Newton's Space was the Sensorium

Sir Isaac Newton, FRS (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727) [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727] was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, and natural philosopher who is generally regarded as one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history. See here for further information.

While reading the responses to Aaron on the Cosmic Variance section, Lee Smolin made a comment there in his writing which triggered some recognition as I was doing some research on what he had proposed in previous work. So of course I am interested in how people form their ideas, so I went to have a look.

Lee Smolin:

I suspect this reflects the expectation many people have that time is not fundamental, but rather emerges only at a semiclassical approximation in quantum cosmology. If you believe this then you believe that the fundamental quantities a quantum cosmology should compute are timeless. This in turn reflects a very old and ultimately religious prejudice that deeper truths are timeless. This has been traced by scholars to the theology of Newton and contemporaries who saw space as “the sensorium” of an eternal and all seeing god. Perhaps the BB paradox is telling us it is time to give up the search for timeless probability distributions, and recognize that since Darwin the deep truths about nature cannot be divorced from time.

The alternative is to disbelieve the arguments that time is emergent-which were never very convincing- and instead formulate quantum cosmology in such a way that time is always real. I would suggest that the Boltzman Brain’s paradox is the reducto ad absurdum of the notion that time is emergent and that rather than play with little fixes to it we should try to take seriously the opposite idea: that time is real.

The key word here is "Sensorium."

The Life of the Cosmos By Lee Smolin Oxford University Press; New York, N.Y.: 1997

The critic is very harsh toward Lee Smolin, and I am very sensitive to these kinds of responses, so trust me when I tell you that these are not my views. My views are still forming.

Lee Smolin:

For Newton the universe lived in an infinite and featureless space.There was no boundary, ad no possibility of conceiving anything outside of it. This was no problem for God, as he was everywhere. For Newton, space was the "sensorium" of God-the medium of his presence in and attachment to the world. The infinity of space was then a necessary reflection of the infinite capacity of God.The Life of the Cosmos By Lee Smolin Oxford University Press; New York, N.Y.: 1997, Page 91

The term "Sensorium" is compelling for reasons that I am still not quite aware of, yet, it holds a fascination to me. It is colourful to me, yet, it had a nice ring to it as well.

Okay. :) I think it is the "relationship pointed out" and describing this relationship of Newton that is interesting. Most who have been reading my site will have some inkling of why.

It is not in what may be assumed of Newton and his religion towards the relationship to science? But some of the ways in which such "thought processes" may have been compelling. The way in which one can look at the world, gives new meaning to what was not so transparent before, now one included these aspects of the sensorium as "one."

That all of the senses had been "crossed wire to give perspective" in the way it did. How would you know this?

But lets move on with this here for a minute and I'll tell you why. But first some part of it's Definition from Wikipedia.

This interplay of various ways of conceiving the world could be compared to the experience of synesthesia, where stimulus of one sense causes a perception by another, seemingly unrelated sense, as in musicians who can taste the intervals between notes they hear (Beeli et. al., 2005), or artists who can smell colours. Many individuals who have one or more senses restricted or lost develop a sensorium with a ratio of sense which favours those they possess more fully. Frequently the blind or deaf speak of a compensating effect, whereby their touch or smell become more acute, changing the ways they perceive and reason about the world; especially telling examples are found in the cases of 'wild children,' whose early childhoods were spent in abusive, neglected or non-human environments, both intensifying and minimizing perceptual abilities (Classen 1991).

Part of the developing scientific view can come forth with new propositions if it has a foundation that is different then what was thought to be "it's basis of normalcy."

But imagine if you were a little different in your wiring that as a scientist you had difficult relating to the world, and you want to be consistent with your approach? Develope new methods, Calculus, to explain a process in nature? What may I ask will be forth coming form such a position, not to have thought, "hey this guy is nuts or just a broken flower pot?"

The track record so far seems to indicate that if such views are crossed wired in some ways, the interactive features of developing perspective will give model apprehension a new meaning that it did not have before?

Feynman in his concepts of a toy model approach? He may of seen what was of use from Dirac's geometrical thinking.

Images or Numbers By Themself

“Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the mind will never penetrate” (cited by Ivars Peterson in Science News, 5/4/2002).

I have an idea in mind here that will be slow to show because I am not sure how it is supposed to be laid out. So maybe by showing these numbers by them self? What use, if one did not, or was not able to see in another way?


Figure 22.10: Double slit diffraction


I looked at the "straight lines" of Thomas Young's trajectories of photon emission and while quite understandably shown to be of consequence in this post "Interference." I was more interested in how something could start off in one place and do this rotation of sorts, and then come back for examination again in the real world. The Spectrum

Plato:

What a novel idea to have the methods used by the predecessors like Maxwell, to have been united from Faraday's principals? To have Maxwell's equation Gaussian in interpretation of Riemann geometry, somehow, united by the geometries of Einstein and defined as gravity?

But it is also in mind "that the image" has to be put here also before the numbers can show them self. What use these numbers if I do not transcend them to what they can imply in images, to know that the thinking here has to be orientated in such a way that what was simple and straight forward, could have non-euclidean orientations about it?


Michael Faraday (September 22, 1791 – August 25, 1867) was a British scientist (a physicist and chemist) who contributed significantly to the fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry.

