What is AMS?

General objectives:To collect precision cosmic ray data at high energies, including 10^10 protons; to discover or rule out certain particles as explanations for dark matter; to study cosmic ray propagation in the galaxy; to search for exotic particles or spectral features among cosmic rays

See:AMS experiment mission overview

The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer Experiment

AMS is a particle detector for the International Space Station. A group of high-energy physicists are taking their experimental expertise - acquired in thirty years of experience at particle accelerators - into orbit. Space is full of high-energy particles of many types (collectively called "cosmic rays"), many of them originating in supernova explosions in distant galaxies. AMS detects them using a huge superconducting magnet and six highly specialized, ultra-precise detectors. It will sit on the ISS main truss - far above the obscuring atmosphere, and making full use of the ISS's irreplaceable support systems - and gather data for three years.

Long-Awaited Cosmic-Ray Detector May Be ShelvedBy DENNIS OVERBYE Published: April 3, 2007 The New York Times- Spacer and Cosmos

Beyond the experiment itself, the standoff represents a clash between two of the more strong-willed and brilliant leaders of Big Science in America: Dr. Ting of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is known for his autocratic management style and obsession with detail, and Michael D. Griffin, the NASA administrator, who has shown himself willing to make tough calls in reshaping the space program away from the shuttle and toward the Moon and Mars.

Photographs by The AMS Collaboration

NASA agreed in 1995 to carry the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to the space station. But now the agency says its remaining shuttle flights are booked.

I have a thought to be considered here, that might spark some ideas about what happened to AMS. The question to my mind was whether this was more then political or money issue?

Think of Dennis Overbye's article of 2007, in face of the current article presented of his.

I thought along the way that this issue was resolved in regards to strangelets, and would had been "the issue" that solved allowed this to languish. But maybe there is more?

Geoneutrinos

Geoneutrinos, anti-electron neutrinos emanating from the earth, are expected to serve as a unique window into the interior of our planet, revealing information that is hidden from other probes. The left half of this image shows the production distribution for the geoneutrinos detected at KamLAND, and the right half shows the geologic structure. See First Measurement of Geoneutrinos at KamLAND.

The CrossOver Point within the Perfect Fluid?

I had been following this research because of what I had been trying to understand when we take our understanding down to a certain level. That level is within the context of us probing the collision process for evidence of "some new physics" that we had not seen before.

Evidence for Neutrino Oscillations from the LSND Experiment

One of the only ways to probe small neutrino masses is to search for neutrino oscillations, where a neutrino of one type (e.g. numubar ) spontaneously transforms into a neutrino of another type (e.g. nuebar ) For this phenomenon to occur, neutrinos must be massive and the apparent conservation law of lepton families must be violated. The probability for 2-flavor neutrino oscillations can then be expressed as P=sin2(2theta) sin2(1.27 m2L/E) , where theta is the mixing angle, m2 is the difference in neutrino masses squared in eV2, L is the neutrino distance in meters, and E is the neutrino energy in MeV. In 1995 the LSND experiment [1] published data showing candidate events that are consistent with numubar->nuebar oscillations. [2] Additional data are reported here that provide stronger evidence for numubar->nuebar oscillations [3] as well as evidence for numu->nue oscillations. [4] The two oscillation searches have completely different backgrounds and systematics from each other.

What valuation of this process allows us to think that while speaking to "probing this perfect fluid" that we had not discovered some mechanism within it, that allows us to see Coleman Mandula effects being behind, as a geometrical unfoldment from one state into another?

If we had looked at the Genus 1 figure then what avenue would help us discern what could come from the string theory landscape and the "potential hill" discerned from the blackhole horizon? What tunnelling effect could go past the hill climbers and valley crossers to know that you could cut "right through the hill?"

MiniBooNE opens the box

BATAVIA, Illinois—Scientists of the MiniBooNE1 experiment at the Department of Energy's Fermilab2 today (April 11) announced their first findings. The MiniBooNE results resolve questions raised by observations of the LSND3 experiment in the 1990s that appeared to contradict findings of other neutrino experiments worldwide. MiniBooNE researchers showed conclusively that the LSND results could not be due to simple neutrino oscillation, a phenomenon in which one type of neutrino transforms into another type and back again.

The announcement significantly clarifies the overall picture of how neutrinos behave.

So while I am looking for some indications as I did in the strangelet case, as, evidence of this crossover, this had to have some relation to how we seen the neutrinos in development. This was part of the development as we learnt of the history of John Bahcall.

