Intuitively Compelling

While it does appear that Einstein has indeed given us a paradigm which was indeed world-changing and affected everyone, how well might he have known himself?

He was "driven," as to the" focus and outcome" of GR's growth? Yet, being Jewish, and the meaning he might have had for God(Old ONe) had a perspective about nature, that was embued with a certain terminology?

So having engaged the wording of scientist as of late, I wanted to stay as close as I could to the thinking being developed as they engaged society through their blogging site perspectives.

It was most troubling that any discussing of the timeline and any other constructs place in accordance with that timeline, would/could have been insulting to some, even though it fit into a perspective in terms of microseconds, lesss then somany eseconds of expression.

Again for sure, "thought constructs," most appropriate measures as yard sticks of reality conforming to model approaches? Be open.

Thomas Torrance

In 1978, he won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion for his contributions to theology and the relationship between it and science

You must understand there is a current struggle in today's world with those who support the Templeton Foundation, it's scientists, and those who believe science should remain free of such influences, so they propagate any information forthcoming as tainted?

Einstein and God By Thomas Torrance"Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" was asked of Einstein.

I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

The Nature of Reality
Having read all of Jane Roberts books( some might not have taken a shine to such information, but part of the developing perspective included information that was written "intuitively compelled"), so she might have answered a little different, but in essence, thought, to the nature of the universe.

I'll try and find her definition of the building blocks.

So you are give this question as to what the nature of the unverse is? What is it, and people are lead through theoretcial constructs to develope perspective on what that question might be?

Robert Laughlin, does not care if they are Lego bricks or Drunk Sargeant majors:)

Self Organization of Matter, by Robert Laughlin

What Lies Beneath, by Eugene Samuel

Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.

One had to indeed understand that the maps drawn, were drawn from thOught constructS engaged from wanting to understanding where first principles may have emerged from?

How would you do that without undertanding where this map began?




So what use to Engage Strangelets, New Physics



So from a resulting comprehension of such first principles, there came this resulting course of events, that went through all the phase transitions, to become what it is, in context of the strangelet, a perspective about a measure in the IceCap?



I have been following this research for sometime now. I will be updating this information here].

One has to know where to begin with all this information, and that such "mental constructs" had to know where this beginning was. While there are few here mathematically endowed, I wanted to come here and share perspectve in context of the neurological idea behind the mental constructs that we develope in science.

This is not without foundation that, "globally," when we now see, we had indeed step back to access the greater potential in "thought generation," and that "mass psychosis," (could we call it that as such a verification by the masses?)" endowed to measure, experimentally verified.

I'll wait to see if you want some time to digest and rethink, if you think, it worth doing that? :)

True creativity often starts where language ends-Arthur Koestler

Intuitively Compelling=Intuitive Grasp of Self Evident First Principles



No matter the ideology spread, is there something today that is quite useful in our approaches to cognizing relevance, from "thought constructs" to actual processes, currently asking us our about the beginning of the universe?

While such solidification ensues from taking a stand, as a concluson drawn, is it compelling as to the nature of what first principles might mean? You had to understand the current environment, to conclude an opinion about the measures and constructs, as to those measures asking if there was another way?

You couldn't know that, unless you might have read the links of Robert Lauglhin and understood reductionistic tendencies(science), as to the nature of our universe? It's like joining quantum perspective with General Relativity? You would have to known how this was acomplished? It's result, and hence it's application within society?

If one had not understood, shall we call it a "probabilistic discourse," to have now understood, that a new course may be set today, was different from the past, by "one additional grasp of self evident first principle?" That a new page may be written( what thinking had done so) which may change the course of our lives?

Of course, some will not have confidence yet. :)
That the potential exists within each of us to understand we are partaking of a quest to percieve where this point in existance might be revealled. If not at the basis of reality, then what use the math? While I generalize becuase of my inefficieny of these interpretations, the vastness of the world of math, there was some undertanding geometrically inclined, that is revealled as we followed the logic leading to GR.

Did it mean we should be devoid of our belief in a God, if we held to science principles, while, we engaged in the subjectivity of our opinions?

It All Began in a Dream?

An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.Srinivasa Ramanujan

So to me, it is still all out there for us to look? How we might entertain that awe and beauty in nature?

"God does not play dice" by Thomas Torrance
Einstein was not a determinist but a realist, with the conviction that, in line with Clerk Maxwellian field theory and general relativity theory, nature is governed by profound levels of intelligible connection that cannot be expressed in the crude terms of classical causality and traditional mathematics. He was convinced that the deeper forms of intelligibility being brought to light in relativity and quantum theory cannot be understood in terms of the classical notions of causality–they required what he called Übercausalität–supercausality. And this called for "an entirely new kind of mathematical thinking", not least in unified field theory–that was a kind of mathematics he did not even know, but which someone must find.

Once Comsuming any Model

It is difficult to explain how one might have "the feeling" for curvature on cosmological plateau while such tendencies for quantum perception would be rule by uncertainty?

I wonder if such states held in context to what consciousness might be able to percieve at that level of high energy areas, would give indications to particle natures and the curvatures assigned to each particle nature. What gave these meomntum ad emotive feelings to such travel from the initial contact?

How are we able to pierce this veil and environment, while talking about the nature of such curvatures? We wouldn't survive realistically, yet, we are able to perform "thought constructs" to such models?

So looking at time dilation, the photon within environments, what indications for such curvatures, and one gets this sense of momentum, and in another way, something that I have called toposense.

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

Constants with and without dimensions

Nature presents us with various constants. Some of these constants, such as the fine-structure constant, are dimensionless and are not expressed in terms of units. However, other constants, such as the velocity of light or the mass of the proton, are dimensional and their numerical values depend entirely on the units in which they are expressed. The laws of nature do not, of course, depend on a man-made system of units.

To put this another way, if we want to measure a dimensional constant, we need a "yardstick" to make the measurement. But if we obtained one value when we measured the speed of light on a Monday, say, and a different value when we measured it on a Friday, how would we know that our yardstick had not shrunk or expanded? We would not. Moreover, if we were to interpret our observations as a change in the length of the yardstick, how could we verify it without reference to a second yardstick? Again, we could not. And so on.

However, dimensionless constants are fundamental absolute numbers, measured without reference to anything else. Therefore, if we want to investigate if the laws of nature are changing we must measure dimensionless quantities such as the fine-structure constant or the ratio of the electron and proton masses

Strangelets Do Not Exist?

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

Quantum character of black holesby Adam D. Helfer

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Strangelet Search at RHICby STAR Collaboration

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

See:

Blackhole Creations

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

Microstate Blackhole Production

Quark Gluon PLasma II: Strangelets Produced

Accretion Disks

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

IN a Viscosity State Production is ?