So one reads history in a lot of ways to learn of what has manifested into todays thinking. What lead from "Gaussian coordinates in an "non-euclidean way" to know that it had it's relation in today's physics. To have it included in how we see the consequences of GR in the world. It had been brought together for our eyes in what the photon can do in the gravitational field.

Our Evolution to Images


The Albrecht Durer's Magic Square


Ulam's Spiral


Pascal's Triangle

Evolve to What?

Who was to know what Leonard Susskind was thinking when his mathematical mind was engaged in seeing this "rubber band" had some other comparative abstraction, as something of consequence in our world. Yet, people focus on what they like to focus on, other then what "lead the mind" to think the way they do?


Poincaré Conjecture

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......

I have to rest now.

Breakthrough Propulsion Physics?

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

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

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

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

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


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

Introduction

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

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

How is a Blackhole Determined?

PLato:Remember the "closed loop process?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Mark Haskins

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

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

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

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

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

The Propulsion System?


AIRES Cosmic Ray Showers


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

Gamma Ray production in particle creation?

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

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

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


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

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


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

Tunnelling in Faster then Light

Underneath this speculation of mine is the geometrical inclination of the universe in expression. If it's "dynamical nature is revealed" what allows us to think of why this universe at this time and junction, should be flat(?) according to the time of this universe in expression?

Omega=the actual density to the critical density

If we triangulate Omega, the universe in which we are in, Omegam(mass)+ Omega(a vacuum), what position geometrically, would our universe hold from the coordinates given?

Positive energy density gives spacetime of the universe a positive curvature. A sphere? Negative curvature a region of spacetime that is negative and curved like a saddle? For time travel, and travel into the past, you need a universe that has a negative energy density.

Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?



A anti-particle can be considered as a particle moving back in time? Only massless particle can travel faster then light. Only faster then light massless particles can travel back in time? So of course, I am again thinking of the elephant process of Susskind and the closed loop process of the virtual particle/anti-particle. What comes out of it?

That's not all. The fact that space-time itself is accelerating - that is, the expansion of the universe is speeding up - also creates a horizon. Just as we could learn that an elephant lurked inside a black hole by decoding the Hawking radiation, perhaps we might learn what's beyond our cosmic horizon by decoding its emissions. How? According to Susskind, the cosmic microwave background that surrounds us might be even more important than we think. Cosmologists study this radiation because its variations tell us about the infant moments of time, but Susskind speculates that it could be a kind of Hawking radiation coming from our universe's edge. If that's the case, it might tell us something about the elephants on the other side of the universe.

So the anti-particle falls into the blackhole? How is it that I resolve this?? You can consider the anti-particle as traveling back in time. The micro perspective of the blackhole allows time travel backwards.


Getty Images

Although a 1916 paper by Ludwig Flamm from the University of Vienna [4] is sometimes cited as giving the first hint of a wormhole, "you definitely need hindsight to detect it," says Matt Visser of Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand. Einstein and Rosen were the first to take the idea seriously and to try to accomplish some physics with it, he adds. The original goal may have faded, but the Einstein-Rosen bridge still pops up occasionally as a handy solution to the pesky problem of intergalactic travel.

There are two cases in which the thoughts about faster then light particles are created and this is the part where one tries to get it right so as not to confuse themselves and others.

Wormholes?

Plato:

So "open doorways" and ideas of "tunneling" are always interesting in terms of how we might look at an area like GR in cosmology? Look for way in which such instances make them self known.

Are they applicable to the very nature of quantum perceptions that such probabilities could have emerged through them? Held to "time travel scenarios" and grabbed the history of what had already preceded us in past tense, could have been brought again forward for inspection?

Sure I am quoting myself here, just to show one of the options I am showing by example. The second of course is where I was leading too in previous posts.

So I was thinking here in context of one example in terms of the containment of the "graviton in a can" is really letting loose of the information in the collision process, as much as we like this "boundary condition" it really is not so.

Another deep quantum mystery for which physicists have no answer has to do with "tunneling" -- the bizarre ability of particles to sometimes penetrate impenetrable barriers. This effect is not only well demonstrated; it is the basis of tunnel diodes and similar devices vital to modern electronic systems.

Tunneling is based on the fact that quantum theory is statistical in nature and deals with probabilities rather than specific predictions; there is no way to know in advance when a single radioactive atom will decay, for example.

The probabilistic nature of quantum events means that if a stream of particles encounters an obstacle, most of the particles will be stopped in their tracks but a few, conveyed by probability alone, will magically appear on the other side of the barrier. The process is called "tunneling," although the word in itself explains nothing.

Chiao's group at Berkeley, Dr. Aephraim M. Steinberg at the University of Toronto and others are investigating the strange properties of tunneling, which was one of the subjects explored last month by scientists attending the Nobel Symposium on quantum physics in Sweden.

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

"This is another great mystery of quantum mechanics."

Of course I am looking for processes in physics that would actually demonstrate this principal of energy calculated at the very beginning of the collision process, now explained in the detector, minus the extra energy that had gone where?



This is the basis for the "Graviton in a can" example of what happens in the one scenario.

Plato:

A Bose-Einstein condensate (such as superfluid liquid helium) forms for reasons that only can be explained by quantum mechanics. Bose condensates form at low temperature

Plasmas and Bose condensates

So in essence the physics process that I am identifying is shown by understanding that the "graviton production" allows that energy to be transmitted outside the process of the LHC?