John Bahcall 1934 to 2005 See also "John Bahcall and the Neutrinos"

Plato Apr 11th, 2007 at 8:47 pm

the quark-gluon plasma behaves according to hydrodynamic calculations in which the matter is like a liquid that flows with no viscosity whatsoever.” See here

No cross over point? What role would Navier Stokes play in this?

See here

This does not minimize the work we see of Gran Sasso in relation to the LHC project.

Honestly, I do not know how someone who could work on the project, could not know what they were working on? It as if the "little parts" of the LHC project only cater to the worker Bees working just aspects of the project and their specializations.

Whilst now, you go way up and overlook this project. To see the whole context measured within that "one tiny big bang moment." Trust me when I say, we shall not minimize the effect of calling the collision process as "one tiny moment," for you may never see the whole context of this project being developed for this "one thing."

I did not realize the shortcomings that scientists place on themselves when they do specialize. I just assumed they would know as much as I did and see the whole project? I do not say this unkindly, just that it is a shock to me that one could work the string theory models and not realize what they are working on. I have heard even Jacques say there is no connection and listening to Peter Woit, I was equally dismayed that he did not realize what the string theory model was actually doing as it found it's correlation in the developing views of how we look at the moments of creation.

Bigger is better if you’re searching for smaller

Neutrinos may be in CERN's Future

The next step will again be taken in Japan, with the new J-PARC accelerator starting in 2009 to send neutrinos almost 300 km, again to the Super-Kamiokande experiment, to probe the third neutrino mixing angle that has not yet been detected in either atmospheric or solar neutrino experiments. This may also be probed in a new experiment being proposed for the Fermilab NuMI beam. One of the ideas proposed at CERN is to probe this angle with an underwater experiment moored in the Gulf of Taranto off the coast of Italy, viewing neutrinos in a modified version of CERN's current Gran Sasso beam.

See "CERN and Future Experiments"

Plato Apr 12th, 2007 at 7:31 am

I think my comment on previous post of looking for the perfect fluid should have been here.

Also I do not think this changes how we look at string theory as a model probing the perfect fluid, and "the understanding" of developing a mechanism for this "cross over point?"

Topologically, how would this have been revealed in the string theory landscape??

See here and know that Clifford again deleted the short little post above. The point is I think for some reason once I mention string theory or evn M theory in relation to what is transpiring in the views of model development he doe not like this and would be support by Jacques as well.

That would be my job to convince them and anyone else that hold their views that taking our view to the microseconds, there is a definite relation to the timeline whether you agree with this or not. By introducing "the point of the cross over" you in effect have taken the model and presented it as part of the mechanism for this universe and effectively given new meaning to the "string theory landscape."

You may want it to be "background independent" like Lee wants it to be, but if you view the background as a oscillatory one, then any idea as configured to the mass of any particle, then you have define this particle as a energy relation? So Lee does not like the oscillatory universe?

See "Finiteness of String Theory and Mandelstam"

It is contained "within the moment" of the creation of this universe, yet, we do not know what design this particle is to be in context of the microscopic view of geometrical topologically finishes? As the Genus 1 figure and as an expression of this universe? You had to know what was lying in those valleys, and the potentials of expression, and I relay that in the blackhole horizon as a potential hill.

The time has come for some changes in this blog and I have been thinking about moving on. While a layman, I do not like to be treated like a fool. Maybe not educated fully and with some work to do, but never as a fool.

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

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

See What is Cerenkov Radiation?

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

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

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

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

Bad reporting?

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

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

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

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

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

deconstruction: event display

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

SeeNeutrino Mixing Explained in 60 seconds

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

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

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

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

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

See Gran Sasso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tunnelling in the string theory landscape

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

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

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

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

Cross over point

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

Bringing the Heavens down to Earth

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

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

Strangelets and Strange Matter

Of course I will point to some of the "inherent nature" that some scientists encounter as they develop the geometrical basis to "all the concepts could ever mean?" But first, "the journey."

If not fundamental, though, quark nuggets zipping around the galaxy would still be an amazing addition. And perhaps even more amazing, in the end, than any technically strange - or just generally bizarre - particles burrowing through the ground would be the fact that the planet is no longer just a block of dumb rock in their path. It is an ever better wired planet, monitored and thought about in ever more ingenious ways; it is a datasphere ever more sensitive to its surroundings and its own processes, from flashes in the upper atmosphere to rumblings in the core. We have made it a planet that notices things. We have made it an observant Earth.