What Are those Quantum Microstates

Why Higher Energies?

I guess I don't have to tell anyone how confusing all this stuff is and the need for a consistent picture to arise out of it.

New physics beyond the standard model of particle physics and parallel universes by Rainer Plaga

top-quark masses - for which the standard model predicts such a decay - cannot be interpreted as evidence for new physics at low energy scales.

The history of Risk Assessment, was a exercise into understanding the developing role as to what new physics should be? Strangelets and strange quarks arose from this?

The search for the very small requires very high energies. The discoveries necessary for the electroweak unification were near the upper end of available energies in the current generation of particle accelerators. Establishing Grand Unification is beyond the practical limits of earthbound laboratories. This forces particle physicists to look outward to astrophysical phenomena which may have enough energy to shed some light on further attempts at unifying the four fundamental forces.

This map defines the whole standard model and the phase transitions. We are talking about a "certain time" in the planck epoch. So what is happening "in" the Planck epoch?

If such energies had recognized the current state of the superfluid created, then anomalies in "this scenario" would have allowed such "geometrical presence to be channelled" as part of the cyclical features contained in the expression of the universe?

So you take this universe and apply the backhole on a cosmlogical scale eqaul to it's inflation, as a distance in the blackhole's radius? Such a crunch would have recognized the boundary conditions as a the furthest point this universe could have grown, from the original blackhole that created this universe?

So what evidence is left? That the universe and it's "dark matter" as the false vacuum is creating the scenarios for the universe to have found it's temeperature today, started from some "other condition" seen in the planck epoch? Okay how did you get there?

The bubble conditions would then have to existed in the superfluids? How would have geoemtrically arrived at such a "topology expressed" in this one universe?

Professor Satyendra Nath Bose, the founder of Bose-Einstein statistics and the discoverer of the “Boson,” is well known as a giant in the world of physics and science as the man who, along with Albert Einstein, revolutionized the world of theoretical physics and showed the world a new way to imagine how the world works.

The topological genus figure of the sphere, to a torus and it's rotation seen in characteristic, housed the equallibrium state arrived at, as to the channelling of that extra energy and the resulting "new physics" in the strange quarks created?

So what is "that cylinder" created as the jet is expressed, in the gravitational collapse

See: John Bahcall and the Neutrinos

Thus, this cycle is completed in the bulk perspective? Would have created the situation again in strong concentrations? Why cosmologically the conditons are "many" and such evidence pointing to ICECUBE, as to the conditons beyond the standard model, leads to questions about "cerenkov radiation?"

Is there no backreaction created, if we were to lets say look at the Laval nozzles, and understand that what is expressed in the standard model energy once ejected in the jet, would have had counter proposals manifest in the geomerical presence held to a whole universe. The Anti-matter? Non Qui

The Z Machine

There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not some day be applied to phenomena of the real world.— Nikolai Lobachevsky

Sandia’s Z machine exceeds two billion degrees Kelvin

Z’s energies in these experiments raised several questions.

First, the radiated x-ray output was as much as four times the expected kinetic energy input.

Ordinarily, in non-nuclear reactions, output energies are less — not greater — than the total input energies. More energy had to be getting in to balance the books, but from where could it come?

Lubos Motl

Janice Granhardt has pointed out a press release that is two days old and arguably much more serious and potentially far-reaching than the news about "sonofusion" we described yesterday.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/03/two-billion-kelvins-at-z-machine.html

I reference current article information that I had been working through here and here for obvious reasons. I would like to expand on this.

I am writng this article because of the references Lubos Motl offered on his blog about the need for, "energy production." The whole context of any model has to have understood that the current situation in gravitational perspective will have it's two extremes (weak and strong) held in thought, and ending within this context? A cyclical process maybe like thinking about Steinhardt maybe? :)

I know the idea of free energy machines is a quacks realm, if, the imput energy and output energy is not held in consideration. That a greater output must be sustained. How?

Klein's Ordering of Geometries

A theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.


So on what conditions, could you map the process consistently and geometrics, to have been all inclusive?

While one may discuss these alternatives, it might require that we see this process at work on a cosmological scale, and having reduced it to the quantum realm, the questions about the geometries, becomes held under the auspice of "new physics,". That we might ask, "what new geometries?"

The natural process then would have to acknowledge the need for many microstate blackholes to have further the context of the standard model and it's extension?

Is this not a fair statement? Even though we may talk about one event, the recogition is that, this happens many times in regards to high energy articles in a collidial region. This had been answered in Risk assessment, as to why the process developed naturally, in the production of microstate blackholes, we might have created in LHC.

This did not discount, the understanding of what "extra dimensions meant" when we were understanding the "new physics." Reference here, neutrino or strangelets. It was just part and parcel of a greater understanding that John Ellis had pointed us too, is our recognition of the poor man's accelerator.

See:

The Unity of Mathematics

A New Search Paradigm?

The collapsing star scenario that is one of the leading contenders as the cause of gamma-ray bursts. Dr. Stan Woosley of the University of California at Santa Cruz proposed the collapsar theory in 1993. This artist's concept of the collapsar model shows the center of a dying star collapsing minutes before the star implodes and emits a gamma-ray burst that is seen across the universe. Credit: NASA/Dana Berry

If one knew the process of such developements, it is equally important that such information would have been "beamed in a way" that some of us might have wondered, why such a sparkle had caught the eye? ON a snowy day at the olympics perhaps? Hey Paul?

Nima and Lubos speak of one Olympics while we had referred to it in another way. Are you not interested to see what years gone by, might have raised, from all those perspectives on the Bose Nova?



Advancement of internet capabilities are very important, that if one linked the picture to a source, the truth of "the source" becomes known. Much as trackbacks, of certain papers are held relevant. While the blogs linked, non creditialed or not because someone said, you are not a "active researcher", hey Peter?. You know why Christine's site is important in regards to "this topic" linked with the paper present?

That you are not included, does not reduce the importance that the paper plays in itself. Linked or not linked, how relevant I might be, had a perspective, or you had a perspective long before the ideas of the new Paradigm existed. It was in the ideas of measure that the universe culd have ever been held in the eye of microscopic processes. That we have realized that the same "collidial events" would enlist particle shower information in beta decay, from that geometrical collapse?

This view had to be part and parcel of the understanding of the way in which gravitational collapse would have released it's information? What geometry revealled by the nature of the collapse before the dyng star "boundry" closed to a very small point of consideration, held in regards to the superfluid created?

Ah, that's new isn't it?