This is the energy that can be calculated and left over from all the energy assumed in the very beginning of this collision process. Secondly, all energy used in this process would be in association with bulk perspective.

This now takes me to the second process of "time travel" in the LHC process. The more I tried to figure this out the basis of thought here is that Cerenkov radiation in a vacuum still is slower then speed of light, yet within the medium of ice, this is a different story. So yes there are many corrections and insight here to consider again.

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).

So while sleeping last night the question arose in my mind as to the location of where the "higgs field" will be produced in the LHC experiment? Here also the the thoughts about the "cross over point" that would speak to the idea here of what reveals faster then light capabilities arising from the collision process?

What are the main goals of the LHC?-

The LHC will also help us to solve the mystery of antimatter. Matter and antimatter must have been produced in the same amounts at the time of the Big Bang. From what we have observed so far, our Universe is made of only matter. Why? The LHC could provide an answer.

It was once thought that antimatter was a perfect 'reflection' of matter - that if you replaced matter with antimatter and looked at the result in a mirror, you would not be able to tell the difference. We now know that the reflection is imperfect, and this could have led to the matter-antimatter imbalance in our Universe.

The strongest limits on the amount of antimatter in our Universe come from the analysis of the diffuse cosmic gamma-rays arriving on Earth and the density fluctuations of the cosmic background radiation. If one asumes that after the Big Bang, the Universe separated somehow into different domains where either matter or antimatter was dominant, then at the boundaries there should be annihilations, producing cosmic gamma rays. In both cases the limit proposed by current theories is practically equivalent to saying that there is no antimatter in our Universe.

So we get the idea here in the collision process and from it the crossover point leaves a energy dissertation on what transpired from this condition and left the idea in my mind about the circumstances of what may have changed the the speed of the cosmos at varying times in the expansion process within our universe. So, this is where I was headed as I laid out the statement below.

Of course this information is based on 2003 data but the jest of the idea here is that in order to go to a "fast forward" the conditions had to exist previously that did not included "sterile neutrinos" and were a result of this "cross over."

So what is the jest of my thought here that I would go to great lengths here to speak about the ideas of what happens within the cosmos to change those varying times of expansion? It has to do with the Suns and the process within those suns that give the dark energy some value, in it's anti- gravity nature to align our selves and our thinking to the cosmological constant of Einstein. If we juggle the three ring circus we find that the curvature parameters can and do hold thoughts govern by the cosmological constant?

It is thus equally important to identify this "physics process" that would allow such changes in the cosmos. So that we can understand the dynamical nature that the cosmos reveals to us can and does allow aspect of its galaxies within context of the universe to increase this expansive process while we question what drives such conditions.

Result of Effective Changes in the Cosmos

"There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap. The important thing is not to stop questioning." Albert Einstein (1879- 1955)

But the presence of an event horizon implies a finite Hawking temperature and the conditions for defining the S Matrix cannot be fulfilled. This lack of an S Matrix is a formal mathematical problem not only in string theory but also in particle theories.

One recent attempt to address this problem invokes quantum geometry and a varying speed of light. This remains, as they say, an active area of research. But most experts doubt that anything so radical is required.

What processes would allow you to see "faster then light entities" being shown as examples of that "cross over point?" That's part of the fun isn't it when you realize what some experiments are actually checking for? :)



So yes of course, you might think about "Cerenkov radiation" and from this, what is happening in today's world, that allows us lay people, never having seen or understood, but may now do so?

SNO

The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory is a collaborative effort among physicists from Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. Using 1,000 tons of so-called heavy water and almost 10,000 photon detectors, they measure the flux, energy, and direction of solar neutrinos, which originate in the sun. SNO, located 6,800 feet underground in an active Ontario nickel mine, can also detect the other two types of neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos. In 2001, just two years after the observatory opened, physicists at SNO solved the 30-year-old mystery of the "missing solar neutrinos." They found that the answer lies not with the sun—where many physicists had suspected that solar neutrinos undergo changes—but with the journey they take from the core of the sun to the Earth.

In the previous article I mention the "cross over point in LHC" and from this, the idea was born in mind, how the universe and the effectives rates of expansion could take place?



While it is a long shot, I thought since of layman status, what could it hurt but to speculate and see what thoughts further arise from this. Like any model perspective adopted, allows new thinking to emerge, where previously, none existed for me. So one tends to try and go with the flow and see where it ends up. At least that's what I do and now, others do too?


Blackhole Production in the Cosmos

Increase, in high energy collisions taking place, allows speed up of inflation?



So here is the jest of what allowed me to say that the effective rates of exchange in the cosmos had to have the physics related to show the reasons why the effective speed up of inflation has been detected.


Adapted from Dienes et al., Nuclear Physics B

Some theorists envision the universe as multidimensional space-time embedding a membranous entity, called a brane, also of multiple dimensions. Diagram depicts familiar 3-dimensional space (time not shown) as a vertical line. At every point along line, one extra dimension curls around with a radius (r) of no more that about 10–19 meter. Perpendicular to every point of the brane extends the bulk, another extra dimension.

