Nature in Analog Models

Plato:

"For everyone, as I think, must see that astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another."

Oh! how complete our world view would be, that I have moved quickly to the very question of all summations given. That while "visually" occupying the mind, we had been taken to the standard model's extension. That we moved beyond, to the "introduction of the graviton," as a force carrier? What world is that Plato?

Structuralists, like Plato we would be, that we seen not as Feynamn did, but as "platonic developers" as to the very alluring question of, "nature's form?" Lost was our view of the "interactions and processes" yet, seen in another way? That there is a discription ,of all of what these particles could be?

"Analogue Gravity"by Carlos Barceló and Stefano Liberati and Matt Visser

Analogue models of (and for) gravity have a long and distinguished history dating back to the earliest years of general relativity. In this review article we will discuss the history, aims, results, and future prospects for the various analogue models. We start the discussion by presenting a particularly simple example of an analogue model, before exploring the rich history and complex tapestry of models discussed in the literature. The last decade in particular has seen a remarkable and sustained development of analogue gravity ideas, leading to some hundreds of published articles, a workshop, two books, and this review article. Future prospects for the analogue gravity programme also look promising, both on the experimental front (where technology is rapidly advancing) and on the theoretical front (where variants of analogue models can be used as a springboard for radical attacks on the problem of quantum gravity).

Part of the theoretics I imagine, is trying to incorporate this into analog models for a deeper comprehension of concepts mathematically embued. Part of the deeper intuitive developement, is what attracted me to the questions about "creativity" and what can be immersed in minds of scientists. What they do with their days.

Murray Gellman:
On Plectics

It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying.

As I read Feynman's words about what the scientist actually does, the human side of the scientist makes it very clear to me, that they are to be treated with the respect, as he conveyed his thoughts. As we might, treat someone who brings together "different ideas" to move conceptual understanding forward, much like those in the mathematical ways. Better to be ignored, eh?:)

Vision Can Move in the Small world

The Planck scale is the scale at which quantum gravity is believed to become important. At this scale the smooth structure of spacetime breaks down into some structure (strings, spin-foam, lattice, who knows?). The Planck length is approximately 10-35 m, which is very, very small. To get an idea of how tiny this is we can compare a Planck length LPl with the size of a proton and the size of Rhode Island. The radius of a proton is larger than the Planck length by roughly the same factor as the size of Rhode Island to the proton.

Did we ever comprehend how we would take our "vision" down to a world so small that we did not recognize that occupying the physical world of large things, there would be comparsions needed. That the "particles" that Murray Gellman speculated would emerge from some model, and become the constituents of a world created in the wonder of, "all these particles may be part of the some alternate form of the same thing?" This arose in the 1950's.

So before, Susskind and Nambu, Gellman held a interesting perspective, and from it, a question arose. It became the developing insight of string theory. Some, have abandoned the very question and idealization, having graduated to Brane world, does not mean, the very thoughts and principals embued in this focus to the small world, would have been discarded, just, that it will have gone through "revisions and progress" in conceptual design?

Analog models of quantum field theory in curved space

In condensed matter, one can construct systems where the propagation of long wavelength phonons (sound waves) is very similar to the propagation of a scalar field in a curved Lorentzian spacetime. Such systems are called 'analog models'. It is even possible to construct analogies to black holes in this manner, where the phonons that travel past a certain point cannot return. For example, consider a fluid where long wavelength phonons in the fluid propagate with speed cs, which is analogous to the speed of light in these models. Now put this fluid in a pipe and change the shape of the pipe such that the speed v of the fluid is faster than cs in one section and slower in an adjacent section. A phonon can travel "back against the current" only up to a certain point, where the the fluid speed equals cs. After that the fluid flow carries it down the pipe. This point in the pipe therefore mimics a black hole event horizon, from which nothing can escape. Other black hole features such as Hawking radiation are also present in these models. Since these models give an example of a system that has a fundamental structure at very short distances (where the fluid description breaks down), yet has a pseudo-Lorentz invariance at long distances.

Plato as a Composer

Can a different kind of thinking encase the brain's ability to "envision the abstract of space" to know that it's harmonic values can be seen as the basis of experience?

Those who would conduct the orchestra, enlisted sounds, which make a whole compositon? One, from which, if physical sight had been remove, and focused internally, had just witnessed the particle world in shower, would lead one to the climatic vision of, "nature of things." From, "it's source?" What began before this whole musical interlude, much as if, the cosmo will wait for our question as to what was?

So now the very idea of the poem wording I developed here, "no time standing always new", had me thinking about how such a cyclical processes could have ever made its way into our "completeness of views". An extension, beyond the standard model. It was a logical question and place with which responsibility can be still held, regardless, of those who have spelt out the lineage of science in research in this way(string theory model), as some disrupted process in the way of thinking?

So how would we map this whole process, while we had been taken down to such reductionistic principals. The continuity resorting to structurally discrete, while pondering this structure( what model shall you insert here, Loop, Twistors, Strings)? There are "no rules and no physics" with which we can "initiate thinking" beyond the standard model? So we see the minds very busy with such introductions, professors hired to work the field of choices. Whether to teach or not? To be devoted to a specific area, or just ponder the most difficult question, as to the natures very structure?

So now we come to a important question, having recognized the power with which the Word "Plato or Aristotle will now be invoked in your mind. That the "archetypes" had been drawn and related. Any future reference, will be in the way Plato might of felt having held his views on music? Possibly, thought about the nature of the world with structure. Developed the forms, as constituents of the way the world exists now.


See:

Laval Nozzle and Blackholes

Accretion Disks

Quark Stars

Hyperspace

Science is that human activity in which we aim to show towards nature that respect that in a democracy we endeavor to show towards each other."

There is no doubt my views are biased. For all the wrong reasons I have cited the questions about how I see, has been strongly encouraged. There is no leader for me in this question( driven in my own research), with something that lead me through the mathematics and divergences from Euclidean perspectve.

It was joined on a level with the geometrical implications of GR conclusions and assignments to Rienmann's positive views. Held in context of his teacher, I have given respect to the Gausssian approach of thinking, and definitions, assigned Hyperspace. If I see Gaussian coordinates as viable, then how shall I refrain myself from seeing in such spaces?

So of course this is troubling to me, that if I was to proclaim my true belief in the religiousity of stringevangelism, then how could I ever give someone the clear and concise picture of this graduation?

So shall I put aside my views of the translation given to hyperspatial views, in context of all the "colorings" I have given the "dynamical relation" of what is not seen, and is hidden, I want to understand this better, from the layman point of view.

So a strong debate needs to be fuelled in regards to the validation process of what hyperspace actually means. Has it been a means to an effort to geoemtrically assign right thinking through the stages of what we have been given to perspective. That the beginning of this universe, had circumstances given to micro perspective views, had lost touch with the validation process, that this geometry, could have ever given credence in mathematical basis. There are no physics at that level, yet my view had been reduced to the superfluid.

While "the debate" is not mine, by layman status, I do follow the logic.

Deflating Hyperspace" by: David Pacchioli (Research/Penn State, Vol. 16, no. 4 (December, 1995))

For Chernosky, a Ph.D. candidate in English literature, this isn't exactly the same thing as asking what hyperspace means. Hyperspace seems to mean a lot of things, and then again not to mean much at all; its meaning shifts with the user, if not with the wind. It is, Charnesky writes, "an almost empty signifier capable of almost limitless application."

"This fuzziness," he adds in person, "is its power." It is also a quality that puts hyperspace in rather crowded company. Our language is loaded with terms appropriated from science for use in popular discourse. Along the way, the borrowed word's highly technical, narrowly precise -- not to say arcane -- meaning is typically transformed. What emerges is a fluttering, eye-catching, all-purpose concept that can be used interchangeably for explaining the weather or selling toothpaste.