A New Search Paradigm for Correlated Neutrino Emission from Discrete GRBs using Antarctic Cherenkov Telescopes in the Swift EraMichael Stamatikos for the IceCube Collaboration and David L. Band

Abstract. We describe the theoretical modeling and analysis techniques associated with a preliminary search for correlated neutrino emission from GRB980703a, which triggered the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE GRB trigger 6891), using archived data from the Antarctic Muon and Neutrino Detector Array (AMANDA-B10). Under the assumption of associated hadronic acceleration, the expected observed neutrino energy flux is directly derived, based upon confronting the fireball phenomenology with the discrete set of observed electromagnetic parameters of GRB980703a, gleaned from ground-based and satellite observations, for four models, corrected for oscillations. Models 1 and 2, based upon spectral analysis featuring a prompt photon energy fit to the Band function, utilize an observed spectroscopic redshift, for isotropic and anisotropic emission geometry, respectively. Model 3 is based upon averaged burst parameters, assuming isotropic emission. Model 4, based upon a Band fit, features an estimated redshift from the lag-luminosity relation with isotropic emission. Consistent with our AMANDA-II analysis of GRB030329, which resulted in a flux upper limit of ∼0.150GeV/cm2/s for model 1, we find differences in excess of an order of magnitude in the response of AMANDA-B10, among the variousmodels for GRB980703a. Implications for future searches in the era of Swift and IceCube are discussed

Very interesting picture below, and site linked on Picture.

It reminded me of Andrey Kravstov's computer images, and other information seen from early universe. Without some comprehension on the subject displayed in our universe from a earlier time, what purpose the view held of "a time" when everything was supersymmetrical? That what is held in the distance of microperspecive images of those created in the microstate blackhole creations, would not have enjoined cosmological happenings, by some analog nature, with that microperspective understanding?



Oh, I cry with you Peter, to be considered "Spambot," an IP, as some "register to comment statistic" only to have been thought less of, by some measure of what you might have been thought of? Don't let Jacque control who you are, by such structuralism, that you might not have "some creative realization" in all the work you have done, and knowledge gained.

Thus in that statement it is realized, that the developement of the internet will not stop good people from, venturing and learning what might raise them to better insight. That the progression, although wrong sometimes, might of bore fruit in knowledge gained along the way.

THis will not stop no matter how much structuralism by control of the internet would have been some idealized version of Jacque's view of the internet universe. He competes with the Stallman's view of growth and productivity, as we become students of the nature, of all that is being explained on this internet.

See:

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and IceCUBE

History of the SuperFluids:New Physics

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

Poincare Conjecture

Holographical Mapping onto the Blackhole Horizon

Blackhole Production and Sonoluminence

Have we seen (strange) quark matter?

Well the very idea that such a thing could exist, has been part of the evolving information I had been going through. To be lead to the understanding, of what new Physics would emerge fromm cosmological and collidial events. That there are indeed showers of particles with which such events will let us know cannot be ignored.

First Principle needed to recognize "the very state" that things would arise from. For Robert Laughlin, a condense matter theorist, it didn't mater what you called these building blocks, but any discrete measure had to be recognized it's energy value and tragectories would it not? Hence, the particle shower from a known state of existance, where "first principle" would emerged.

So, any attempt to ignore the possibility of what emerges, and the foundational perspective, put forth in theory, has to help the understandng of what happens when such events do happen, either, micro perspectively or cosmologically.

Any attempts to say that the standard model is not inclusive in this design, would be detrimental to the very statement any mathematican would say against, that simply erasing any connection, would have been futile to their creditbility?

Strange Quark Matter TheoryTamas S. Biro

Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be the theoretical summary talk of the Strange Quark Matter 2003 conference. When I was alerted by the e-mail we all got, “prepare your transparencies”, I took this home-work exercise seriously. I have prepared quite a few pages before this conference. What can one know in advance, before listening to the talks?.

First of all there is a general outline which a summary talk should follow. On the level of the basic theory one is supposed to conclude about the present status of the underlying theoretical concepts, one ought to emphasize important news, the novel aspects we are encountering, and finally it is useful to formulate in a possibly definite way, what our perspectives for further development are.

So given the research that I had been going through, what is this strangelet subject that was developed, and I will post links that support the development of the fear with which such a thing arose. Was answered, by cosmological and collidial production of microstate blackhole events. Might the story and television series of blackholes been interrupted by such a dialogue, or had I furthered the plot for public consumption? To continue the fear?

Would your scientist/mathematican friend tell you about such things and ways in which to expect information from experimental designs, as not leading into the desire of the essence of new physics?

What began this assumption, was the idea that microstate blackholes were something of a danger, if we were to created them. That was the nightmare. The reality is, that this theoretically written state, is quite useful in terms of what can emerge from the idea of new physics, and had to include the standard model.

To get to new physics you had to have the standard model as a basis, and to move from that point, any resulting shower and new information, like in ICECUBE, along with the historiy and research of neutrinos, points to what? Strangelets to what?

Peter Woit dissassociated himself from that possibility, and if strings was to underly this view, what says, such advancements had not adhered to the demands of theoretcial proposition, that it now sees itself, as part and parcel of the planning for what else will emerge? Sees itself immersed in tachyon demonstration as a sign of cerenkov radiation as that blue light?

So indeed I struggle with how such theorectical position might have told me what is going on, and this issue, is not to be ignored as long as it is remianing consistant with the developement from standard model presumptions.

Paul first, and then I had been wondering about this issue right back in the beginning as it came to our attention. Steinberg and clarifications on what the microstate balckhole is was important, as it demonstrates the basis of work being done taking the energies and collidial events, to a new level of reductionistic perception. The microstate blackhole is the basis as far as I can tell.

Now given the state of Quark Gluon Plasma, what happens when you see such things hhappeniing that you have to aassume a new theoretcial position like M theory that such D Brane assumptions talk abut the viscosity nature? What are the poperties that have emerged from the idea of the blackhole, as this new state of matter tells us something about superfluids and such?

Does Peter understand these new developments? Does his own theoretical position from model assumption he also used, have correlates to current day information and research? It had been my hope, that his position would have created the dialogue necessary. I have enjoyed the mathematical adventures he has shown has developed further my perspective as shown, in the very last link below.

In order to have the perspective and vision of the abstract world of the mathematics shown, you needed to know some things. They had to be couched in the history of all that we have learnt, and any modification in mathematical language, alters that perspective, if it relates to the very work you are doing on extending the standard model?

See:

Quark Gluon Plasma II

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

Strangelets in Cosmic Consideration

Cosmic Rays Collsions ad Strangelets Produced

Quark Stars

Accretion Disks

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and ICECUBE

All Particle of te Standard Model and Beyond

All Particles of the Standard Model and Beyond

Polchinski Elected Member Of National Academy of Sciences

Polchinski's discovery of D-branes and their properties is, according to the Academy citation, "one of the most important insights in 30 years of work on string theory."

Can I tell a little story before I head into the essence of this posted thread below?