Also I will give the idea of "photo/graviton association" and how "graviton in a can" allows perspective about the "effective field variations" that "may be" predicted in the vacuum as it produces new physics to emerge on the other side? Quite a mouthful I know.


The graviton is the quantum force carrier of gravity. In conventional quantum field theory, graviton processes with loops do not make sense because of incurable divergencies.

The idea then here is to understand the graviton production in particle collisions here produce some interesting "phenomena" as we see faster then light entities move beyond the confines of that "graviton in a can." So you get the jest then, that even if the boundary conditions are experimentally being tested here, the production of gravitons is very high.

So what allows faster then light entities to move beyond these confines if you did not understand the connection to the "perfect fluid" and the anomalistic nature this perfect fluid has for allowing such traversing beyond the standard model?

That's not all. The fact that space-time itself is accelerating - that is, the expansion of the universe is speeding up - also creates a horizon. Just as we could learn that an elephant lurked inside a black hole by decoding the Hawking radiation, perhaps we might learn what's beyond our cosmic horizon by decoding its emissions. How? According to Susskind, the cosmic microwave background that surrounds us might be even more important than we think. Cosmologists study this radiation because its variations tell us about the infant moments of time, but Susskind speculates that it could be a kind of Hawking radiation coming from our universe's edge. If that's the case, it might tell us something about the elephants on the other side of the universe.

Back to the Beginning of Time

While some of us who had been engaged in a little prehistory examination of earliest QGP states as glast determination of high energy photons, the question, "to Be or not to be," how could we not ask what Professor Susskind offered up for examination under the title, "the elephant and the event horizon?"

What happens when you throw an elephant into a black hole? It sounds like a bad joke, but it's a question that has been weighing heavily on Leonard Susskind's mind. Susskind, a physicist at Stanford University in California, has been trying to save that elephant for decades. He has finally found a way to do it, but the consequences shake the foundations of what we thought we knew about space and time. If his calculations are correct, the elephant must be in more than one place at the same time.

I think there is still this far reaching philosophical question about what really started time? If "nothing" existed then how could we assume anything could arise from it?

While empirically Aristotle has lead the thinking, you know how I think don’t you:) Do you see me stand apart from Aristotle?

So I resolve this question in my own mind, even if I do refer to Gabriele Veneziano and his introduction of what began as string theory.

How could I resolve "anything" that has been taken down to the very first microseconds, while recognizing the value of anything "underneath the guise of building blocks of matter," and have said, "that this is the theory of everything?"

It only helped us to the point of the singularity, but it is much different then a complete death. The whole time reductionistic thinking has dominated the move back in history, there were other things going on, that us simple lay people were not aware of. Maybe for some scientists too?:)


Colliding galaxies, NGC 4676, known as "The Mice" (credit: Credit: NASA, H. Ford (JHU), G. Illingworth (UCSC/LO), M.Clampin (STScI), G. Hartig (STScI), the ACS Science Team, and ESA )

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope, scheduled for launch in 2013. JWST will find the first galaxies that formed in the early Universe, connecting the Big Bang to our own Milky Way Galaxy. JWST will peer through dusty clouds to see stars forming planetary systems, connecting the Milky Way to our own Solar System. JWST's instruments will be designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range.

JWST will have a large mirror, 6.5 meters (21.3 feet) in diameter and a sunshield the size of a tennis court. Both the mirror and sunshade won't fit onto the rocket fully open, so both will fold up and open only once JWST is in outer space. JWST will reside in an orbit about 1.5 million km (1 million miles) from the Earth.

JWST Science

The JWST science goals are divided into four themes. The key objective of The End of the Dark Ages: First Light and Reionization theme is to identify the first luminous sources to form and to determine the ionization history of the early universe. The key objective of The Assembly of Galaxies theme is to determine how galaxies and the dark matter, gas, stars, metals, morphological structures, and active nuclei within them evolved from the epoch of reionization to the present day. The key objective of The Birth of Stars and Protoplanetary Systems theme is to unravel the birth and early evolution of stars, from infall on to dust-enshrouded protostars to the genesis of planetary systems. The key objective of The Planetary Systems and the Origins of Life theme is to determine the physical and chemical properties of planetary systems including our own, and investigate the potential for the origins of life in those systems.

So again, we are being lead by science here to look ahead to what plans for the future may have influenced, or caused the decsisons they did, on another trip to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope?

The Dark Ages of the UniverseBy Abraham Loeb

What makes modern cosmology an empirical science is that we are literally able to peer into the past. When you look at your image reflected off a mirror one meter away, you see the way you looked six nanoseconds ago--the light's travel time to the mirror and back. Similarly, cosmologists do not need to guess how the universe evolved; we can watch its history through telescopes. Because the universe appears to be statistically identical in every direction, what we see billions of light-years away is probably a fair representation of what our own patch of space looked like billions of years ago.

So then I am at a loss to explain that what happened billions of years ago near the beginning of this universe, could have ever been created in this universe now? Some body may say to you, "that the beginning of time and the distance of the beginning of the universe to now, has no correlation?"

If the circumstance are to be created in our colliders, then what said that mass determinations will ever arise from our research into the HiGG's, is not relevant, to what can be created in this space and time now?

Remember, everywhere you look in the cosmos this possibility exists. The WMAP is indictive of what I am saying.

So you say, the beginning of the universe and "the time created" to produce the particles of new physics, has no correlation into how this universe came into being?