You have to understand that if you are doing the research you want to know what "this avenue/hypothesis is to produce? It's almost as if "you understand" that the geometry exists under the "fundamental explanations of all concepts" as they are being developed. How a "different language" will be "put over top" of what is existing now schematically. We learn "to read" what has transpired from one who has more credentials then I, as I am only a student of the work.

At the same time how did such thought processes develop outward to experimental validation in the real world? So you must understand, that I too understand this process. Not only from a "conceptual understanding" but from it's associative analysis one as well. It allow me to develop intuitively into what work is now transpiring at Cern.

Strangelets are small fragments of strange matter. They only exist if the "strange matter hypothesis" is correct, in which case they are the true ground state of matter, and nuclei are actually metastable states with a very long lifetime.

Odd behavior?



A person most intense and preoccupied with the endeavours they work, will notice that time passes very quickly around them. It's as if the world bypassed them, as the focus had cost them the appearance or the attention needed to take care of themselves. "Should I care" as I think of them, whether their hair long or that their desk is pile high with paper?

Careful least you disrupt the train of thought, that while busy, the underlings stand ready to act according to the plans of the teacher.

I learnt over time to accept that even the academics will make allowances for the "uniqueness of individuals" even if that behaviour seems odd( sure call it detective work :0). To allow these attributes of the mind to go along with, the excellent and Nobel prize work that may be produced. Do you not think that Einstein in his last days was more concerned with the focus of his attentions then how dishevelled his hair was?

Pierre Auger on Cosmic Rays

"For in 1938, I showed the presence in primary cosmic rays of particles of a million Gigavolts -- a million times more energetic than accelerators of that day could produce. Even now, when accelerators have far surpassed the Gigavolt mark, they still have not attained the energy of 1020eV, the highest observed energy for cosmic rays. Thus, cosmic rays have not been dethroned as far as energy goes, and the study of cosmic rays has a bright future, if only to learn where these particles come from and how they are accelerated. You know that Fermi made a very interesting proposal that particles are progressively accelerated by bouncing off moving magnetic fields, gaining a little energy each time. In this way, given a certain number of "kicks," one could perhaps account for particles of 1018 -- 1020 electron volts. As yet, however, we have no good theory to explain the production of the very-high-energy particles that make the air showers that my students and I discovered in 1938 at Jean Perrin's laboratory on a ridge of the Jungfrau."

-- Pierre Auger, Journal de Physique, 43, 12, 1982

With introduction to the "Pierre Auger experiments" one learns to appreciate what the large Microscope can do. It allowed us to change the way in which we see cosmology working to include the "astrophysics approach to the description of the universe."

Do you think cosmology devoid of new theoretical approaches, as we venture into the even more abstract "D Brane" world? That we should exclude, such theoretics as a language over top of the process of physics, to not think it is not delving into the world of the geometries involved as well as that physics?

The microscopic process is much more diverse not only in terms of the language, but of how concepts can "cross over" into what we are doing with other approaches.

Beam Trajectories

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.

Now of course I opened the beginning of this blog post with a article that asks you to consider the domain in which they have considered earth and it's value as a experimental process. The "strange hypothesis" to which I am talking about as a "cross over analogies" to the developmental process of Cern.

The Pythagoreans were called mathematikoi, which means "those that study all"

Amazing isn't it? That if one understood that there was a original context for all that we create, then what shall this context be? So science asks, that the universal language display the mathematics as a basis of all "conceptual frameworks spoken" that are developed. This is, "the right way of it" as I have watched the scientists as they have developed their theories.

So we have this "microscopic view of reality" as the "power of ten" along with "this enlightenment" that taken over all our senses. What has happened now, as we venture out into the cosmos? What has happened when we've taken "theoretical positions" and adapted them to the processes of physics?

Monster of the Milky Way

Lubos Motl, it does not have to be "ten billion souls" that we find of just one the same. How many scientists do you know that refer to Plato?

If enough is captured as "part of the original," then why not a view of what was the attempt to descibe "the very complex" of what nature has in store for us discretely?

But maybe, Plato had something more in mind, and not the protection of the "bloodline." :)


Campbell's Soup Can by A. Warhol

You see how this instigates the public to look behind the scenes, while, science was at work. Who understood the "Bekenstein bound" to assert that CFT would have some reason to be "the process" by which thermodynamic and entropic understanding would allow such views of the blackhole?