From one mechanic to another

I am not a mechanic by trade. Yet I had taken apart, and put back together motors which ran and ran well. Through a transition period, and without a place in which to do this work myself, I decided to give it to "a mechanic" to work on. Pay the price, which was well beyond my means at that time. With three children a wife, and barely making it, I asked for help financially. It was cold, and snow blowing.

After picking up my motor and installing it. Making sure everything was right, I went for a slow drive to seat my rings in newly honed out cylinders. Well, much to my dismay and lots of dollars, blue smoke clouded the world behind me.

Taking it back home, I called the mechanic, and told him what was happening. "It was something you must of done," he siad.

So, I called another mechanic. He compression tested the cylinders for me, and to my dismay and his, one of the cylinders was not up to par.

So what things did I learn?

That I could have "one mechanic go against another," for the shoddy work that was done? No, it doesn't work that way.

After tearing off the head, I had found they had broken the oil and compression rings, as they pushed the compressed rings and piston, back into the cylinder. They had cracked them while doing this. The cracked ring gouged the cylinder wall, as it went up and down on the crankshaft.

Were there things I might have done different now? Maybe pressure tested the cylinders before hand?

Anyway, on to the subject of this post.

After doing my research and investigations into how the standard model itself might have been displayed, I selected two events, that were very discriptive of what might have happened, when taken as a whole story of the science in progress.



These were censored by Peter Woit on his site and removed. These lead to questions that might have implicated "string theory" as part of the process of inquiry beyond the standard? See Icecube.

If one holds to the idea that they had assumed a counter position to currents trends, then would it not include the theoretical approach well understood, that it also attached, not just a geometrical association, but one described in the physics process as well?

As a layman, this was proving itself, as I looked at the diversity of the geometrical models choosen to represent that abstract world. See B Field and Hitchins. Genus Figures, and topology, on this site.

More and more, it had weighted heavily on my mind, that the consistancy through which selected comments were shown, were to hold validation processes as to anti-string theory. As tones of select comments, as very disconcerting to me, but through his awareness Peter did strived to referee.

The overall message, was not one with the care which Cosmic Variance had ascertained it's caution of String evangelistism, or Lubos Motl's declaration as well, that the underlying motivation, was more to provide a "general widesweping statement" that applied to the string model development as a whole.

IMpressional Minds
If as a student, having now moved toward my senior years, how could I have turned back the clock of time, that I might have stood beside any of these leaders of science?

That I had to accustom myself to the very level on which my opinion would not have mattered coming from layman status. So being on the bottom of the totem pole, I accept the resolve to which such treatment was dealt. It was a small price to pay.

So imagine then, what the overall message by Peter has done to those prospective entries into the world of, might now have said, why should we now enter, being the brunt of what good science men hate, would have us believe?

The Reductionistic Process
Is it incorrect to say that the events of the collision process are incapable of decribing all fawcetts of the standard model?



So by concentrating on the collision process itself, what factors would have said that no, the standard model does not fit the current processes in LHC? Does not fit the process in high energy collision process to earths atmospheric conditions, for evdience of? See Pierre Auger expeirments here. See John Bachall and the Ghost particle.



So by closely looking at the poor man's version, what process would lead one to believe that the standard model was inclusive in this interactive process as well?

Here's the post in full. It was in response to Jack Safartti's comments and the document in which he had wrote was in contradiction of what I had learnt of the "possible new physics?" THis is of course held within context of collider results and the micro perspective results, created the form of quark Gluon Plasma. A superfluid?

So both events involved, "microstate blackhole" recognitions.

Post removed from Peter Woits comment section

In regards to facing nightmares

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."

The link was added here now.

If one follows the logic development, Jack's position becomes a interesting one to question. As well, such thoughts about cosmic collisions, and the high energy particles cosmological events. Microstate blackhole processes are the poor man's experimental pallete. Just as valid the dissipative state created in the collider.

The resulting end product is what is being explore with ICECUBE. It is all consistent with the standard model. Right from, the start of the collision process, to the resulting shower created.

Jack has some explaining to do?

Update

(To help anonymous understand better I hope the student does not feel s/he has to learn string theory in order to be valid in existance. Also, the interactive shower from the collison process with high energy article is well understood and what comes from it.

He deletes yours too.! Oh look, what we have in common?:) What drivel have you drummmed up?)

Anyway. As I was saying.

This is not to slight Peter Woit in the slighest, but to move him to consider the enormity with which the process of string/M theory is involved in the standard model expression. As fundamental particles and the interactions thereof.

To reject the model on the basis of preference, is of course for any who choose to follow which road. But to say that such a process should not be followed would have been a erroneous statement, as well as influencing the general population by such ascertions of preference aghast and in reaction.

Of course I recognized it is his blog and his comment section. On the basis of his dislike for anyone, can do anything they like, within reason right?

See:

History of the Universe and the Standard model

Big Bang:One Man's Change of Heart

Thanks Paul

One definitely needs some perspective around this and how such information is given. I refer here for consideration, about perspective, and how it can be exploited for further consideration on what is emitted, and what manifests in weak gravitational field measure, as neutrino effects(quantum gravity).

Microperspective and methods of examination, raise the issue fo cerenkov radiation and what it tells us about such interactive phases?

Here in refractive consideration, ICECUBE, paints a different picture of what began somewhere else in cosmological high energy collisions. "Neutrinos and strangelets" are part of the developing scenario with which the universe has consequences, if held to the initial conditons of our universe. You had to know where to look for these.

Plato:

"Nothing" in stated form was and always is "nothing" which would have not allowed any further discussion. "Zero" in our conversation is a much different kind of thinking. I understood that as well. "Zero" would have been the equivalent to "i" in the Dirac's matrices?

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.

I wanted to add this post, and to centralize some references that were found that helped form my perspective on "nothing." What! I guess I'm done?:)

Seriously, this had to be confronted, and who better then from our layman perspectve, then the admission of a leaders in science, who can change theirs mind after some thinking?

Cosmological Constant SeeSaw in Quantum CosmologyMichael McGuigan

Lubos shares his perspective on linked section of titled paper above.

One interpretation of the coupling of Wheeler-DeWitt functions is that it originates from topology changing effects. Topology change seems to be inevitable in quantum gravity. To treat topology change properly is a very complicated calculation using today’s mathematical tools.

I wanted to add these links here for consideration, as well what link given by Paul for consideration in regards to Penrose, the figure of the man's change of heart that ighlight's this post. In Phase transitions the comments have been quite enlightening.

Before the Big Bang BBC News, with Stephen Sackur
Sir Roger Penrose has developed a new theory on what happened before the Big Bang.

These pages were created by Jack "Turtle" Wong, Spring 1999

First of all, how do we think the universe began?