So conduct becoming, and of what I asked of others I am working to see this transition through. How I still believe in "my God, my religiousneess, and faith in humanities struggle for perfection" and still offer, perspective here, while biased?

No one speaks here so I have to lead myself through intuitive journies, if there is not the willingness at other points in the blogopshere for this debate to take place. Of course, in my silent way I will try and be fair. I like to thank Peter for the toning down that has taken place.

What views have been put out there then that we could answer and put aside comparative functions to "alien cultures" and all the sort, to speak a truth that would move perception accordingly.

Are mathematcians divided in this case?

Hyperspace(23 Jan 2006)

Hyperspace theories are concerned with theoretical systems that have more than the familiar three spatial dimensions. Hyperspace theories are largely a mathematical theory but their developers often attempt to make them of use to physicists. Hyperspace theorists generally believe that the laws of nature are simpler in higher dimensions

What are Degrees of Freedom


If we travel to Peter Woit's site, can we point to the article introduced and go from there? If I quote the next source above, then this would have given reason to wonder if the trailing thoughts of those who wished to deal with this(above Wiki article and references), might create recognition of some of the things Peter Woit is describing.

So lets open it here then.

Einstein Has Left the Building
By JOHN HORGAN
Published: January 1, 2006 NYTimes

Today, government spending on physics research has stagnated, and the number of Americans pursuing doctorates has plunged to its lowest level since the early 1960's. Especially as represented by best sellers like "A Brief History of Time," by Stephen Hawking, and "The Elegant Universe," by Brian Greene, physics has also become increasingly esoteric, if not downright escapist. Many of physics' best and brightest are obsessed with fulfilling a task that occupied Einstein's latter years: finding a "unified theory" that fuses quantum physics and general relativity, which are as incompatible, conceptually and mathematically, as plaid and polka dots. But pursuers of this "theory of everything" have wandered into fantasy realms of higher dimensions with little or no empirical connection to our reality. In his new book "Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions, from Plato to String Theory and Beyond," the physicist Lawrence Krauss frets that his colleagues' belief in hyperspace theories in spite of the lack of evidence will encourage the insidious notion that science "is merely another kind of religion."

Krauss and Susskind versus Horgan

Peter Woit:

I don’t see Horgan here criticizing the attempt to quantize gravity as “frivolous”. His criticism of physicists as having “wandered into fantasy realms of higher dimensions with little or no empirical connection to our reality”, is a justifiable one that deserves to be seriously addressed. Krauss and Susskind’s comment that Horgan would be surprised that both of them think that new degrees of freedom will be needed to characterize elementary particle physics doesn’t seem to have any basis in fact. Horgan isn’t making broad claims that physicists shouldn’t look for new degrees of freedom, he is very specifically referring to the use of extra space-time dimensions.

Tiny Bubbles

AS a child, Einsten when given the gift of the compass, immediately reocgnized the mystery in nature? If such a impression could have instigated the work that had unfolded over timein regards to Relativity, then what work could have ever instigated the understanding of the Pea as a constant reminder of what the universe became in the mind of a child, as we sleep on it?

Hills and Valley held in context of Wayne Hu's explanations was a feasible product of the landscape to work with?

'The Princess & The Pea' from 'The Washerwoman's Child'

If Strings abhors infinities, then the "Princess's Pea" was really a creation of "three spheres" emmanating from the "fabric of spacetime?" It had to be reduced from spacetime to a three dimensional frame work?

Spheres can be generalized to higher dimensions. For any natural number n, an n-sphere is the set of points in (n+1)-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is, as before, a positive real number. Here, the choice of number reflects the dimension of the sphere as a manifold.

a 0-sphere is a pair of points
a 1-sphere is a circle
a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere
a 3-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space

Spheres for n ¡Ý 3 are sometimes called hyperspheres. The n-sphere of unit radius centred at the origin is denoted Sn and is often referred to as "the" n-sphere. The notation Sn is also often used to denote any set with a given structure (topological space, topological manifold, smooth manifold, etc.) identical (homeomorphic, diffeomorphic, etc.) to the structure of Sn above.

An n-sphere is an example of a compact n-manifold.

Was it really fantasy that Susskind was involved in, or was there some motivated ideas held in mathematical structure? People like to talk about him without really understandng how such geometrical propensities might have motivated his mind to consider conjectures within the physics of our world?

Bernhard Riemann once claimed: "The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean." His prophesy was realized later with Einstein's general theory of relativity. It is futile to expect one "correct geometry" as is evident in the dispute as to whether elliptical, Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry is the "best" model for our universe. Henri Poincaré, in Science and Hypothesis (New York: Dover, 1952, pp. 49-50) expressed it this way.

You had to realize that working in these abstractions, such work was not to be abandon because we might have thought such abstraction to far from the tangible thinking that topologies might see of itself?


Poincaré Conjecture Proved--This Time for Real
By Eric W. Weisstein

In the form originally proposed by Henri Poincaré in 1904 (Poincaré 1953, pp. 486 and 498), Poincaré's conjecture stated that every closed simply connected three-manifold is homeomorphic to the three-sphere. Here, the three-sphere (in a topologist's sense) is simply a generalization of the familiar two-dimensional sphere (i.e., the sphere embedded in usual three-dimensional space and having a two-dimensional surface) to one dimension higher. More colloquially, Poincaré conjectured that the three-sphere is the only possible type of bounded three-dimensional space that contains no holes. This conjecture was subsequently generalized to the conjecture that every compact n-manifold is homotopy-equivalent to the n-sphere if and only if it is homeomorphic to the n-sphere. The generalized statement is now known as the Poincaré conjecture, and it reduces to the original conjecture for n = 3.

While it is very dificult for me "to see" how such movements are characterized in those higher spaces, it is not without some understanding that such topologies and genus figures would point to the continuity of expression, as "energy and matter" related in a most curious way? Let's consider the non-discretium way in which such continuites work, shall we?

From one perspective this circle woud have some valuation to the makings of the universe in expression, would identify itself where such potenials are raised from the singular function of the circular colliders. Those extra dimensions had to have some basis to evolve too in those higher spaces for such thinking to have excelled to more then mathematical conjectures?

We can also consider donuts with more handles attached. The number of handles in a donut is its most important topological information. It is called the genus.

It might be expressed in the tubes of KK tower modes of measure? That such "differences of energies" might have held the thinking to the brane world, yet revealled a three dimensional perspective in the higher diemnsional world of bulk. These had to depart from the physics, and held in context?



Clay Institute

If we stretch a rubber band around the surface of an apple, then we can shrink it down to a point by moving it slowly, without tearing it and without allowing it to leave the surface. On the other hand, if we imagine that the same rubber band has somehow been stretched in the appropriate direction around a doughnut, then there is no way of shrinking it to a point without breaking either the rubber band or the doughnut. We say the surface of the apple is "simply connected," but that the surface of the doughnut is not. Poincaré, almost a hundred years ago, knew that a two dimensional sphere is essentially characterized by this property of simple connectivity, and asked the corresponding question for the three dimensional sphere (the set of points in four dimensional space at unit distance from the origin). This question turned out to be extraordinarily difficult, and mathematicians have been struggling with it ever since.

While three spheres has been generalized in my point of view, I am somewhat perplexed by sklar potential when thinking about torus's and a hole with using a rubber band. If the formalization of Greene's statement so far were valid then such a case of the universe emblazoning itself within some structure mathematically inclined, what would have raised all these other thoughts towards quantum geometry?

In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

(Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)


Was our thoughts based in a wonderful world, where such purity of math structure became the basis of our expressions while speaking to the nature of the reality of our world?


Bubble Nucleation

Some people do not like to consider the context of universe and the suppositions that arose from insight drawn, and held to possibile scenario's. I like to consider these things because I am interested in how a geometical cosistancy might be born into the cyclical nature. Where such expression might hold our thinking minds.