A "window" perhaps, on what science is doing? Glast's deeper look? So is there then more of the story to tell if any affront to the trouble of Physics is not considered here, while we debate how far our views have been taken?


The Milky Way's light distorted at the event horizon of a black hole.

Deep in the heart of our galaxy lurks a monster of incomprehensible size and ferocity... a black hole. Two competing groups of astronomers -- one led by Andrea Ghez from UCLA, the other by Reinhart Genzel from Germany -- are racing to discern its true nature.

Monster of the Milky Way recounts the chain of discoveries these groups have made about our resident black hole. The program will follow each team in a major campaign to understand powerful pulses of energy rushing out of the monster daily.

The teams are competing to settle one of the hottest debates in all of science... how did supermassive black holes like the Monster of the Milky Way reach such incredible sizes -- from millions to billions of times the mass of our Sun? And how did they influence the evolution of their host galaxies... and worlds like ours?

While I had listed a link to a pdf file on strangelets and the number of people that worked on it, as well as the universities. The point here, is that out there in the public, the creative principle arises in the minds of that public, just as it does in any scientist. If any one individual is capable of extending their understanding and vision of the window of the universe then it is not so unlikely that the next step could have made it's way into their mind.

We are all repositories of the ideas/concepts/theories that can manifest?

The garden indeed may be an complex analysis. Yet, such freedom to gain access, seems unlimited, if, the flows just happen to be sparked in the right way and forthcoming, regarding all that you had learnt.

See:

New Non-geometrical Generalization of the Principles of CFT Found?

The Right Spin for a Neutrino Superfluid

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

So bear with me if you can.

Hi Plato,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best, stefan

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

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

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

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

Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here's the thing.

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

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

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

But first let me then deal with Stefan at Backreaction.

Lubos Motl:

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

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

So yes "Microstate creation of blackholes in space"

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

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

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

See:

Strangelets Do Not Exist?

The Fate of our Planet?

Are Strangelets Natural?-Saturday, September 30, 2006

Are Strangelets Natural?

Thus RHIC is in a certain sense a string theory testing machine, analyzing the formation and decay of dual black holes, and giving information about the black hole interior.

It is important that you look at the date of this article following, and what has subsequently arisen from "then to now." The title of this post asked a legitimate question and it was answered in response to the disaster scenario's presented to the LHC "recenty?" Check the date on it? Not so recent?

Discovering this raised the conclusiveness about what was comparative to the cosmic ray collisions. This lead us to believe, the microscopic blackhole creation was safe. Becuase it happened all the time in the space above us. Just as we may see the aurora borealis in our observation in the interaction with the sun, so too, in cosmic particle collisions in ways beyond the standard model.

So looking back?

SCIENTISTS ARE OFTEN ACCUSED of trying to play God. But obviously they can't really mimic the feats of the putative Creator of the Universe, and make a universe in the laboratory. Or can they? Before you snort in disbelief, you should know that some serious cosmologists have considered the idea. Indeed, one of them has already had a shot at creating a universe--albeit inside a computer. The idea dates back to the late 1970s, when Andrei Linde, now at Stanford University, and Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology separately came up with the concept of "inflation". According to this idea, an incredibly short, violent burst of expansion occurred around 10-32 seconds after the birth of the Universe. Propelled by concentrated vacuum energy, inflation boosted the size of the Universe from one billionth the width of a proton to the size of a grapefruit. That's what the theorists claim, but showing that inflation really did take place like this is hard... unless, of course, someone can recreate the right conditions in the lab and watch what happens. Linde and his colleagues have already done a dry run on a computer. "Setting up the simulations was hard work, and only on the seventh day did we finish the first series," he reported in Scientific American in 1994, adding in Strangelovian terms: "We looked at the shining screen, and we were happy--we saw that the universe was good!" This isn't enough for Linde: he wants to do it for real. But theory suggests that matter has to be squeezed to densities similar to those in the primordial Universe before such fields appear. No-one has the faintest clue how to create such densities, yet. Linde is sanguine about the dangers involved, if it ever becomes possible. "You can think of our Universe as being like a smooth surface, with one part of it inflating like a balloon. The new universe will be connected to ours by just a tiny passage--what we call a wormhole--the size of a subatomic particle." Quite how we'd know we'd succeeded isn't obvious, but at least there seems little danger of someone tumbling into the new universe by mistake, or anything nasty getting out.