Perhaps you may like to read Stephen Hawkings perspective on the beginning of time?

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

Are Strangelets Natural?

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

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

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

So looking back?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. Now the stage has been set.

What has been Lubos been saying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

You see how this is done?

Hydrogen, and the Law of Octaves

Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One article by Mark of Cosmic Variance drew my interest again after reading with a new perspective gained from understandng some implications about the "anthropic principle."

Sometimes I even still hold to the idea it is better not to touch this topic because of the greeness with which insight has now taken over. This greeness resides against the reason with which such logic is necessary in regards ot the debate between Susskind and Smolin.

I do not want to be blinded by the razzle dazzle either of men leading this debate, so as to the layman's pursuite of understanding, I hope to show what I am seeing?

While I have not read the book either I am still "drawn to the debate" about what the "anthropic reasoning" is talking about at a fundamental level? Scared yes, and on wobbly legs so I continue.

So as a layman I am curious too ,about views here and what the basis could lead too, in terms of what our universe had become?

If "carbon" wasn't present at the beginning, then how would you explain our universe?

Because the triple-alpha process is unlikely, it requires a long period of time to produce carbon. One consequence of this is that no carbon was produced in the Big Bang because within minutes after the Big Bang, the temperature fell below that necessary for nuclear fusion.

Ordinarily, the probability of the triple alpha process would be extremely small. However, the beryllium-8 ground state has almost exactly the energy of two alpha particles. In the second step, 8Be + 4He has almost exactly the energy of an excited state of 12C. These resonances greatly increase the probability that an incoming alpha particle will combine with beryllium-8 to form carbon. The existence of this resonance was predicted by Fred Hoyle before its actual observation based on its necessity for carbon to be formed.

I too hate the idea of the "law of crackpostism," yet research back to mendeleev table in regards to Newland, raised interesting ideas about the future of testbility?

A "harmonical disseration" about the ways we will in the fuure be able to map the elements in "photonic imagery" devised to work within carbon processes?

What were the ground rules for this universe?

He is best known for discovering the element plutonium, with Edwin McMillan. He led the team that devised the chemical process for extraction of plutonium.

Seaborg served as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission from 1961 until 1971.

He and McMillan shared the 1951 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for research into transuranic elements.

Having a framework here in which to establish the elemental nature of our universe, how is it that such principals inherent in "string theory" should not direct our attention to what is a viable indicator of what will fill the spaces between, as Mendeleev was able to do in prediction?

While one has been introduce to the "allotopes of Coxeter," it is not without some thought that "planck length," along with the understanding of what "geometrical inhernetness?" qunatum geometry, would also spew forth from the very basis of the beginning of that big bang?

So while I have shown the allotrope here, and dimensional perspective developed, what degrees of freedom say that the space would allow all constants of nature to be described here, and allowed such geometrical principals to form in the bucky ball of carbon, carbon nanotubes?

It was not wihtout directing our attention to the immediacy of that big bang in the microsecond of "planck time" that we are at a loss then?

The last major changes to the periodic table was done in the middle of the 20th Century. Glenn Seaborg is given the credit for it. Starting with his discovery of plutonium in 1940, he discovered all the transuranic elements from 94 to 102. He reconfigured the periodic table by placing the actinide series below the lanthanide series. In 1951, Seaborg was awarded the Noble prize in chemistry for his work. Element 106 has been named seaborgium (Sg) in his honor.

See:

CNO and the Law of Octaves

Allotropes and the Ray of Creation

CNO and the Law of Octaves

"String theory—the hot topic in physics for the past 20 years—is a dead-end, says Smolin, one of the founders of Canada's Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics and himself a lapsed string theorist. In fact, he (and others) argue convincingly, string theory isn't even a fully formed theory—it's just a "conjecture."Publisher's Weekly

As we keep going here let's remeber to keep our eyes open, eh?:)

Okay just so you know Harmonics "do" color my world.

The CNO (carbon-nitrogen-oxygen) cycle is one of two fusion reactions by which stars convert hydrogen to helium, the other being the proton-proton chain. While the proton-proton chain is more important in stars the mass of the sun or less, theoretical models show that the CNO cycle is the dominant source of energy in heavier stars. The CNO process was proposed in 1938 by Hans Bethe.

Whilst I struggle, it is with the recent post it has become clear that the roles of choice in the expression of our universe has met up with the logic of "Anthropic reasoning?"


NATHAN MYHRVOLD

I found the email debate between Smolin and Susskind to be quite interesting. Unfortunately, it mixes several issues. The Anthropic Principle (AP) gets mixed up with their other agendas. Smolin advocates his CNS, and less explicitly loop quantum gravity. Susskind is an advocate of eternal inflation and string theory. These biases are completely natural, but in the process the purported question of the value of the AP gets somewhat lost in the shuffle. I would have liked more discussion of the AP directly

Up to this point this distance was kept because I really did not understand the full scope of what is being implied here, from either of Susskind or Smolin. I do not want to cloud the issue, but by association with either point of view, it seems I am destined to be called archetyphically, one or the other?