Science and it's Geometries?


Have these already been dimissed by the physics assigned, that we now say that this scenario is not so likely? Yet we are held by the awe and spector of superfluids, whose origination might have been signalled by the gravitational collapse?

Would we be so less inclined not to think about Dirac's Sea of virtual particles to think the origination might have issued from the very warms water of mother's creative womb, nestled.

Spheres that rise from the deep waters of our thinking, to have seen the basis of all maths and geometries from the heart designed. Subjective yet in the realization of the philosophy embued, the very voice speaks only from a pure mathematical realm, and is covered by the very cloaks of one's reason?

After doing so, they realized that all inflationary theories produced open universes in the manner Turok described above(below here). In the end, they created the Hawking-Turok Instanton theory.

The process is a bit like the formation of a bubble
in a boiling pan of water...the interior of this tiny
bubble manages to turn itself into an infinite open
universe. Imagine a bubble forming and expanding at the
speed of light, so that it becomes very big, very quickly.
Now look inside the bubble.

The peculiar thing is that in such a bubble, space and time
get tangled in such a way that what we would call today's
universe would actually include the entire future of the
bubble. But because the bubble gets infinitely large in
the future, the size of 'today's universe' is actually infinite.
So an infinite,open universe is formed inside a tiny, initially
microscopic bubble.

Our Own Quiet Spaces

Given that it is basically creationism with a new brand name not sure I need to.

Now while those who delve into the Kansas this and that, I don't want too, by association seem to be supporting or not, while those who struggle for their own identities, have them force it upon us and take the empowerment of our own choices from us.

I would rather do science(understand these models), yet I have the "freedom and choice" to work within my own quiet space? Because you are a leader in science do you think it right to impose your ideas upon us by the philosophies you had adopted and then go ahead and sanction us to abrand of ID?

It is tuff enough sometimes for those of us who want to delve into the subject of sciences, without agendas being swung at those less educated, and by those well educated, to describe aspects of and around the potentials of our efforts?

Knowing full well the requirements of science and it's methods, this has been well drilled into our heads endlessly, but not shamefully.

The time has come to severe this relationship from the work needed to do by us lay people to get to the "bottom of things." :) What the underlying basis is of reality without invoking God , but at best hoping to understand our involvement in the contiued expression of this reality? So, we are given options and models to work with.

Many of those head science came forward and made their statements about string/M as to "if proven or not", views of the "requirement of the background," that any responsible science leader could now say, "the health and welfare of their profession" is on track as long as the desired results in experimental process are perpetuated.

Please do not try and implement your philosphies on us(decieve us by ID association), and we will not tolerate yours from the uneducated and ill informed. That we will strive as you did for reason and truth to make itself known.

Alas, there is then room in our own "quiet spaces" about those things that do not fall under the requirements of science that if you choose your own personal belief in what is not and what is, that this can be cultivated in the way that you seem and deemed responsible by you?

Why this Universe?

Sea of Virtual Particles


http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook/0309074061/gifmid/19.gif

Who is to deny that such processes incorporated into our views of today would not have drawn the cosmologist and the deeper intracies of physics, to point to our nature and it's beginnings in our universe . To raise questions about how such families were to arise from that place and time, specified and leading from one science inclination to another?

The Universe is governed by cycles of matter and energy, an intricate series of physical processes in which the chemical elements are formed and destroyed, and passed back and forth between stars and diffuse clouds. It is illuminated with the soft glow of nascent and quiescent stars, fierce irradiation from the most massive stars, and intense flashes of powerful photons and other high energy particles from collapsed objects. Even as the Universe relentlessly expands, gravity pulls pockets of its dark matter and other constituents together, and the energy of their collapse and the resulting nucleosynthesis later work to fling them apart once again.

This all fell under the arrow of time, yet would it not recognize, that such exchanges between the cycles of energy and matter to take place in that process? That such exchanges would define the natures of galaxies in there beginnings and ends, as a geometrical consistancies born out of the beginnings of this universe? How so? Could such links be made to indicate, that this universe so unique, as to arise from the first inceptions as phase transitions? Some first principle?

Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century (2003)
Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA)

Two essential conceptual features of the Standard Model theory have fundamentally transformed the understanding of nature. Already in QED the idea arose that empty space may not be as simple a concept as it had seemed. The Standard Model weak interaction theory takes this idea a step further. In formulating that theory, it became evident that the equations did

Grue and Bleen

Brian Greene:

In the late 1960s a young Italian physicist, named Gabriele Veneziano, was searching for a set of equations that would explain the strong nuclear force, the extremely powerful glue that holds the nucleus of every atom together binding protons to neutrons. As the story goes, he happened on a dusty book on the history of mathematics, and in it he found a 200-year old equation, first written down by a Swiss mathematician, Leonhard Euler. Veneziano was amazed to discover that Euler's equations, long thought to be nothing more than a mathematical curiosity, seemed to describe the strong force.

He quickly published a paper and was famous ever after for this "accidental" discovery.

If one did not seek to find a "harmonial balance" where is this, then what potential could have ever been derived from such situations about the possibilties of a negative expression geometriclaly enhanced?

Because the negative attributes have not added up to much in production of anti matter, have we assigned a conclusion to the world of geometerical propensities to not encourge such things a topological maps?

The puzzle to the right(above) was invented by Sam Loyd. The object of the puzzle is to re-arrange the tiles so that they are in numerical order.

The puzzle forms a model of how the positron moves in Dirac's theory. The numbered tiles represent the negative-energy electrons. The hole is the positron. When a negative-energy electron falls into the hole, the hole appears to have moved to another position.

While it would not have seemed likely, such redrawings of the pictures of Albrecht Dürer, this individual might not have caught my attention. I seen the revision of the painting redone, and what was caught in it. You had to really look, to get this sense.

Paul Dirac and Geometrical Thinking?

Into the Antiworld was originally staged at CERN inside the underground cavern that houses the Delphi experiment, in which collisions between electrons and their antiparticles - positrons - are studied. That setting must have been awe-inspiring, particularly as the show closed. The audience would have been whisked from the wonder and novelty of Dirac's theory over 70 years ago to the sophisticated particle physics experiments of today that the discovery inspired. At CERN, the curtain behind the stage ripped apart to reveal the Delphi detector the performance ended - but the gigantic photograph of the Delphi experiment that concluded the show at the Bloomsbury worked surprisingly well.

Oh what fanfare and dance is given these genius's that we find the story ends with where the future begins.

The Quantum Theory of the Electron



Paul Dirac

When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.

Can one distinguish something that is of nature as the basis of reality, and see this before it is algebraically written? Jacques mention where the intuitive lines ends and where the math begins.

So from this statement then, it would have been impossible for Dirac to know what the matrices would look before it was algebraically written?

If there is "no physics" and we are defining things from the horizon or boundary, then what geometry wil be revealing of this nature? Can it be concieved as it was by Dirac?

I was thinking of Lenny Susskinds picture of the rubber band in his mind after working hard to mathematically understand. Did comprehension come by way of his mathe equations or by geometriclaly viewing?

THE LANDSCAPE [12.4.03]
A Talk with Leonard Susskind

Einstein said he wanted to know what was on God's mind when he made the world. I don't think he was a religious man, but I know what he means.

Albrecht Dürer and The Magic Square



So the complexity of geometrical form would have been of value if we had seen the way that it might have taken that vision into the geometrical formations of spin orientated understandings? Isomorphic relations of the orbitals relations in cosmological events?

Explanation on the Landscape

Photograph by Clifford Johnson

While on Cosmic Invariance, Clifford brings a much needed attempt at explanation on how we view the landscape. I'll have to spend sometime going over this becuase it is a critical position and difference between two facets of thinking within the scientific community. Susskind and Lee Smolin have lead this discussion repeatedly before, and I find this continued effort, a nice way to continue to peer into.