THis one post includes "lots of link"s from the accumulation of my thinkng as a layman. I had gathered these as they unfolded, to help me understand what was introduced to me some time ago by Paul on the question in regards to the "Disaster Scenario at LHC."

Now in regards to "new physics" one needed to see what would come out of such collisions that would be produced, so one had to indeed follow that thinking which I did. How far from the truth of it was what was generated in the public eye distant from what was published by the reputable scientists?

Well you would have to judge for yourself, and "my excuse," well it has been provided for me, so one can say as a layman I am really distant from the current thinking.

So yes before Cosmic Variance and the disaster scenario, it was in our conversations that "Mooreglade of Superstrintheory.com forum" introduced the article of "A Blackhole Ate My Planet" which lead too "Fate of our Planet"

So you see, between then and now, I was able to construct accordingly as I was exposed to the information in regards to "both ways" to which Lubos implies in that statement in comment link?

Okay. Now the stage has been set.

What has been Lubos been saying?

That the connection in "B's question" again sets the stage for further thoughts?

That's just the way of it and who better then student who will make way for further insights, whether it be "Lubos or B?"

In the past my mistake was made to "mirror" Lubos with Peter Woit, because I needed to see what the others may offer in regards to the positions they adopted. Or, another example would have been Smolin and Susskind, who bounced off each other. Or, Gell-mann or Feynman. Or maybe even Plato and Aristotle shhown in the picturte at the top of this Blog?

IN the above case with Peter Woit, I did not learn much? The counter arguments as to why strings were failing in the road to experimental validation(sure we were preoccupied with it's validity then), and how this message was being put out there.

Be sure that more senior people agree with me that it is trivial to falsify that conjecture, including Susskind, Vilenkin, Banks, and others who have looked into it.

So where are we today in regard to strings? Lubo's reference to Banks, Vilenkin, and Susskind already asking these questions is a significant pointer to what has already transpired, and what days, weeks, years, have passed before we see this statement today?

You see how this is done?

Emergence: A Point in Spacetime

We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding out that we must learn a great deal more about 'and'."
- Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944)

Foundational perspectives are important to me, and are part and parcel of a larger frame of thinking that comes into materiality.



What basis then leads such thinking, that something could manifest from another place and become the material reality with which we deal? I know this is about "what is in the now," yet such recognition of what is "chaotic and has complexity" now becomes an organizational pattern. What is "chaos theory?"

From the untold many constituents in the bulk perspective, "Higgin's" has some new found ways in which he can express himself. He see's new ways of travel in the universe?

What emergent properties would have such conditions and gatherings have on routing new universe from tunnelling found created within cosmological events? Which if reduced too, as QGP states of existance, would produce similar resulting anomalies encountered in superfluid state realities?

Since he is beyond what we are accustom too of the Standard model, then what value does Higgin's play as he is born to the level with which he now embues all of creation. He is strong on "some points," then others?

The Unfolding Universe

There is but one kind of entropy change. Entropy change is due to energy dispersal to, from, or within a system (as a function of temperature.), measured by microstate change: S = k_B ln [microstates _final / microstates _initial ].

If you look to the arrow of time, and "the event from which it sprang," how did such strings become the basis of thinking along this road to what exists in the universe today? It has been assign "a place" in this segment of the time's growth within this universe, and we have been sent "back in time to the reductionsitic valuation" of what is seen in the colliders, to see what is emergent today. But what did they find at the beginning? What shall we find at "the beginning" of any universe?

What effect did strings have on this evolution?

The emergent universe

The breathtaking quality of emergence lies in its broad applicability, from ants to people, and from electrons to galaxies. We assume that we can sing and dance together because we are intelligent and coordinate our behavior, and so it is surprising to see the coordinated chirping of crickets, and shocking to discover that the same principles apply to mindless things such as water molecules arranging themselves in a crystalline structure to form ice. When you get enough things together, and they interact in just the right way, they suddenly shift to coherent behavior. Emergent principles may govern the smallest units of matter, as in electrons humming together within a superconductor, to the largest, as when entire galaxies clump into regular patterns. Scientists across multiple fields have found that such systems don't require a central ringleader directing the way – their self-organization is inevitable, due to the local interactions of nearest neighbors.

