be able to look at the cosmos with such expectancy? To know, that the views energetically described, would allow further developement of the theoretcial positons now faced with in those same reductionistic views?

What has happened as a result of considering the GR perspective of blackholes, that we had now assigned it relevance of views in cosmological considerations? Such joining of quantum mechanical views and GR, lead us to consider the sigificance of these same events on a cosmological scale. This view, had to be consistent, geometrically lead too?

If we discover the Planck scale near the TeV scale, this will represent the most profound discovery in physics in a century, and black hole production will be the most spectacular evidence of that new discovery

=> A Symmetry Breaking Phase Transition

If we understand what that point suggests, we understand well what the planck length has told us to consider, that even for the briefest of moment, the gamma ray burst would have revealled the CMB in its glory, and slowly we see how such consolidations would have materialize in the current temperatures values of that CMB today?

Below is a quote from Green that help me to recognize the energy values assigned in the KK Tower, to have understood the Radius of this circle, has to reveal symmetrical phases in the developement of that same cosmo. I needed a way in which to see how it was possible geommetrically to absorb the variations in the symmetries of events, in that same cosmo such points could have existed at any time? We needed to look for these locations. These blackholes?

How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, pages 248-249





G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1)

Here, each arrow represents a symmetry breaking phase transition where matter changes form and the groups - G, H, SU(3), etc. - represent the different types of matter, specifically the symmetries that the matter exhibits and they are associated with the different fundamental forces of nature

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

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

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

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

As you can see Brain Greene's quote at the top of the page was taken from the context of the paragraph below. One of the difficulties in a commoner like me, was trying to piece together how the develpement of the mind of string theorists, could have geometrically defined the relationships on a more abstract level. As strange as it may seem, I found other correpsondances that would have probably shaken the very foundation of our human thinking, that I could not resist looking and following these developements.

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

The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, pages 248-249



I was attracted very early to what I seen in the Klien bottle, that such modelling of these concepts was very striking to me. How could one not have seen some correspondance to the way in which the torus could have been revealled? That one might have considered, such modelling in the shape of our universe, as the point emerged from the brane? This inside/out feature was very troubling to me and still is, that I have endeveaor to follow this line of thinking, alongside of other avenues that were less then appreciated by the scientist/theorist that I have refrained from mentioning it here now.

Figure 15-18b Conformal Changes