Some response helps too, and indicates our attention to the reasons why such positions are adopted. I find this very important in understanding why these respective positions, are taken and what possibly might issue from the stated position.

Lee Smolin on Aug 15th, 2005 at 9:01 am :

Method A: ASSUME 1) that there is a real non-perturbative theory behind all the approximate calculations and 2) that it is relevant for nature. Then interpret various results, having to do with dualities, the landscape etc given these assumptions.

Method B: Look for evidence that the two assumptions of method A are true.

One evaluates results very differently, depending on whether one uses method A or method B. There is nothing wrong with using Method A from time to time, so long as the assumptions are made explicit, and the risks that are thereby taken on explicitly acknowledged. One can learn things that will turn out be true about the theory, if 1) is true, or about nature, if 2) is true. But one cannot do science only or even mostly by Method A, no matter how promising an idea may seem. What I find disturbing in your essay, and in many conversations with string theorists is that they reason by Method A but they do not state explicitly their assumptions. This puts me often in the uncomfortable situation, when discussing with a string theorist, of having to add, “but there is one more possibility, the theory might be wrong.”

So Jacque Distler adds his views and I heard he walked out on the conference? So am I to take it that this very topic tries his impatience, that he might have seen bias raise it's ugly head, or that holding a position like Peter Woit's put them the odd man out? I think Lee is doing a fine Job of trying to keep cohesion amongst the scientists that we do not have to worry, about such antics, as they eventually come around to accept the debate?:)

Jacques Distler on Aug 15th, 2005 at 10:52 am

Lee was, most recently, at Strings 2005, and he does hang out with his stringy colleagues at Perimeter.

I don’t know whether that counts for you, but it does for me.

The Layman's view

As stated before in how Clifford presents his perspective I immediately noticed a corresponding image in my mind in terms of hypherysics.



Now you have to forgive my laymen perspective because when they start talking about the landscape, I tend to see this completed image in my mind, much as I have relayed it here(Are Scientists Currently Censoring Debate on Global Warming). Although it seeks to detail the environment as a relative view on such perspective as landscape, I thought I would see how Cliiford's view and the resulting talks might have been understood from my own perspective.

Unfortunately I do not have the guidance other then what I can intuitive garner in my continue development, so I hope I do other justice and do not degrade this topic in any way.

The ground state of a three-dimensional box of dimension L can be obtained by setting n=1 for all three dimensions, giving an energy three times the ground state energy of the one-dimensional box. The ground state for the three-dimensional box would be

So when one looks at these images of the landscape what is being said here, I tried to garner a overall perspective as I did in the "censoring debate on Global warming".



I give a direct link to the picture that had been presented early on in my research, because I tended to see this split very early on as a positional one worth taking note. But somewhere along the line my thinking changed as I saw the vast differences and capabilities of the bulk possibilities in terms of graviton scattering and condensing feature.

So transferring this thinking to global differences help me to continue to see how Clifford or string theory approach to landscape development might be seen. I rest easy that there are those better qualified, but this has not limited what I have now been able to see. As others will see in the landscape interpretation.

STRINGS '05 PUBLIC LECTURES

Peter Woit:

Dijkgraaf’s talk was completely standard string evangelism, and except for a couple slides mentioning D-branes and black holes, could easily have been given, completely unchanged, twenty years ago.

Sometimes if you do not do this assessment for the general public, and make correct the way in which a Peter Woit, Robbert Dijkgraaf or even a Lubos Motl might have views on things, then to introduce on religious grounds the ownership of perspective, one might move to defend themself as being free of "faith based organizations?" One would have been classically stereotyped, because of the position they hold? You'd all be backing away from each other?

But that's not the point I think. It's sort of like Lee Smolin synopsis, on the way "Three Roads," now leads to where one had moved since then. You see, one has to do this checking all the time, just so that the position held in context is necessary for further developmental strategies to future perspective. This is what Lee Smolin does that I like.

The harmony that is required might be okay to diverge into positions distinctive, but the larger populace would, and might see such dialogue as discerinig of the struggle that lays before all.

Such talks would be signatory of such synoptic ends, that to move forward, new harmonicial standards might be now further discussed, as they were in Solvay with friction?:)


Cosmic Landscape:
String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design


No wonder Susskind, moved to consider himself free of some intelligent design model that might have been imposed by the sean's carroll and others, who would seek to tie an aspect of theoretcial developement to some "faith based idealization of research" and developement. I have listen to it long and hard about the way in which there is some master plan to have some movement take over the common sense of the scientific trades?

So you decide and listen reader. For you, it may be something new. I can assure you you will not be taken over by some unseen force, where an exorcism is needed to bring you back to common sense.



Strings, Black Holes, and the End of Space and Time
Robbert Dijkgraaf (Amsterdam)
Strings05 Public Lecture

The Fifth Dimension, is the Spacetime Fabric

Perhaps Quantum Gravity can be Handled by thoroughly reconsidering Quantum Mechanics itself? by Gerard t' Hooft

I was attracted to Nigel Cook's statement on Peter Woits blog entitled, "Panel Discussion Video" by the quote of his taken here below. What immediately struck my mind, was the Bekenstein Bound and how "temperature" would have been seen from that perspective.

Bekenstein Bound:

Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case.

Lee Smolin post given at Peter Woit's site was a ressurrection of "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity", and I like the fact that he wants cohesion amongst physicists and theoriticians alike. But if stauchly held to any position, then you have divisive comment about the ways in which to approach things. It can't be helped. But asking for more clarity this might be a good thing, and a approach by Lubos to qualify the string theorist position.

Lubos Motl:

The holographic conjecture, based on the Bekenstein's bounds and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole,has been first proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and discussed in more detail by Lenny Susskind:

But before consider Nigel's comment, I wanted to quote something from Lee Smolin.

Consider any physical system, made of anything at all- let us call it, The Thing. We require only that The Thing can be enclosed within a finite boundary, which we shall call the Screen(Figure39). We would like to know as much as possible about The Thing. But we cannot touch it directly-we are restrictied to making measurements of it on The Screen. We may send any kind of radiation we like through The Screen, and record what ever changes result The Screen. The Bekenstein bound says that there is a general limit to how many yes/no questions we can answer about The Thing by making observations through The Screen that surrounds it. The number must be less then one quarter the area of The Screen, in Planck units. What if we ask more questions? The principle tells us that either of two things must happen. Either the area of the screen will increase, as a result of doing an experiment that ask questions beyond the limit; or the experiments we do that go beyond the limit will erase or invalidate, the answers to some of the previous questions. At no time can we know more about The thing than the limit, imposed by the area of the Screen.

Page 171 and 172 0f, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin

Nigel Cook:

'Caloric’, fluid heat theory, eventually gave way to two separate mechanisms, kinetic theory and radiation. This was after Prevost in 1792 suggested constant temperature is a dynamic system, with emission in equilibrium with the reception of energy.

Yet I understand this call for bringing a string theorist into the fold of Lee's, but I would remind him, that such cosmological approaches are well on their way with the course ISCAP set for themselves and how comsological realization, are still important features that string theory would like to get a hold of.



Juan Maldacena:

The strings move in a five-dimensional curved space-time with a boundary. The boundary corresponds to the usual four dimensions, and the fifth dimension describes the motion away from this boundary into the interior of the curved space-time. In this five-dimensional space-time, there is a strong gravitational field pulling objects away from the boundary, and as a result time flows more slowly far away from the boundary than close to it. This also implies that an object that has a fixed proper size in the interior can appear to have a different size when viewed from the boundary (Fig. 1). Strings existing in the five-dimensional space-time can even look point-like when they are close to the boundary. Polchinski and Strassler1 show that when an energetic four-dimensional particle (such as an electron) is scattered from these strings (describing protons), the main contribution comes from a string that is close to the boundary and it is therefore seen as a point-like object. So a string-like interpretation of a proton is not at odds with the observation that there are point-like objects inside it.