Emergence represents a revolutionary paradigm shift away from reductionism (the understanding of the world through understanding the component parts. Scientists working within the revolutionary paradigm of emergence study the organizing principles causing collective behavior across many disciplines.

The EUP is focusing on the following types of emergent systems

A point in space implies that such emergence into the spacetime co-ordiantes, have some "other dimensional relation" beyond what we are saying of 3+1? So of course I am enthralled by such an emergence and what could come into these spacetime coordinates.

So the universe in it's unfolding has certain attributes in it's early phases that amount to the conditions Sean Carroll may sees of it? If this is the case, then that valuation of the universe, in it's unfolding is doing what? It's temperature?

If you "wrap the whole of what this arrow of time is, in a geomtrical sense," then the strings and the time of the universe in "Sean's perspective" is inclusive?

So how do we say such a crunch is to happen? How does such thinking become part of our reasoning, to say that the universe will collapase on itself, and become something new? Will it ever?

Tegmark does not take to such "topological expressions of the universe," yet, if you look at the WMAP mapping of the universe what is it you see besides these points of expression, as some nodal and anti-nodal analogy to the cosmological events? Tunnels, through which we can travel? New energy, being distributed back into the universe, in the form of dark energy/matter?

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

If strangelets have been disproved then what "crazy thoughts" shall we now think of, in what constitutes the "new physics?" Tachyon condensation perhaps?

What is the "false vaccuum" to the "true," when it is geometrically expressed? :)

Clifford and The Singularity

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

See:

So how far back to the beginning, and if we had thought supersymmetry could exist, would it be in the most perfect fluid?

I place this picture and article above so that one keeps perspective about the similarites of the "micro versus the macro" perspective and "not" that the "disaster scenario" could create the "large blackhole?" But wait?

I am thinking in terms of what could create "the situations" for what is coming into being. Is it acummulative? I am not sure from the "many colldial events" that one could see happen? Hence my focus, to what not ony is created in the "collidal event," but to the cosmic particle colllsions as well. How rare are these? I speak on the "history of strangelets" from that point.

Anyway onward here.

Clifford:

Seriously his talk is all about the physics of certain type of spacetime singularites-such as the one that live's in our universe's past-and whether life can make sense of the idea of space and time coming into being after sucha singualrity, while not existing prior to that

I should start off from a quote of Clifford's of Cosmic Variance, becuase of Q's insistance in regards to the descritpions of singularities and my lacking an understanding and somewhat confusion. I thought I would do some more research here.

There are "certain assumptions" I am making and this is in regard to the a statement Clifford makes, is held as a question in my mind of what exists before anything can emerge into the spacetime? While he has called this beginning "spacetime" and reference "another state" before this, what is it? This is what holds my assumption and idea about what the singularity is doing.

Lubos Motl:

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

I place this, too support what Clifford is saying in regards to the what is emergent into the spacetime from what I understand(Strings as a building block on the road too, not as the source of this "emergent property?"). Where do all these dimensional ideas then reside? You can't ignore this, or what Lubos "is saying" about talking about the past? Everytime one's perception changes, the hisory changes too? It forces you to look at the future in a new way?

Not Newtonian

It is certainly not the Newtonian version I am thinking about. People tend to think of these as diamonds(?) or something like that as a Pea? I tend away from that thinking, because it just doesn't chive with what is tramsmitted into what "being [is] in spacetime?," if you don't have a foundation from which to work?

Call them coordinates and in it, the spactime emerges, and from that "okay" the looking at the arrow of time which implies to me a simplier supersymmetrical idea, looking back. So how did you get there? The outside/inside "quandry that stretches the mind capbailites" while chasing the "idea" as Brian Greene's Koan?

There is something to be said in how "ideas emerge from all the information gathered and accumulated" spontaneousily bursts into a new form? The mind goes through a bit of a change? See's differently. Reinmann accomplishement along with those of the geometrical forbears(shoulder's of giants) help to change how we see geometrics.

Briefly I pick up the Kurzwelian book on singularities, and find that a greate rperspective is need beyond what is espoused. A new stage in the thinking, beyond what society is thought to be headed. Some reject Kuhnian thinking but this is revolutionary to bme in what an dhow th emind proceeds in bringing down to earh the ideas that await to form in mind. Another place perhaps? A way of dipping the "toe" into the stream, and letting all that "informtaion" flow through you?