The triple alpha process is highly dependent on carbon-12 having a resonance with the same energy as helium-4 and beryllium-8 and before 1952 no such energy level was known. It was astrophysicist Fred Hoyle who used the fact that carbon-12 is so abundant in the universe (and that our existence depends upon it - the Anthropic Principle), as evidence for the existence of the carbon-12 resonance. Fred suggested the idea to nuclear physicist Willy Fowler, who conceded that it was possible that this energy level had been missed in previous work on carbon-12. After a brief undertaking by his research group, they discovered a resonance near to 7.65 Mev.

I had always remained at a distance with this topic only to find that I had been expressing parts of it in one way or another by assuming model implications by association. Either with Susskind or Smolin with the debate ongoing.

Well as Plato ,I am a little different in my assumption based on a model that sees developmental attitiude towards music in ways that we had never considered before? Sound? Or, had thought arose in minds from other sources, whose philsophical based was always hidden in the mysterium of some secret given to mankind on it's journey to remembering who we are.

So I left stories of the deluge of mankind and the secrets to be maintained in model symbologies, that would remain with us for many a day, without ever lossing it's structure.

Okay. I've gotten a litlle extreme with PLato's name use, but in developing a heirarcheal thinking of that "ray of creation," I was always more impressed with how one may see the "elemental discernation of reality" in such photonic expressions and spectrum analysis, that matter based defintions were somehow holding the mind to matter based thinking. I did not want to be constricted by this. By emotions either. By mental impediments to clear mind and thinking.

So by association I have been cast to the archetypal forms and shapes of thinking minds, either on one side or the other? By speaking my mind on the nature of music, that I would quickly be dispelled to crackpottery, by oneside or the other?

“Superstring theory forms a vast and impressive mathematical framework and makes enormous claims. But where is the experimental evidence? What if your intuition tells you that this elaborate construction, shrouded by the sweet vagueness of quantum mechanics, cannot represent the complete truth? Lee Smolin is keeping his eyes open, asks sharp questions, and offers his delightful insights as a critical insider.” Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate, University of Utrecht

Casting Stones

Hey! If you can apply it to each other, then why not I, or any other, to all of the society of scientists like Peter Woit or a Sean Carroll who belong, that they could on the substance of who drives/speak about the "philosophy of life?" Speak about each other or others that would speak in regards to the concepts(pulled all the way back from "a theory")justifing the new views.

Baby Universes



Looking at Smolin's "baby universes" it became evident then that my views on blackholes would indeed serve as the repository of "events," that it would follow in my line of reasoning, to present "new physics." Whilst I did not know, supporting the road taken by Smolin.

INdeed, I have always had a soft spot for his views, because of the clarity of the reasoning behind Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.

So, where am I now in my thinking, that I should be held accountable to Susskind's views, and find that such views speak towards the photonic expressions I have about spiritual life? The roads that go beyond the basis of "Carbon based reasoning" as the predominant value of this universe? Maybe it is a "cycle in time" of this universe that the "laws in the octave of creation" wait for new energy to be put into, "raising" the octave our thinking?

So by where, and how, such injections in the realization, that the balance of these two thinking minds shall we be elevated to a "real value" in society? One that moves towards a spiritual development, whilst breaking the shackles of a "carbon based society?"

Whose Societal value is now aninflationary rate which has been set by the "blackgold" of human kind's dependancies.

MIT researchers have discovered that certain molecules can attach themselves to metallic carbon nanotubes without interfering with the nanotubes' exceptional ability to conduct electricity. At left, the high conductance state has two molecular orbitals, shown in green. Some molecules even let the nanotube switch between highly conductive, left, and poorly conductive (right, with one red molecular orbital), creating the potential for new applications. (Image courtesy of Marzari Lab)

Shall it be freedom in computerization first, or just another means to hold society to the machinations of our dependancies, and the forever "sleeping state" we like to lay back down in, afer such "revelations" have become use too?

So the process of discovery is precendent/predictive on the developing what we need in terms of the "information age" that we will all awaken to the truth about what?

See:

BigFoot: The Anomalistic Reality?

Epic Voyage-The LHC Journey

Couldn't help noticing Lubos's recent article on his blog Frame of Reference, called, "Epic Vessel." Now of course, if presented new opportunities to express ourselves. why does it have to be the way Lubos speaks, about vision being the sea of ignorance, and being limited only by our education?

There is enough information out there now to tell us what preconcieved notions had postulated the means to verification, where now the man on the street may ask, what use this information?

Is it wrong to "think ahead" gaining insight from all that has gone on before us, as we now wait patiently, as so many scientists wait to see, what new lands are discovered.

Susskind, who also appeared in the media with his Strange But True description of the Planck temperature on Thursday, compares the current situation in physics to the late 15th century in which the Atlantic sea of ignorance - analogous to those 15 orders of magnitude of ignorance at the energy scale - became irresistable for curious adventurers.

As soon as I seen this reference to Susskind, and the tile of the post by Lubos I was immediately reminded of John Ellis's article in Symmetry. Now, we have to pay for the article linked by Lubos, so hopefully we will find a way to see what words had been written by Susskind, by the inferences of others.

Times Higher Education Supplement (subscription required) called, Hold fire! This epic vessel has only just set sail...

Of course I recogize Lubos's poinst about the persecution of string/M theory, whilst the brave make their way, ahead of others as they build for the future some comprehensive understanding and means to investigate the New Reality?