The Big Bang theory.

Resolving the inadequacies of the big bang theory.

The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: Stephen Hawking's
ideas.

The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: Neil Turok's ideas.

The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: the result of merging
two interesting theories.

Is the search over?

Bibliography / Further Reading

See Also:

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

Ekpyroptic and cyclical models

Cosmic Variance's Very Own: Strangelets in 10 or 11

Cosmic Variance's very own.

Hewett, Lillie and Rizzo found that if so called micro-black holes, which are smaller than the nucleus of an atom, exist, they can be used to determine the number of extra dimensions. If scientists were to smash two high energy protons together they could theoretically make such a micro-black hole. Such a collision could happen at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which will become operational next year. Once created, the micro-black hole decays quickly and emits over a dozen different kinds of particles such as electrons, neutrinos and photons, which are easy to detect. Using the predicted decay properties of the black hole into neutrinos, Hewett, Lillie and Rizzo solved complex equations to determine if our universe has 10, 11, or more dimensions — perhaps too many dimensions to be explained by critical string theory.

So what is the experiment that is being produced?

Using the predicted decay properties of the black hole into neutrinos,

While I consider the state itself, the thoughts of ICECUBE come to mind. This previous ICECUBE post on this is extremely helpful.

What is also helpful is to remember what the collision process produces and how we can see this process in relation to cosmic collisions. Not just in the colliders themself. While we might of debated the strange matter below, I enlist the idea of the gravitonc considerations and maybe it is not altogether clear, it is with some satisfaction that such thinking of dimensional attributes are actually given parameters with which to work?

Strange Matter (12 Feb 2006)

Some theories suggest that strange matter, unlike neutronium, may be stable outside of the intense pressure that produced it; if this is so, then small substellar pieces of strange stars (sometimes called strangelets) may exist in space in a wide range of sizes all the way down to atomic scales. There is some concern that ordinary matter, upon contacting a strangelet, would be compressed into additional strange matter by its gravity; strangelets would therefore be able to "eat" any ordinary matter they came into contact with, such as planets or stars. This possibility is not considered likely, however.

Strangelets are thought to have a net positive charge, which is neutralized by the presence of degenerate electrons extending slightly beyond the edge of the strangelet, a kind of electron "atmosphere." If a normal matter atomic nucleus encounters a strangelet, it will approach until it begins penetrating this negatively charged atmosphere. At that point it will start to see the positive electrical potential and be repelled from the strangelet. Sufficiently energetic nuclei, or neutrons (which are unaffected by electrical charges), can reach the strangelet and be absorbed; the up/down/strange quark ratio would then readjust by beta decay.

See:
Phases of Matter for Reference

Exotic physics finds black holes could be most 'perfect,' low-viscosity fluid

Son and two colleagues used a string theory method called the gauge/gravity duality to determine that a black hole in 10 dimensions -- or the holographic image of a black hole, a quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions -- behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured.

It is easy to see the difference in viscosity between a jar of honey or molasses at room temperature and a glass of water. The honey is much thicker and more viscous, and it pours very slowly compared with the water.

Using string theory as a measuring tool, Son and colleagues Pavlo Kovtun of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Andrei Starinets of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, have found that water is 400 times more viscous than black hole fluid having the same number of particles per cubic inch.

See:

Blackhole Creations

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

Microstate Blackhole Production

Quark Gluon PLasma II: Strangelets Produced

Accretion Disks

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

IN a Viscosity State Production is ?

What Are those Quantum Microstates

History of the Superfluid: New Physics

Nice Picture above.



It is really confusing for me sometimes so I have to revisit the set up, to make sure I have things slotted to the way it is being used to penetrate reductionistic views, that help us understand the new physics that emerges from Gold Ion collisions.

So what is a color glass condensate? According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, when a nucleus travels at near-light (relativistic) speed, it flattens like a pancake in its direction of motion. Also, the high energy of an accelerated nucleus may cause it to spawn a large number of gluons, the particles that hold together its quarks. These factors--relativistic effects and the proliferation of gluons--may transform a spherelike nucleus into a flattened "wall" made mostly of gluons. This wall, 50-1000 times more dense than ordinary nuclei, is the CGC (see Brookhaven page for a letter-by-letter explanation of the CGC's name). How does the gluon glass relate to the much sought quark-gluon plasma? The QGP might get formed when two CGC's collide

So you say that the particles are supported by the HE⁴ Superfluid, then how does that energy leak off into the extra dimensions? Hmmmm. As thread unfolds below? What are these strangelets that are catapulted beyond the collider? Porous induced shell casing?

As well as bringing the accelerator's counter-rotating beams together, LHC insertion magnets also have to separate them after collision. This is the job of dedicated separators, and the US Brookhaven Laboratory is developing superconducting magnets for this purpose. Brookhaven is drawing on its experience of building the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), which like the LHC is a superconducting machine. Consequently, these magnets will bear a close resemblance to RHIC's main dipoles. Following a prototyping phase, full-scale manufacture has started at Brookhaven and delivery of the first superconducting separator magnets to CERN is foreseen before the end of the year.

Bose Nova revisited

I wanted to bring this to the surface again for inspection, as this comes out of the work another fellow and I had discussed at length as we shared perspective on the nature and dynamics geometrically inclined.


Accretion Disk

Sometimes, if one does not realized what is governing the thought process, why and how would such things not make some kind of sense. As we move our perceptions ever deeper into the workings of the reductionistic world and find, that these results are being meet in a theoretical sense, as developing well along experimental one too.

As a layman these views are important to me ,more then the cyncism that pervades the supposed debate on model assumption. While the cynic provides no service other then being that. I have learn to see where the patience and developemental attitude requires a more conducive field of opportunity to bring out the best in each of those scientist that very quickly, the desired approach, is being gone after.

So herein lies a little history, and the synoptic event that is holding my thoughts today.

Do the Bosenova

To set a BEC swirling Ketterle's team shone a rotating laser beam on it while holding it in place with strong magnets. The experiment is like "stroking a ping-pong ball with a feather until it starts spinning," muses Ketterle. The surprising thing was that suddenly, a regular array of whirlpools appeared in the BEC. "It was a breathtaking experience when we saw those vortices," recalls Ketterle. Researchers had seen such whirlpools before (in liquid helium and in BECs) but never so many at once. This array of superfluid whirlpools was exactly the kind of storm system astronomers predicted would swirl beneath the iron crust of a neutron star.

Evidence for the swirling depths of neutrons stars is based on the fact that some neutron stars are pulsars - the emit a powerful beam of radiation as they spin - like a cosmic lighthouse. The pulses are very regular but occasionally there is a glitch and a pulse might come slightly too early or too late and it is these glitches that are thought to be due to superfluid vortices hammering into the inside of the neutron star's crust.