A black hole in astrophysics often has two distinct meanings. The first is the black hole in a general relativistic sense - the extreme gravitational case with a singularity in space-time - while the second is a simpler Newtonian approach: a black hole is just a point mass. While both of these meanings are used, often interchangeably, throughout the literature, it is important to remember that no astrophysical observation has yet been made that can distinguish between the two; to date, the Newtonian point mass is all we need. In the future, with better X-ray observations and a detection of gravitational waves, this may change.

First off I wrote the post Singularities should be rewritten as "a question" of what I was seeing inregards to our universe. What is in our universe's past. The reason for it's inflation. The reason for entropic valuations that become complicated and end in some chaos reasoning that Sean askes of those to solve in the Three body solution? I think this ahas already been done from what I understood so that push me towards lagragian perspective s and the other assumptions I have about this beginning and what existed before it?

Here's what I write:

Plato:

If the initial states at the beginning of the universe are to be in concert with particle reductionism, and the particle creations that I have exemplified in how particles came into being, then, the understanding of what can be transmitted through the blackhole is extremely important as a valuation of what appears over time?

So I have to say yes I am quantum characteristically driven to see this universe as it existed in a state held in our perceptions, of what it has become today. So of course I was looking back, with new knowledge of what the futre is to become. Why shouldn't it matter what help to draive this situation in the universe we have to day not hold perspectove abot what has emerged in the spacrtime as we know it?

Strominger:

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

The Right Spin for a Neutrino Superfluid

So how does it pancake?



Now it is always a interesting proposition that what is leading in perspective, is meet with immediate new information( I think of course here of Risk Assessment and the first topic dealing with the issue of strangelets.)

So, as to clarify any leading perspective, while doing research, what comes of what has been logically followed?

So previously these questions were on my mind as well. Information availiable that answers supposed states of existance that are beyond what we currently understood and will soon be in the LHC?

Right-handed neutrinos, with the intrinsic spin oriented in the direction of motion, have yet to be observed, but if they do exist then they could make neutrino superfluids possible. Joe Kapusta of the University of Minnesota has shown that such an exotic medium could arise because the right-handed particles could exchange Higgs bosons with the well known left-handed neutrinos and pair up to make bosons, which could then form a superfluid.

Kapusta points out that the condensation temperature would be well below the cosmic background temperature, so it would be quite a feat to make this superfluid. However, Kapusta also notes that a sufficiently advanced civilization might use pulses of neutrino superfluid for long-distance communications.

You will then note "characteristics" in the superfluid of QGP(also swiss cheese?) that are very similar to He⁴?

So let's go back and look at that?



See:

History of Superfluids: New Physics

The Fate of our Planet?

Clifford at cosmic variance addresses a fundamental question about the need(?) to populate other planets, versus exploring?

Clifford:

And it would be nice if we did the exploration primarily out of curiosity and wonder, and not out of fear for our future

But of course, as with any thread there is a diversion of thought, so I answer this, while still trying to understand what he meant by the timescale?

A Blackhole ate my Planet?


It's almost worth following the trail of "Risk Assessment" here. Some might remember James Blodgett?

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

Of course, refering to "cosmic particle collisions",then to have the "issues of strangelets" explained away as well. I mean every journey is fraught with the anxieties of fear. Fear of the unknownas one progresses along the roads to new worlds?



See:

RHIC Animations and Multimedia

Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

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

So where do we stand with the fate of our planet?

See:

Strangelets Do Not Exist?

Scott Ellsworth Forbush:Opportune Times for Experimentation?

Forbush Decrease

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

There is some confusion still on my part as I wanted to understand the relationship between high energy particle and the conditions for which particle collisions would provide for secondary particle creations.

See:

How Particles Came to be?

This thinking would help to establish further information that has been compelling to me about microstate blackhole creation, and what this may imply for the planet on which we live?

Has anyone given this any thought as they developed the views on Risk Assessment and try to explain away the possibilties with what happens everyday?



This thinking then help to stimulate not only secondary particle creations and what we see in our own creations in Atlas, but lays out for us, the sequence of events that are tied cosmologically to the very beginnings of this universe?




Why did we miss this? Are high energy particle collisions dissauded by Solar Max, or do they remain undeterred in their travel? Here some questions then that arise in terms of how we see the physics of the day in consideration of mass infuences(gravitational lensing, massless photon travel), as I am thinking of Kip thornes picture of travel here as well. Hmmm.....