Lee Smolin's Case for Background Independence

While we were privy to the debate between Susskind and Smolin in a previous post, the origins and definitions have been drawn from the deeper requirements of an ideology.

Where do these begin, and we find the inner compulsion of a scientist to find the means and defintions to extend the basis of our perceptions on a basis that both agree.

Lubos reaffirms this many times, and is in concert, as many in string theory continue to hold to what this desire should be.

Lubos saids:

Some of Lee's points can be agreed with, for example:

It is desirable to find a background independent formulation of string/M-theory

Such a formulation would likely to answer the questions whether the landscape approach to string/M-theory is correct; why it's not; what it should be replaced with.

This post represents a becoming. From those deeper levels, such a stage must be set?

Good for Lee Smolin, and the work he has been doing for laying a foundation, that all see, must reside to an synoptic closure, before such progressions become. If it got Lee smolin and others thinking, then, it served it's purpose, and those who say, a waste of time, would have undertsood then, Lee Smolin would not be where he is today on the pdf file here written.

So has Lubos has then directed our perspective in relation to how Lee Smolin sees the issues, and we have found the direct relationship and difference between how M Theory apporaches and How LQG does.

Lubos Motl saids:

An attempt to revive Mach's principle means to argue that the gravitational waves do not exist. It is a struggle to return us not only before General Relativity; it is a program to return the humankind to the pre-Newtonian era and the dark Middle Ages. Some people may be permanently impressed by Mach's principle and some people may find it shallow after a closer scrutiny. These two groups may be composed of equally nice people. But the difference is that the critics of Mach's principle have a good physical intuition; its advocates are philosophers who are unable to think analytically and quantitatively and they prefer to insist on prejudices that can be shown flawed by a five-minute-long quantitative argument.

There are catelysts all around, that ask for this deeper resolve to come forth. Asking for greater potentials in our visionistic qualities, to understand, that we can see this world very much differently? What pathway had been established then that Lee Smoln would attack this from another perspective held within the ideas of Special Relativity, that holds the idealization before the roads to gravitational understanding had been theoretically proven by Einstein.

Lubos Said:>

OK, let me start with the questions about relationism and Mach's principle. I highly recommend you the second popular book by Brian Greene, "The Fabric of the Cosmos", where the relative vs. absolute debate is covered in the first chapters. And the presentation is very nice.

How often the debate on such levels of what seems has been lacking in string/M theory that such voices extolled would relinquish it to paths unexperimentally challenged? They would have missed the opportunity ofsuch a debate brought forth from the Dialogos of Eide.

It is a strong statement which arises from the Platonic school, that such a discussion would reveal, that what is in the Heaven of ideas, could descend to minds and those who ask, those who embroil themselves, to questions of what it is, that makes the ideas of reality, a part of the natural world.

Lee Smolin:

The aim of this paper is to explain carefully the arguments behind the assertion that the correct quantum theory of gravity must be background independent. We begin by recounting how the debate over whether quantum gravity must be background independent is a continuation of a long-standing argument in the history of physics and philosophy over whether space and time are relational or absolute. This leads to a careful statement of what physicists mean when we speak of background independence. Given this we can characterize the precise sense in which general relativity is a background independent theory. The leading background independent approaches to quantum gravity are then discussed, including causal set models, loop quantum gravity and dynamical triangulations and their main achievements are summarized along with the problems that remain open. Some first attempts to cast string/M theory into a background independent formulation are also mentioned.

The relational/absolute debate has implications also for other issues such as unification and how the parameters of the standard models of physics and cosmology are to be explained. The recent issues concerning the string theory landscape are reviewed and it is argued that they can only be resolved within the context of a background independent formulation. Finally, we review some recent proposals to make quantum theory more relational.

The Black Hole Final State

Mathematics is not the rigid and rigidity-producing schema that the layman thinks it is; rather, in it we find ourselves at that meeting point of constraint and freedom that is the very essence of human nature.

- Hermann Weyl

It was a nice vacation and now being back, I see Lubos is clarifying some issues here for us to consider.

"Lubos Motl:

However, Hawking's semiclassical calculation leads to an exactly (piecewise) thermal final state. Such a mixed state in the far future violates unitarity - pure states cannot evolve into mixed states unitarily - and it destroys the initial information about the collapsed objects which is why we call it "information loss puzzle". A tension with quantum mechanics emerges.

The Gepner point demonstrates greater potential recognition of the brane world understandings and two dimensional views from a five dimenisonal developmentment for those who do not like such abstract adventures P.P. Cook helps to enlighten us on this subject.

So have I done justice to the developing perspective, that we are now ready to take what what demonstrated, and move it to a greater format for those who will lead us laymen through the world of the abstract mathematics? To help us enjoy what was mathematically unenduring for those not gifted to see the B field manifestaion, is a continuance of what we like to engage at higher dimensional perspectives. And really, it is all about imagery is it not?




Lee Smolin:

It was worry about the possibility that string theory would lead to the present situation, which Susskind has so ably described in his recent papers, that led me to invent the Cosmological Natural Selection [CNS] idea and to write my first book. My motive, then as now, is to prevent a split in the community of theoretical physicists in which different groups of smart people believe different things, with no recourse to come to consensus by rational argument from the evidence.

You must understand the state of thinking and dualistic nature that continues to force minds to engage the process, and this quest for wholeness, between two thoughts that are part and parcel of the same thing? Relativity and Quantum Nature. The larger circle is RElativity, and the smaller, the quantum nature. LQG and STring work from their respective positions.

So do we select the basis for this model, and find that LQG and Strings are formulated on principals embedded in association with the blackhole topic? This throws light back again on a topic that has been shared more then once by such trends in thinking as Lubos exemplfies for us, and again directs our thoughts towards Lenny Susskind and Lee Smolin, in contrast to each other.

I see people are teaming up appropriately, such as Cosmic Variance, and this of course has already been lead by Lubos and Peter's contrast to each other. Whether some like to speculate on co-joining for such comparsions on the validity of strings, versus no strings approach, as resolutions, had already been developed while we see this new means to develope, much as Brain Greene and others in ISCAP foundations principals.

So of course onward and forward, we push the topic and the expertise for the layperson like me, that we see and continue to find, developmental processes appropriately gathering for future thoughts shared? Again too, we see Quantum Diaries has indeed served it's purpose more then once in what John Ellis and other's have shared, have open the doorway to how we see such developmental attitudes expanding in contrast to the larger circle of possibilties.

See John's latest entree and for me, hitting big objects and particle collisions still open the mind for the natural cosmic interactive processes ongoing in nature around us.

Anyway back to the title of this post. I have some thinking here to do.

Gary T. Horowitz1 and Juan Maldacena,2

The purpose of this note is to provide a possible answer to this question. Rather than the radical modification of quantum mechanics required for pure states to evolve into mixed states, we adopt a more mild modification. We propose that at the black hole singularity one needs to impose a unique final state boundary condition. More precisely, we have a unique final wavefunction for the interior of the black hole. Modifications of quantum mechanics where one imposes final state boundary conditions were considered in [6,7,8,9]. Here we are putting a final state boundary condition on part of the system, the interior of the black hole. This final boundary condition makes sure that no information is “absorbed” by the singularity.

If indeed we started to think about the point on the brane then what kind of simplification can be drawn so that those less enclined to such abstract thinking could find a greater potential to that dimensionnal thinking?

(a) Compactifying a 3-D universe with two space dimensions and one time dimension. This is a simplification of the 5-D space­time considered by Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein. (b) The Lorentz symmetry of the large dimension is broken by the compactification and all that remains is 2-D space plus the U(1) symmetry represented by the arrow. (c) On large scales we see only a 2-D universe (one space plus one time dimension) with the "internal" U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism.