Ketterle adds that attractions between atoms in a BEC could parallel the collapse of a neutron star so emulating the distant and massive in the laboratory too. The explosive collapse of a BEC, dubbed a "Bosenova" (pronounced "bose-a-nova") by Wieman releases only a tiny quantity of energy, just enough to raise the temperature of the BEC by 200 billionths of a degree. Supernovae release many times the energy.

So while I had drawn attention to the process afew years ago that we had discussed, it was important that the very idea of a geometrical process that encompass all the information we currently have, has been filed to specific areas for consideration.

While the tidbits placed our perspectives all over the map, and held the idealization of the geometry to Feynman's toy models, a greater implication existed that few of realized as we can read about Dirac and the way in which he sees. While I had not been blessed with such a mathematical mind, it seems my vision of things are quite capable, while speaking about reductionistic proceses intuitive roads that lead to the developmental understanding of the nature of the supefuid. A place in which flatspacetime geometry would allow you to consider properties that ask us to explain what this emergent property might be.

So, if such supersymmetrical idealization was to exist what was this place to say about what began here, or there, in the expression of our universe? Something had to be created that was new to us in our assessment as "new physics." So what was produced? Where did this avenue and funnel allow such an expression that we would look at the bose nova expressing itself, in a model approach.

Whirling atoms dance into physics textbooks

Superconductivity is superfluidity for charged particles instead of atoms. High-temperature superconductivity is not fully understood, but the MIT observations open up opportunities to study the microscopic mechanisms behind this phenomenon.

"Pairing electrons in the same way as our fermionic atoms would result in room-temperature superconductors," Ketterle explained. "It is a long way to go, but room-temperature superconductors would find many real-world applications, from medical diagnostics to energy transport." Superfluid Fermi gas might also help scientists test ideas about other Fermi systems, like spinning neutron stars and the primordial soup of the early universe.

Historical Perspective

Eric Cornell

Carl Wieman

Wolfgang Ketterle

2001 Nobel Prize in Physics

Neutron star

M. Coleman Miller

Today and the New Physics



So now that you see that this process is a interesting one, it is necessary to see how such comparative views on a cosmological scale could have been ever immersed in the microperspective.

This has been my attempt at bringing the place for persepctve into line so that such "new physics" woud have captured the layman's mind. Found the seed bed for new maths, to have created a visionary world that could have arisen from this point on the brane, that such circles, had a greater meaning then one could have ever realized.

What was happening outside of our colliders that we could speak to what was happening inside of the colliders? This is amazing story, as we now see that events happening with high energy particles, have made themself known in our immediate envirnment to have said what can exist here now in such weak field manifestations, that we had graduated from the normal gravity wave perception GR lead us from, and sent us too?

Many Holes?

So now that a cosmological event has captured our mind, the big bang taken us to the first microseconds of our universe, the supersymmetrical view realized, what say we see the possiblility in those new bubbles that arise from Dirac's Sea?

Each hole while existing within the frame work of a supefluid state madeit possible for us to realize that such expressions would have happen at such micro levels that we had been thinking about how we send our measures to such levels? The new physics is what had been strange to our normal way of thinking and now?

It would have been my hope that bringing five different people together in the Cosmic Variance scheme of things, would have created the perfect group, as to bringing persepctive and varied opinion together in perception into the family and said how nice that these different perspectives were really one aspect of the whole picture?

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and IceCube

...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

Sometimes if we paid attention enough, the neurons seem to fire appropriately and the detachment of the ideas seemingly distant from one another, become illuminated and connected? Imagine it taking place in Clifford's other office.

Foundations Study Guide: Philosophy of Mathematics by David S. Ross, Ph.D.

The philosophy of mathematics is the philosophical study of the concepts and methods of mathematics. It is concerned with the nature of numbers, geometric objects, and other mathematical concepts; it is concerned with their cognitive origins and with their application to reality. It addresses the validation of methods of mathematical inference. In particular, it deals with the logical problems associated with mathematical infinitude.

Among the sciences, mathematics has a unique relation to philosophy. Since antiquity, philosophers have envied it as the model of logical perfection, because of the clarity of its concepts and the certainty of its conclusions, and have therefore devoted much effort to explaining the nature of mathematics.

Such a cognitive fucntion then would be important as these math symbols arose in our minds. Possible new mathematical models in which to describe the nature we see around us. So one makes sure they have a pad and pencil, while they ventured away from the regime, with which the mind has been so intensely engaged?

Now being so far from the understanding of these mathematics, I can only hope to understand the concepts as they unfold in a geometrical insight, while I try to make sure I understand them in relation to abstract thinking.

SNO on the go – at last!

Over the past 30 years, five different experiments have sought to measure the flux of these elusive particles from the Sun (produced by the same nuclear processes that make it shine) and have consistently come up short of theoretical predictions. One explanation is that the neutrinos emitted ‘oscillate’ into another variety of neutrino which past experiments could not detect.

Within the IceCube collaboration the Univ. of Uppsala and the Univ. of Berkeley have joined the DESY initiative. The DESY team is also in close contact to the groups in Europe, the USA and Asia which are working on acoustic detectors for Neutrino-Telescopes installed in water. Details on the different projects have been presented on the First Workshop on Acoustic Cosmic Ray and Neutrino Detection held at Stanford in September 2003.

The muon will travel faster than light in the ice (but of course still slower than the speed of light in vacuum), thereby producing a shock wave of light, called Cerenkov radiation. This light is detected by the photomultipliers, and the trace of the neutrinos can be reconstructed with an accuracy of a couple of degrees. Thus the direction of the incoming neutrino and hence the location of the neutrino source can be pinpointed. A simulation of a muon travelling through AMANDA is shown here (1.5 MB).

Some understanding of the dual nature of blackholes is needed here in order to understand what is "produced" and how this is "spread out."

"String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap. This increases the number of 'down' neutrinos detected. At the same time, the creation of black holes causes 'up' neutrinos to be caught in the Earth's crust, reducing the number of 'up' neutrinos. The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."

Before engaging article below it is important that the differences be noted between strangelets(strange quarks), and the distortions in neutrino properties. If it is understood the microstate blackholes are created, then the dispersion of other particle in the atmosphere give us indications and consequences gained from dual nature of the blackhole.

I am confused here, and this point of interactive consideration is holding my mind as to why both these situations together are important. The difficulty may come from from the immediate association, while reocgnition of these two have been raised from the event and collision.

Earth punctured by tiny cosmic missilesBy Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 12/05/2002)

Strangelets - sometimes also called strange-quark nuggets - are predicted to have many unusual properties, including a density about ten million million times greater than lead. Just a single pollen-size fragment is believed to weigh several tons.