Cosmic rays - are subatomic particles, which travel at nearly the speed of light through space and produce secondary cosmic ray particles in the atmosphere.

Building our Illusions?

Back to Fractal Neurodyamics and Quantum Chaos Part 1

10 Conclusion
The importance of developing a model of brain function which gives a consistent description of mind, consciousness and free-will, is profound. The model described links the structural instability of brain dynamics, quantum uncertainty and the dual-time model. The quantum-physical brain may thus be more than just an interface between sensory input and decision-making. It may in fact be a doorway between complementary aspects of the physical universe, the time-directed nature of real-particle symmetry-breaking and the time-symmetric aspect of the sub-quantum domain (King 1989). If so, the role of consciousness and mind-brain duality may be central to cosmology.

While I am no expert by any means and a student of, with my own learning curve, I have struggle to gain understanding of the concepts of that string theory model. That is what my site is about.

Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano

Yes that is a interesting article, and it could be said the Gabriele is the Father of string theory.

There were many conceptual problems for me when I kept reading about what the nature of reality could be described as? Cosmological considerations were held to the very beginning, and and anything beyond that was of course not spoken of? What is nothing?

Birth of the Universe

It has to do with the "timing" of the energy scale. At 0 second the effect of the universe is what(?) and what set this motivation into existance?


Quantum Gravity Era:

A temperature value of10³²⁰C and a time of10^-43Second.

Proton-At 10 Microseconds, Quarks are bound into protons and neutrons.

Well now, it is really important to know where the timeline is, that speaks to "string theories position within the expression of that universe. So, that is important.

If one had thought the universe entropically very simple, this would have had to held some considertaions to what supersymmetrical realization would mean in regards to that beginning?

Also, that in that beginning certain ideological factors become known when held to the understanding of the colliders and what is taking place there.

The blackhole danger creation of in RHIC, as well as, how this extension of thought(strangelets) has been moved to the cosmological particle collisons take place above us. Shower earth with it's particle reductionistic familiars, is an important step in how we speak of the nature of the reality that has been conceptual built as a construct.

Validity as to it's measures. While in string there has been no confirmation, it is conceptually pitted minds to develope experimental methods in regards to the ideas of the string theory model. As it should.

Do you know who or what you are? Think about it. There are many illusions in life. The arguably tragic thing is that so many people of the past have lived their entire lives in illusion. They believed in their mental constructs, and took them to be the truth of things. They were confined within their human consciousness, and never looked beyond. They never saw the true potential of consciousness, nor realized the constructive nature of reality. They never realized that their 'truths' were simply mental constructs, including their own sense of self-identity.

Mental Constructs then? Okay?:)

Yet there is enough reason to believe, that if the consensus is, that many will share the perceptable value of the construct, then it becomes a major illusion does it not?

So what do you say of all these people of science who are looking for "what Lies Beneath." Looking to build a understanding in regards to the value of those mental construct?

Is it worthless to have the mind occupy such a intellectual pursuite, and then say, that if you did not find the correlation and cognitive value to such an insight in regards to the begonning of the universe, then what value is this science if it did not bring us to a closer understanding of "What Lies Beneath?"

You remember Robert Laughlin?

So, you may call it "eastern influence" with a philosophical history? Baking bread, or perhaps playing with bubbles, using the explanations as a fundamental reality underneath that reality?

Articulating Oneself?

If the title of thread and objective of the article written are to follow the thread of responsibility, then such journies into the fantastic, have to be thought about in regards to the smell of Jasmine? :) That's part of another story, don't worry about it.

While in the room, devoid of the the branches and trees of the flowering history divine, had one thought about the wind that may drift from a open window, or the residue from having engaged a whole bush??

What constraints shall you be held too, that the thought about what wording held, might enter the hearts of any other person, that you, consider very carefully the sanesness of that scientist who speaks, for the right things in life, and speaks about the fantastic in such ways?

It's okay, your human.

I would say these small fine things, made in such a visual way point to the beauty of life is fantastical and in a warming way much for the soul, regardless.

You announced yourself, and the intentions of such validation warms your soul when others to speak. That's the way of it, and if it does not come, while with it, others whom may be cruel in their remarks, how shall you deal with it?

KNow that it is okay to feel the way you do and know too that if you wonder then about the way of doing things, shall it continue to be this way, while such integrity of the soul shows it's hand regardless of what others may have thought. Constrain it to what another thought, feel comfort, that you may be able to speak freely regardless.