Here such thoughts begin to form around the idealization of computer graphics imagery developed and leading in this idealization of this two dimensional screen. We see where the likes of Thomas Banchoff demonstrate where such new roads to the developing insight ot this imagery can be seen in Smolins views of the Bekenstein Bound, that we we now understand a greater potential exists in how we view the screen, and what is being described in the blackhole horizon?



Let me show this image again, for greater clarity of what I mean.

Why No New Einstein

To them, I said,
the truth would be literally nothing
but the shadows of the images..

-Plato, The Republic (Book VII)

The inference of dimensional attributes scares many good minds away from the matters at hand?:)

Lubos Motl:

The only truly open questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics are those that also require us to understand dynamics of quantum gravity properly.

I think Gerard t' Hooft would like to change the way we see quantum mechanics? Non!

The Holographical Principle

I must add a very important note. It is still hard for me to believe that Lee Smolin wrote something that could imply that *he* was the author of the conjecture. Lee Smolin has nothing to do with the discovery of the holographic principle and I hope that he always refers to the real authors properly-and it was just you who did not read carefully enough. The holographic conjecture, based on the Bekenstein's bounds and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole,has been first proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and discussed in more detail by Lenny Susskind:

But my point is, that if we are lead to the understanding of gravity as GR does, then why would we not entertain the idea, that there are forces of gravity stronger, and areas, that are weaker?

Of course, to Plato this story was just meant to symbolize mankind's struggle to reach enlightenment and understanding through reasoning and open-mindedness. We are all initially prisoners and the tangible world is our cave. Just as some prisoners may escape out into the sun, so may some people amass knowledge and ascend into the light of true reality.

What is equally interesting is the literal interpretation of Plato's tale: The idea that reality could be represented completely as `shadows' on the walls

How will the photon respond in such shadows?

Why would we not extend this vision from GR understanding well, that such resistance by Einstein, required deeper thinkers to respond to the theory that they had put forth in Solvay?


by Jacob D. Bekenstein
TWO UNIVERSES of different dimension and obeying disparate physical laws are rendered completely equivalent by the holographic principle. Theorists have demonstrated this principle mathematically for a specific type of five-dimensional spacetime ("anti–de Sitter") and its four-dimensional boundary. In effect, the 5-D universe is recorded like a hologram on the 4-D surface at its periphery. Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case. Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle.

It is thus, it challenged the views, of even the most determined thinkers, professional or not, once the paradox of thought experiment was introduced? Set the targets for research and developement and the initiatives of the younger generation to excell where the limtations had been drawn.

So in the one sense such a strong stance by Einstein was the incentive for a generation to prove its ability and prowness to overcome the limitations set by Einstein.

Do I believe he understood this?

Most assuredly so, for such conversation and thought experiments would have never been inrtroduced in such a forum, as to the require greater participation of thinkers to succeed. Some even to their death, still felt Eisntein's challenge, and we have a wonderful area of developement that has moved our visions to wonderful interactive feature of "gluonic perceptions."

I believe also that Lee Smolin, from his current work, is to instill and gather strong leaders to focus in a direction that Lubos has spotted, as a signature of Lee Smolin ways. To discern the quality and direction, before gravitonic abilities are ever encountered.

So yes such attempts are interesting, in that we see Glast detrmination as viable pathways to solving the understanding of the world around us and even going to great lengths, to move these consderation down to the level we might seee in such energetic features where such gravities might have exemplied a measured interactive feature like those of the Calorimetric design.

So the challenge was given to both sides of the camps to give us a way inwhich to see how such a challenge could measure progress? Is it not here, that such a stance holds each other accountable?

Lee Smolins ways expermentally are driven, even as the world of Strings are driven to bring perspective to the engagement, of the "way in which we see?" Careful challeneges to the interpretation, that such ideas are held within the scope of the Calorimentric view and all the while, the challenge has been a puzzle to that "missing energy" going someplace?

Where is this if such a boundary has been understood and the puzzle offered for introspection, that each other wants the other to understand it's limitations?

So now we have the place in which such a challenge should make itself known and we have the likes of Cern's delivery on microstate blackhole production, to have found it's associative feature in how we see interactive features can happen all around us without cern? >John Ellis is careful to draw these distinctions for us.

Do we have Proof of this Missing Energy? If the answer is yes, then the issue has not been resolved?

Blaise Pascal

Blaise Pascal (June 19, 1623 – August 19, 1662)

Born in Clermont-Ferrand (France), the young Pascal was introduced to mathematics and physics by his father. So precocious was his talent in these disciplines that he published his innovative Essai pour les coniques [Essay on conics] in 1632, at only sixteen. In 1631, he moved to Paris, where he frequented the intellectual circle of Marin Mersenne (1588-1648)—a forum for the discussion of the most topical scientific and philosophical questions. In 1644, he became interested in the technological aspects of scientific research, devising a calculating machine that could perform additions and subtractions. In 1646, he conducted path-breaking research on the vacuum and fluid dynamics. He devoted two major works to fluids—Équilibre des liqueurs [Equilibrium of liquids] and De la pesanteur de la masse d'air [On the weight of the mass of air]—written in 1651-1654, but not published until 1663. In 1653-1654, he composed some brief but seminal papers on combinatory calculus, infinitesimal calculus, and probability. Pascal repeated Evangelista Torricelli's experiment, using various liquids and containers of different shapes and sizes. This research, in addition to the publication of Expériences nouvelles touchant le vide [New experiments on the vacuum], culminated in the famous experiment performed in 1648 on the Puy-de-Dôme, in which he demonstrated that atmospheric pressure lessens with an increase in altitude.

In parallel with his scientific pursuits, Pascal displayed a deep and abiding concern with religious and moral issues. In his youth, he espoused Jansenism and began to frequent the Port-Royal group. These contacts form the background to the Lettres provinciales (1656-1657) and the Pensées (published posthumously in 1670).

I had to lay this out before I continued to speak to the world Lubos motl directs us too. In a way, these mathematical pursuance and comprehensions, are revealing, when they speak to the greater probability of discovering the root systems mathematically as well as philosophically. Cases in point, about compaction scenarios are self explanatory when it comes to energy determination and particle reductionism . This relationship to idealization of supergravity, points thinking to a vast overall comprehension suited to the culminations of a model employed such as string theory?

But back to the point of focus here.

Earlier derivation of Pascal's thinking, "are roads that even he was lead too," that we have this fine way in which to speak about the root of mathematical initiative, and these roots leading to mathematical forays into the natural world.


Diagram 6. Khu Shijiei triangle, depth 8, 1303.

The so called 'Pascal' triangle was known in China as early as 1261. In '1261 the triangle appears to a depth of six in Yang Hui and to a depth of eight in Zhu Shijiei (as in diagram 6) in 1303. Yang Hui attributes the triangle to Jia Xian, who lived in the eleventh century' (Stillwell, 1989, p136). They used it as we do, as a means of generating the binomial coefficients.

It wasn't until the eleventh century that a method for solving quadratic and cubic equations was recorded, although they seemed to have existed since the first millennium. At this time Jia Xian 'generalised the square and cube root procedures to higher roots by using the array of numbers known today as the Pascal triangle and also extended and improved the method into one useable for solving polynomial equations of any degree' (Katz, 1993, p191.)

See I am somewhat starting with a disadvantage because buried in my head is the reasons for describing math more then it's intuitionist valuation in computer generated idealizations. It all of a sudden brings into perspective a deeper sense of the possibilities and probabilities?

Here I am quickly reminded of Gerard t'hooft, and the thinking, about reductionistic views of information in computerized versions. Philosophically how can we have reduced information to such sizes and find the world a much more complex place. Would we not realize that such intuitionist attempts too have to undergo revisions as well?