They are thought to be extremely stable, travelling through the galaxy at speeds of about a million miles per hour. Until now, all attempts to detect them have failed. A team of American scientists believes, however, that it may have found the first hard evidence for the existence of strangelets, after scouring earthquake records for signs of their impact with Earth.

See:

Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

Cosmic Rays Collisions and Strangelets Produced?

I like to think of Enlightenment in another way Jaffe:)

While we had focused our attention on the airs about the earth, how would it been possible for us earthlings to push back the limitations on on our views that we could have seen cosmological data in context of all that we do in the environment?

See QuarkStars on this.

The collisions are strange: PHENIX can identify particles that contain strange quarks, which are interesting since strange quarks are not present in the original nuclei so they all must be produced. It is expected that a Quark-Gluon Plasma will produce a large amount of strange quarks. In particular, PHENIX has measured lambda particles. There are more lambda particles seen than expected.

I thought I would go over existing post I made in April of 2005 (se revised version below)and correct some of the links that would be more appropriate to information released in the Blogs of Reference Frame, Cosmic Variance and Not Even Wrong's site about "Amanda and ICECUBE."

Exotic physics finds black holes could be most 'perfect,' low-viscosity fluid

Son and two colleagues used a string theory method called the gauge/gravity duality to determine that a black hole in 10 dimensions - or the holographic image of a black hole, a quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions - behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured.

These characteristics of superfluids are very interesting things to consider, as well as what is prodcuerd in "this action" as we are taken to the supefluid created. Think indeed, that this blackhole "is" the superfluid, and the strangelets, what are these? These never existed, until the superfluid was created?

But in the 10 dimensions of string theory, the fluid of a black hole isn't like other fluids. Space-time is considered to be flat in our perception, Son said, and five of the extra dimensions are compacted into a small, finite sphere. In the remaining dimension, however, space is curved. Evaporation doesn't occur in this dimension, he said, because as particles radiate from the fluid they strike the curved edge of the dimension and are sent bouncing back into the black hole.

These links help set up the thinking for information outside of LHC, that was given for perspective back earlier by John Ellis. The leading perspective on Microstate blackhole production was given then as well in the post with Quark Gluon perspectives, about strangelets produced.

While I had thought these relevant to Dark energy creation in our Cosmo, I did not point directly to the nature of these strangelets gathering at the center of our planet. You had to follow all these posts in order to understand the effect of microstate production, not only in RHIC or LHC, but in the cosmic perspective gained from Pierre Auger experiments as well.

I gave early history consideration so that you might understand a early concern of what mankind might have garnered in thinking, when in actuallity, this was happening naturally every time the cosmic rays penetrated the airs around the earth.

You might well see now that these considerations have been logically followed and there has not been much help as I had been laying the ground work for how perspective is garnered about gravitational considerations. These though are quickly dissipating blackholes created in the airs, around this planet.

Cosmic rays are nuclei and elementary particles always falling very fast on the earth from the universe. Enormous number of cosmic rays are always passing through our bodies. Cosmic rays was discovered by Victor Hess, who is an Austrian physicist, on 1912. He went up to the high altitude of 4000 meters by a balloon and found the ionization rate of the atmosphere is raised at the higher altitude by cosmic rays. After that, cosmic rays have been studied extensively and progressively, and mysteries in the Universe and the Nature are being revealed.

Cosmic rays come from the neighborhood of the Earth and also far galaxies. Galactic and extra galactic cosmic rays are considered to be accelerated at dynamical astronomical objects, such as supernova remnants, neutron stars,and active galactic nuclei. After far-reaching long traveling, they plunge into the atmosphere and bring about nuclear interactions with nuclei of oxygen and nitrogen in the air. The extraterrestrial cosmic rays which come from outside the earth are conventionally called primary cosmic rays, and newly produced particles via the nuclear interactions are called secondary cosmic rays. The main components of the secondary cosmic rays are muon, neutrino, electron, gamma ray, and neutron. While electrons and gamma rays are absorbed into the air, muons and neutrinos can be observed even under the ground.

Of course, this could all be speculation and misconceptions garnered in wrong thinking. So I'll leave it to the experts to correct the disemmination that would affront theoretical positions and hopefully I'll see such corrections. :)

Update: Bloggery updating does not seem to be working, so I will recreate the post here for examination.

4/16/2005

Cosmic ray experiments must overcome tremendous obstacles. The flux of particles above 10¹⁹ eV is extremely low (about 0.5 km-2yr-1sr-1), so detectors need to probe a large effective area to detect sufficient flux. This requires earthbound observatories. Consequently, the high energy particle is detected indirectly, as cosmic ray primaries entering the Earth's atmosphere interact with atmospheric nuclei to produce large cascades of relativistic secondary particles known as extensive air showers.

It somehow seems appropriate, that having been given some hint fom John Ellis of his research and interests, that the historical record could some how be brought into view. The appearnce of these references enhance later log entries on this site. A sort of moving backwards to get to the esence of what has happened in astrophysics and the journey tounderstand the nergies involved that speak to the idea of particle shower creation that had been consistent with reductionistics view we have gone through in the research of string theory.

The highest energy particle ever observed was detected by the Fly's Eye in 1991. With an energy of 3.5 x 10²⁰eV (or 56J), the particle, probably a proton or a light nucleus, had 108 times more energy than particles produced in the largest earth-bound accelerators. The origin of the particle is unknown. At such a high energy, and with its assumed charge, the path of this particle through the cosmos would have been relatively unaffected by galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields. Yet no plausible astrophysical source is known along the arrival direction, within the maximum possible source distance imposed by collisions with photons of the cosmic microwave background. This event remains a mystery! It is clear that it existed, but there is no obvious explanation for its source.

These are some of the links that follow the early hisotry of our observations, so that we underrstand well that such cosmic rays are still viable arena for the understanding of these interactions. Sean Carroll may create the April's fool joke on mass migration from particle reductionistionism to astrophycics, but the truth is what is learnt is very applicable to both arenas and what had been learnt, can never be forgotten as we move our observations to the FLY'EYE

Collision Course Creates Microscopic "Blackholes"

Pierre Auger Observatory

Cosmological and Microstate Blackholes

Early history developement is sometimes important to understand the trends that intermingle began in branches of High Energy Particle Research and Cosmic particle research. We understood well the limitation that we would run into for the size of the coliders necessary for such observations that having understod the limits reached in this regard we see where one branch will push us to consider the world around us and the inertactions developing towards the understanding of thes ecosmic showers that we are experiencing.


Extremely energetic cosmic rays interact with the cosmic background photons via pair creation and photopion production and lose their energies during their trip. Therefore there is upper limit of distances which they can propagete in the space with a given energy. The above figure shows this limit (so called attenuation length) in case of cosmic ray protons. You see the 2x10^20 eV particles cannot propagate longer than 30 Mpc (100 million light years), which sets the limit concerning the location of possible sources.