The Worldwide particle physics commuity is about to set sail on a voyage into a new world of discovery. The large Hadron Collider, a multi-billion-dollar that begins operations in Europe in 2007, will take us into new relams of energy, space time, and symmetry.

Entering new territory like Christopher Columbus, we have good reasons to think that these new realms conatin"new physics"-a world beuond the Old World of Fundamental particles and forces. Like Columbus, we have expectations about where our journey made lead us. And like Columbus, we do not know how far away the New World may lie, an dour preconceptions may well be completely wrong.

Now why this is of some interest is because of the way the thoughts are held to "maiden voyages", and in this sense, this voyage is a precursor to what we will find after a coniderable length of time, prepping for what the LHC is going to tell us.

Harmonics will Color Your World?

If you are a active participator of the very world around you, how is it, the makeup of high energy particle creations could not have included the standard model make up "harmonically described" does it not also apply to our "very thinking and conscious mind?" :)

The Landscape “avant la lettre” by A.N. Schellekens

The lowest harmonics correspond to the particles of the Standard Model, plus perhaps a few new particles. The higher harmonics correspond to an infinite series of particles that we can never observe, unless we can build a Planck Energy accelerator

So of course the very basis of the thinking was drawn in my mind to the very subject enlisted by the minds of our predeccessors, to wonder, how this associative function could have ever been at the basis of how we may look at the World?

Lee Smolin:

In case it is not obvious, let me emphasize that harmonic oscillators are not relevent here, and can play no role in a background independent quantum theory, precisely because the division of a field into harmonic modes requires a fixed background metric. Thus, the physics of the problem REQUIRES an alternative quantization

Of course it is never easy for me to understand what is going on while we have the issues of the background, versus, the non background, and this brings up the ole debates about positions and adoptives stances scientists have taken in regards to the "duality" of science's "quantum gravity" issues?



Do I have a complete grasp of it. Absolutely not, while it forces me back to the issues, as to what is the basis of this "difference of opinion?"

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE


Leonnard Susskind and Lee Smolin

While this is a conversation written by physicists for physicists, it should nonetheless be of interest for Edge readers as it's in the context of previous Edge features with the authors, it's instructive as to how science is done, and it's a debate that clarifies, not detracts.

So by historically looking back, this is a reminder, about the ways in which science people are still looking at things, while holding their positions of thought today?

SEan's meeting at PI, is a very interesting one becuase what it does is take the teacher and student scenario, and manifests the circumstance of clarification as to positions, while providing for a intuitive surge to present itself in the minds of it's participnats.

So this debate then was held and it's relationship rememebered within this blog as to the basis of determination, about how we see the universe and all that is in it.

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.

So if someone saids that space is empty, I have a really hard time with it.

See:

Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

Ways IN which To Percieve Landscape?

What a Cosmologist Wants from a String Theorist?




Emotion versus Reason?

3.1 As Cytowic notes, Plato and Socrates viewed emotion and reason as in a kind of struggle, one in which it was vitally important for reason to win out. Aristotle took a more moderate view, that both emotion and reason are integral parts of a complex human soul--a theory proposed by Aristotle in explicit opposition to Platonism (De Anima 414a 19ff). Cytowic appears to endorse the Platonic line, with the notable difference that he would apparently rather have emotion win out.

Emotion can be used as a catelysct into higher abstractual/dimensional thinking, if, it can be used to counter research into?:)

Figure 2. Clebsch's Diagonal Surface: Wonderful.

Mein Gott. :) If seeing on distance scales, had relevances in regards to "all the issues" of the standard model, would this not in effect change the way we see in those distances?

Peter Woit:I’ve looked very carefully in landscape papers and Susskind’s book for any sort of plausible idea about how this stuff will ever lead to a prediction of anything and I can’t find it.

Thanks Peter, that's it?


The Hills are Alive with the Sound of M theory?

With the discovery of sound waves in the CMB, we have entered a new era of precision cosmology in which we can begin to talk with certainty about the origin of structure and the content of matter and energy in the universeWayne Hu

By exercising the imagination I thought Wayne Hu did a fine job of relating these things on a "cosmological scale." Hills and Valleys. But in a more detailed quantum look, what value, conformal field theory of point particles?

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.

Les Houches




ROBBERT DIJKGRAAF:Map of the world, as used in my Les Houches lectures

I like this picture better Clifford. Is the landscape, as barren, or is it, the hope that we see such beautiful things of which the seed bed wil allow such things to arise from it?

For some, the "creative" outlet? Maybe, a Shangri-la high" in the mountains of abstractual thinking?

IN the Wunderkammern

James Joseph Sylvester (September 3, 1814 - March 15, 1897) was an English mathematician and lawyer.

We are told that "mathematics is that study which knows nothing of observation..." I think no statement could have been more opposite to the undoubted facts of the case; that mathematical analysis is constantly invoking the aid of new principles, new ideas and new methods, not capable of being defined by any form of words, but springing direct from the inherent powers and activity of the human mind, and from continually renewed introspection of that inner world of thought of which the phenomena are as varied and require as close attention to discern as those of the outer physical world, ...that it is unceasingly calling forth the faculties of observation and comparison, that one of its principal weapons is induction, that it has frequent recourse to experimental trial and verification, and that it affords a boundless scope for the exercise of the highest efforts of imagination and invention. ...Were it not unbecoming to dilate on one's personal experience, I could tell a story of almost romantic interest about my own latest researches in a field where Geometry, Algebra, and the Theory of Numbers melt in a surprising manner into one another.