A Short History of Probability

"A gambler's dispute in 1654 led to the creation of a mathematical theory of probability by two famous French mathematicians, Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat. Antoine Gombaud, Chevalier de Méré, a French nobleman with an interest in gaming and gambling questions, called Pascal's attention to an apparent contradiction concerning a popular dice game. The game consisted in throwing a pair of dice 24 times; the problem was to decide whether or not to bet even money on the occurrence of at least one "double six" during the 24 throws. A seemingly well-established gambling rule led de Méré to believe that betting on a double six in 24 throws would be profitable, but his own calculations indicated just the opposite.

Shall we quickly advantage to a age of reason where understand well the beginnings of mathematical systems and lead into Boltzman? But before I do that, I wanted to drawn attention to the deeper significance of this model appreciation.

Discovering Patterns



While we get some understanding here of what Pascal's triangle really is you learn to sense the idea of what culd have ever amounted to expressionand this beginning? Did nature tell us it will be this way, or some other form of expression?

So overall the probability of expressionism has devloped the cncptual basis as arriving from soem place and not nothing. True enough, what is this basis of existance that we would have a philosphical war between the background versus non background to end up in stauch positional attitudes about how one should approach science here?

So to me, I looked for analogies again to help me understand this idea of what could have ever arisen out of string theory that conceptually mad esense . Had a way in which to move forward, with predictable features? Is their sucha things dealing with the amount of information that we have in reductionsitic views. These views had to come to a end, and I will deal with this later.

Of course now such idealization dealng with probabilties off course, forces me to contend with what has always existed and helps deal with this cyclcial nature. You have to assume soemthing first. That will be the start of the next post.

But back to finishing this notion of probability and how the natural order of the universe would have said folow this way young flower, that we coud seen expansionism will not only be detailled in the small things, but will be the universe, in it's expression as well?


The Pinball Game

The result is that the pinball follows a random path, deflecting off one pin in each of the four rows of pins, and ending up in one of the cups at the bottom. The various possible paths are shown by the gray lines and one particular path is shown by the red line. We will describe this path using the notation "LRLL" meaning "deflection to the left around the first pin, then deflection right around the pin in the second row, then deflection left around the third and fourth pins".

So what has happened here to force us to contend with certain issues that the root numbers of all things could have manifested, and said, "nature shall be this way?"


Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906)

In 1877 Boltzmann used statistical ideas to gain valuable insight into the meaning of entropy. He realized that entropy could be thought of as a measure of disorder, and that the second law of thermodynamics expressed the fact that disorder tends to increase. You have probably noticed this tendency in everyday life! However, you might also think that you have the power to step in, rearrange things a bit, and restore order. For example, you might decide to tidy up your wardrobe. Would this lead to a decrease in disorder, and hence a decrease in entropy? Actually, it would not. This is because there are inevitable side-effects: whilst sorting out your clothes, you will be breathing, metabolizing and warming your surroundings. When everything has been taken into account, the total disorder (as measured by the entropy) will have increased, in spite of the admirable state of order in your wardrobe. The second law of thermodynamics is relentless. The total entropy and the total disorder are overwhelmingly unlikely to decrease

So what has happened that we see the furthest reaches of our universe? Such motivation having been initiated, had been by some motivator. Shall you call it intelligent design(God) when it is very natural process that had escaped our reasoning minds?

So having reached it's limitation(boundry) this curvature of the universe, has now said, "such disorder having reached it's reductionistic views has now found it's way back to the beginning of this universe's expression? It's cyclical nature?

This runs "contray to the arrow of time," in that these holes, have somehow fabricated form in another mode of thought that represents dimensional values? This basis from which to draw from, had to have energy valuations missing fromthe original expression? It had to have gone some place. Where is that?

But I have digressed greatly, to have missed the point of Robert Lauglin's principals, "of building blocks or drunk sergeant majors", and what had been derived from the energy in it's beginning? To say the complexity of those things around us had to returned our thinking back to some concept that was palitable.

Why the graduation to ISCAP, and Lenny's new book, is the right thing to do

(LEONARD SUSSKIND:) What I mostly think about is how the world got to be the way it is. There are a lot of puzzles in physics. Some of them are very, very deep, some of them are very, very strange, and I want to understand them. I want to understand what makes the world tick. Einstein said he wanted to know what was on God's mind when he made the world. I don't think he was a religious man, but I know what he means.

The thing right now that I want to understand is why the universe was made in such a way as to be just right for people to live in it. This is a very strange story. The question is why certain quantities that go into our physical laws of nature are exactly what they are, and if this is just an accident. Is it an accident that they are finely tuned, precisely, sometimes on a knife's edge, just so that the world could accommodate us?

The case for discrete energy levels of a black hole

Jacob Bekenstein

Download for Lecture

The Bekenstein Bound, Topological Quantum Field Theory and Pluralistic Quantum Field Theory

An approach to quantum gravity and cosmology is proposed based on a synthesis of four elements: 1) the Bekenstein bound and the related holographic hypothesis of 't Hooft and Susskind, 2) topological quantum field theory, 3) a new approach to the interpretational issues of quantum cosmology and 4) the loop representation formulation of non-perturbative quantum gravity. A set of postulates are described, which define a (\it pluralistic quantum cosmological theory.) These incorporates a statistical and relational approach to the interpretation problem, following proposals of Crane and Rovelli, in which there is a Hilbert space associated to each timelike boundary, dividing the universe into two parts. A quantum state of the universe is an assignment of a statistical state into each of these Hilbert spaces, subject to certain conditions of consistency which come from an analysis of the measurement problem. A proposal for a concrete realization of these postulates is described, which is based on certain results in the loop representation and topological quantum field theory, and in particular on the fact that spin networks and punctured surfaces appear in both contexts. The Capovilla-Dell-Jacobson solution of the constraints of quantum gravity are expressed quantum mechanically in the language of Chern-Simons theory, in a way that leads also to the satisfaction of the Bekenstein bound.

The Unity of Mathematics

Alain Connes

Where a dictionary proceeds in a circular manner, defning a word by reference to another, the basic concepts of mathematics are infinitely closer to an indecomposable element", a kind of elementary particle" of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their defnition.

I think what intrigues me most, is that a world can be fabricated mathematically that is carefully constructed using models of math, to get to a desired visionary culmination? One had to have some culminative effect, from such model thinking, that a vision beocmes clear. In this sense I related Lenny Susskind here, for his developement and contributions to string theory.

Now having spent time delving into parts of this world, the "tidbits" help me to see that such alignmenets of the world of physics have correlations in mathematical design. This has to have it basis set, "in the Rossetta stone you might say," about how we percieve the deveopement of those physics. The math must contrast the physics?

So to set things straight here, in case I gave the wrong link, I thought I should attribute proper link to words in case this mistake was made.



So too, information in blogs can be readily adapted too, where previous articles might have made some feel that the article not worth maintaining in their blog? That it might have been removed? I was thinking of the B-field topic that Lubos had written briefly on, that when I went to look for relevant information pertaining to this current entry, it was no where to be seen.

A VIEW OF MATHEMATICS by Alain CONNES
Most mathematicians adopt a pragmatic attitude and see themselves as the explorers of this mathematical world" whose existence they don't have any wish to question, and whose structure they uncover by a mixture of intuition, not so foreign from poetical desire", and of a great deal of rationality requiring intense periods of concentration.

Each generation builds a mental picture" of their own understanding of this world and constructs more and more penetrating mental tools to explore previously hidden aspects of that reality.

Now many would have to forgive my adventurous heart. I was somehow transported in my thoughts and converted? I don't know when, that such models of the mathematical structure had easily become discernable for me(it's result)? Not it's elemental structure(although I have seen areas of string theory design developed) from basic principals. It had it's culminative effect.

Is my vision always right? Of course not. But I see where such discriptions are necessary. Solid, and in stone, so that such progression can be made. I respect this, and I respect the physics, and it's culminative approach in theoretical developement.