Other Information Shamelessly Boorrowed:

Search for Diffuse Cosmic Gamma Rays above 200 TeV
Cassiday, G.L. et al.1991, Ap.J., 375,202.

A Search for Evidence of Point Sources in the Cherenkov Flash Data From Fly's Eye II
Elbert, J.W. et al.1991, ICRC, 1,265.

Search for Point Sources of U.H.E. Gamma Rays Using the Utah Cherenkov Array
Corbato, S.C. et al.1991, ICRC, 1,281.

The High Resolution Fly's Eye (Hires): Parameters and Motivation
Borodovsky, J. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,688.

Description and Status of the High Resolution (Hires) Fly's Eye Experiment
Au, W. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,692.

Observations of Real and Simulated Showers Using the First Two High Resolution Fly's Eye (Hires) Mirrors
Borodovsky, J. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,696.

Study of Extensive Air Showers (EAS) Detected with the Fly's Eye and the UMC Air Shower Array
Green, K.D. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,347.

Shower Simulations for the Fly's Eye
Gaisser, T.K. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,413.

Limits on Deeply Penetrating Particles from the Fly's Eye Detector
Cooper, R. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,623.

Quark Stars

Quark stars signal unstable universe By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

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

A "central theme" arises in my mind, when I think about how this dark energy came into being.



If held to current technologies and pre producable themes held in context of our cosmo, can we take such levels of dark energy production to be from the cause of strange quark productions?

It is difficult for me to understand why the whole process is not involved in this geometrical assertion to what happens at the beginning of this universe, has "pre big bang implication" that was necessary to understand, before we can ever agreed on what the expansionary process might entail under the guise of how this dark energy is produced. How the lensing is lent to the nature of the dark energy, that we would see gravitonic consequences of accepting a fifth dimensional possibility? Would lend credence to the nature of the "spacetime fabric" as gravtonic considerations?

As a layman it is puzzling to me, so you have to forgive my mistakes and misunderstandings and as I learn I hope to deal with this appropriately. It is not my desire to spread misconceptions


RX J185635-375: Candidate Quark Star

Explanation: Is RJX J185635-375 really so small? Previously, this compact star held claim to being the closest neutron star -- only 150 light-years away. Now new observations and analysis indicate not only a larger distance, roughly 450 light-years, but a very small radius for RXJ J185635-375, pictured above. One hypothesized solution holds hope a RJX J185635-375 is actually a not a neutron star but a quark star -- something new. Now quark stars are truly strange -- some may have made a transition to type of matter known as strange quarks. Quark stars, were they to exist, can be intermediate between neutron stars and black holes in size and density. Quark stars can also be more compact and cool faster than neutron stars. In fact, some might even be ultracompact -- so dense that light itself can orbit. Future observations will likely settle the controversial claims of RJX J185635-375's distance and radiative geometry, and hence determine if a previously undiscovered type of beast roams the sky.

Laval Nozzle

Are we Creating the circumstances for dynamical situations. Has geometrical implications from the dynamical perspective of accretion disks part of the evolving universe?

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations?

Quark Gluon Plasma II: Strangelets

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

In accretion disks how would this counter intuitive recognition of the Jet have been incorporated into what could have been ejected as anti-matter creation? Doing the Bose Nova maybe?

Killer plasma ready to devour the Earth Reports by Robert Uhlig David Derbyshire and Roger Highfield
(Filed: 07/09/2001)

By colliding gold nuclei at huge energies, the RHIC is investigating "quark-gluon plasma", a state of matter in which the fundamental sub-nuclear particles, called quarks and gluons, become unstuck and swill around in a kind of particle soup that should have been around shortly after the Big Bang.

Dr Allanach warned that if experiments with the RHIC go wrong, it could produce a new hypothetical kind of particle called the killer strangelet.

In a catastrophic chain reaction, the killer strangelet would gobble up nuclei until it had eaten a million billion, when its weight would pull it towards the centre of the earth.

This isssue is important to me for a number of reasons. One of which is the Risk assesment, and how something could be gobbled up. These were ole concerns that began to appear around 2001, in the understanding of blackhole creation in the colliders.

Since then what has come about is the recognition of this new superfluid states that would help propel thinking as a measure of what could have began from a particle state collision that we have gone to enormous energies in which to concieve, as to what took place at the beginning of this universe.

By grasping the understanding of strangelets and the relationship gained in understanding what effects can be creaetd by producing collisions, the resulting product created in the form of Quark Gluon plasma as a superfluid, how would such creation see the use of this as a possibility recognizing "counter intuitive" thinking in the apprehension of what flat spacetime as a measure would have signalled there?

Earth punctured by tiny cosmic missilesBy Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 12/05/2002)

According to the scientists, both events are consistent with an impact with strangelets at cosmic speeds. In a report about to be submitted to the Seismological Society of America, the team of geologists and physicists concludes: "The only explanation for such events of which we are aware is passage through the earth of ton-sized strange-quark nuggets."

Professor Eugene Herrin, a member of the team, said that two strangelets just one-tenth the breadth of a hair would account for the observations. "These things are extremely dense and travel at 40 times the speed of sound straight through the Earth - they'd hardly slow down as they went through."

Strangelets then come to mind as a possible scenario worth considering in a geometrical sense, as to what the beginning is, out of the length that we would go to track back from those same collisions processes. Our mappers would have to be very busy and detailed in their discriptions to help us see how such cosmic strangelets could have been recorded in current data.

In general, AMS is trying to study the sources of cosmic rays. These sources include ordinary things like stars and supernovae, as well as (perhaps!) exotica like quark stars, dark-matter annihilations, and galaxies made entirely of antimatter. Each astrophysical source emits a particular type of cosmic rays; the rays migrate through space in all directions; we detect the ones that pass near Earth. With careful theoretical modeling, we figure out how astrophysical objects leave their "fingerprints" in cosmic rays, and we figure out how to measure that fingerprint (or the absence of it!). Sometimes the fingerprint is the presence of a whole new type of particle (like an anti-helium or strangelet); sometimes, the fingerprint is an unusual feature in an energy spectrum (like a dark matter or microquasar signal). Click on the links above (or in the navigation bar to the left) to learn more about AMS's physics goals!

So we were given some perspective on this issue, from then and now, some review as to what takes place in these accretion disks, suddenly hold geometrical insight as to what unfolds in a complete process.

Jet production, from what the superfluid can do in it's characteristic natures, to have seen how this feature operates independant of the buckets rotations.

See earlier references. Counter intuitive realizations manifested in the properties of these superfluids.