While I always point upward in Rapheal's painting, I mention often, the "One thing."

Gold or wisdom, while leadng "the alchemist" in the search of that elucive material, mining, has to note the glimmer's as a sun shines on the landscape of ideas. So you work it, use a sluicebox, or a gold pan. Watch how river flow's and the bends in it. Where some deposits might have laid themself while others are carried off further down stream, left to some "eddie" or "pool of thinking." See flowers emerge in rocks crevices of all places.

However, don't be fooled! The charm of the golden number tends to attract kooks and the gullible - hence the term "fool's gold". You have to be careful about anything you read about this number. In particular, if you think ancient Greeks ran around in togas philosophizing about the "golden ratio" and calling it "Phi", you're wrong. This number was named Phi after Phidias only in 1914, in a book called _The Curves of Life_ by the artist Theodore Cook. And, it was Cook who first started calling 1.618...the golden ratio. Before him, 0.618... was called the golden ratio! Cook dubbed this number "phi", the lower-case baby brother of Phi.

See:

Fool's Gold

The Alchemist in You

String Theory Displays Golden Ratio Tendency

Roots, and the Rings of History

The jump from conventional field theories of point-like objects to a theory of one-dimensional objects has striking implications. The vibration spectrum of the string contains a massless spin-2 particle: the graviton. Its long wavelength interactions are described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Thus General Relativity may be viewed as a prediction of string theory!

Author Unknown

How on earth, did such geometries take us into the abstract realms that it did?

Euclid postulate found embedded and manifested in Reimann's developing perspective and the fruitation, General Relativity? IN some imaginative space, I see Einstein gleefully sitting, eating his apple?:)It must be "a tree" kind of thing.

On Wassily Kandinsky Musical Score

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

Well okay not this old, but the idea is, that learning through history had gone through much revision. That no matter the idea, that no physics was discovered then, it is the way that a result, manifested today. One may refer to Democritius, and know that the relevance, had started back then? Platonic solids, or some Pythagorean notion of numbers underlying nature?

A cross section of a Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) snag found in El Malpais National Monument near Grants, New Mexico (it's about 3 feet across) (photo © H.D. Grissino-Mayer and R.K. Adams). This tree had a pith date of 256 BC and an outer ring of about AD 1320, making this tree nearly 1,600 years old when it died!

But we do not want to talk about the impurities of philosophy, while we deal with "abstract and concrete" things do we?:) That the very subject, had been adopted and shunned by our greater teacher(Feynman), is good to know this is apart and separate from ourselves? That because a teacher did it, that we shall too? Or ,was it, that the appreciation for science at it's deepest level, didn't make room for such speculation, or some defining nature of a crackpottery(without history), who had supposedly calculated the proton's mass? Yes, the crackpot might of jumped on this notion. :) Scream about the aether and said, "strings is no different."

In May 1996, Chris Baisan and I found this tree, a Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), at El Malpais National Monument (photo © H.D. Grissino-Mayer), and currently it is the reigning oldest wood yet discovered in New Mexico - 256 B.C.!

SidneyFest and the Parents/Teachers Before Us

Richard Feynman's history, was entangled with Murray's and seeing what was there then in Caltech 25 years ago, and what exists today at Harvard, is a reminder of what began under Murray's Gellman's umbrella. As to how John Schwartz career was preserved. The seed bed of Murray's Gellman understanding arose from the 1950's, to Susskind and Nambu in the 70's, to where in Harvard it is today.

Some have wide sweeping claims to this history. The illegitimacy and rights to something, being theoretical dogma? As some false God set before us? While the religiousness of institution, is to bring forth those who work the equative understanding before them. Tried and tested. Who would in their right mind, is going to denounce the fathers/teachers before them?

Lubos Motl:

Just one or two comments. Murray also talked about the representation theory for the hadrons. Sidney played a rather important role in these developments, too. Murray mentioned that they sometimes incorporated the same particles into different representations - one of them was wrong and I forgot who was it. During his talk, Murray's cell phone started to ring twice. Murray Gell-Mann '69 interrupted his talk and studied who was calling him. "One call missed," was the answer after one minute of research. Gell-Mann, who is a Yale graduate, admitted that Harvard had been pretty good. Also, Harvard had created a string theory group only 25 years after Gell-Mann and his friends did the same thing at Caltech, which is not bad.

So what new fruit have to you to bear, given the "disassociated state of existance," that one would never acknowledge. As never really needing to acknowldege, "standing on the shoulder of giants"?

INSIDE ON CAMPUSBy ROBERT D. MECKEL

“Since Buddha was enlightened under a bodhi tree, it has become a symbol of enlightenment,” said Mahajan. “The tree is more than religion, it is a symbol of peace, meditation, oneness with yourself, finding harmony with the world. Whenever there is chaos going on, people can use this to find themselves, and a oneness with themselves and the world we live in.”

Reference:

Feynman's Rainbow, by Leonard MlodinowWarner Books 2003
Euclid's Window: The Story of Geometry from Parallel Lines to Hyerspaceby Leonard MlodinowFreePress 2001