Nature's Greastest Puzzle



Alain Connes refers to "poetic design," much like I see beats to music:?), and artistic adventure, as the play ground of imagination. We hope such songs shared, lyrics or otherwise, will reveal what the most secluded and private individuals might have found in their own world. To seek out, good artistic drawers like Escher? Penrose, needed his help, and the ideas brought forth, interesting results.

Now there is a reason for this post besides setting the record straight. It came up a long time ago with the question of whether mathematics was natural or created.

This may seem simplistic thought to some, but to me, it forced me to consider whether mathematics and physics were directed connected to each other.:) Now as I have said it is not easy for me to follow the matheics of such abtract individuals, but once I catch sight of the world that they allude too, it is somehow easy for me to see the structure of the bubble, or a representative drawing correlated in nodes, and features of a world that is constained in the physics.

This is why I refer back to Lubos and his B-field missing post, or I cannot simply find it. I refer to it, because I made links to mathematical design, that correlated dynkin diagram as shown above, and connects to other blog. Now it was important for me to see this correlation in the archetecture of the picture I linked to its prospective author, in relation to the dynkin diagram. Not the E11 asscoiation, but with that I had linked in image in comments to the B-field post.

My whole blog is based on visionary developement, theoretically, as well as nurturing physics association as best as I can, to show that the envelope is being pushed theoretically.



Interpretations of the magnetic field, in all its desgin is easily comprehensible once we align our thinking to hard fact and design reprsentation. Magnetic field lines on paper, is a child's toy, but easily experimetally done. Much more abstract then, that we see the field created, it's north and south, and a channel through which expression can flow?



Now even this is contained, and a Gausssian representation, highly abtract, relates curvature in away that we would understand this force that nature has created for us.

You must remember I do not have the luxury or life's abilty to move through the higher avenues that scholastic carreers have venture forth in. To preview this branch or that branch in physics, so I am bombarded with information from all angles:?)

I like to wrap the gravitational field, much like we wrap the magnetic field. It's just the way I see, and in it's greater design, that vast gravitational field that is generate through our cosmos? Bubbles become very interesting whenyou wrap somehing and the inside is moving with the outside, and in the vast vacuum of space this is stretching the very fabric itself?

I won't make the mistake of calling it the aether, yet continuity of expression seen in this abstract mode, does not see "tears" and such, so it is allocated to topological relevances. Holes, that look like swiss cheese in the cosmos? Yet I know well the events, that materialize in comsological expression, I wanted to push beyond these material things, to see the greater vision that has been moved by mathematcians.

You can say the rogue man here who speaks, is a wolf cub. Has been raised in a foreign world, without the benefits of scholastic teachers to guide me. So I had to look for them who held sacred some of the vision that I see when this math leads to a comprehensive view.

Reimann lead Einstein, and it was fortunate that Grossman was able to spot Einsteins deficiences. Help him move geoemtical principal beyond the euclidean coordinated world, to one manifested in spacetime, and a new dynamcial feature called gravity. It was beyond billiards and the sound related, and not the clasical discription that now beocmes the analogy of, that strange world we now see in gravitational thought.

Was it enough to speak about theses things and theorectically develope thoughts, to describe ways, in which such sound could ring bars, or influence the flexible arms of LIGO We measure this abstract world mathematcially created, to realize, we are now engaged in something very unique about our visions developement? Kip Thorne progeny will be the new genration that sees in way that were new to bauss and Riemann and now as we see of Einstein. This has a geometrical expression and basis to it, and it leads into projective elements topologically described.

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.


Klien's ordering of geometries were specifc here?

String theorist explores dark energy and our unique 'pocket' of the universe

Stanford physics Professor Leonard Susskind, who is currently on sabbatical and writing a popular book titled The Cosmic Landscape. (Photo courtesy of Stanford University)


Dawn Levy:The dust isn't likely to settle soon. Says Susskind: "More and more as time goes on, the opponents of the idea admit that they are simply in a state of depression and desperation. More and more people are starting to think about this possibility. But it's been a major sea change in the attitudes of theoretical physicists. Â… It means we have a mathematical framework to think about it. We have a basic set of precise concepts to think about it, and it means that in time we will know the truth."

Vision

It's no secret now, that I see where symbols are very important in the analysis of complex structures, once modeled. Might move the definition of everything we had encountered, from that model assumption. One had to know that Michio Kaku has prep the minds for this deepr understanding, and with it something very powerful abot the symbols he implores.

For the first time, physicists appreciate the power of symmetry in their equations. When a physicist talks about “beauty and elegance” in physics, what he or she often really means is that symmetry allows one to unify a large number of diverse phenomena and concepts into a remarkably compact form. The more beautiful an equation is, the more symmetry it possesses, and the more phenomena it can explain in the shortest amount of space” Pg 76 Einstein's Cosmos by Michio Kaku

In looking at what Michio Kaku presents in his books, one thing I learnt from reading was the powerful way in which such images are implored to help us see in ways that we might not have seen previous.



LEONARD SUSSKIND:

And I fiddled with it, I monkeyed with it. I sat in my attic, I think for two months on and off. But the first thing I could see in it, it was describing some kind of particles which had internal structure which could vibrate, which could do things, which wasn't just a point particle. And I began to realize that what was being described here was a string, an elastic string, like a rubber band, or like a rubber band cut in half. And this rubber band could not only stretch and contract, but wiggle. And marvel of marvels, it exactly agreed with this formula.
I was pretty sure at that time that I was the only one in the world who knew this.

In looking at Susskind, and the history of strings, flashes of insight are very important features of work, which previously and intensely, occupied a mind. Might all of a sudden reveal to it, a synthesis of all that it has worked through, in such an image, as was revealed to Susskind.

These applications are very interesting to me because on two levels, we see where constructive phases would encourage the mathematical mind to work within a environment, and then success where new work might be introduced to help explain previous mathematical processes that lack expression.

As to the historical figurations, such views are important to determining the process which evolution has embedded itself in evolutionary tactics of the brains development (systems of science)?

Are such adaptations significant in the brains developmental encasement, to see where evolution has evolved its capacity to think differently?

Banchoff's fifth dimensional capabilities, as they are explained in regards to computer screens, is something the brain is quite capable of handling. We just didn't know that it could visualize things this way before?



Lastly in the case of Witten, where such work intensely occupies the mind, a nice quiet walk by a stream or anything that frees it from such engagement, might find a free line and direct outward ness to expression.



That's what I call creativity. I have examples of this in terms of the effort of Cubist art and the Monte Carlo methods used to induce idealization in terms of quantum gravity. One method anyway :)


Cubist Art: Picasso's painting 'Portrait of Dora Maar'

Cubist art revolted against the restrictions that perspective imposed. Picasso's art shows a clear rejection of the perspective, with women's faces viewed simultaneously from several angles. Picasso's paintings show multiple perspectives, as though they were painted by someone from the 4th dimension, able to see all perspectives simultaneously.

P. Picasso Portrait of Ambrose Vollard (1910)
M. Duchamp Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 (1912)
J. Metzinger Le Gouter/Teatime (1911)

The appearance of figures in cubist art --- which are often viewed from several direction simultaneously --- has been linked to ideas concerning extra dimensions:

Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey

A look at the higher dimensionsBy Michio Kaku

"Why must art be clinically “realistic?” This Cubist “revolt against perspective” seized the fourth dimension because it touched the third dimension from all possible perspectives. Simply put, Cubist art embraced the fourth dimension. Picasso's paintings are a splendid example, showing a clear rejection of three dimensional perspective, with women's faces viewed simultaneously from several angles. Instead of a single point-of-view, Picasso's paintings show multiple perspectives, as if they were painted by a being from the fourth dimension, able to see all perspectives simultaneously. As art historian Linda Henderson has written, “the fourth dimension and non-Euclidean geometry emerge as among the most important themes unifying much of modern art and theory."