Symmetry in Psychological Action

Our basic premise is that minuscule apparent violations of Lorentz and CPT invariance might be observable in nature. The idea is that the violations would arise as suppressed effects from a more fundamental theory.

We have shown in our publications that arbitrary Lorentz and CPT violations are quantitatively described by a theory called the Standard-Model Extension, which is a modification of the usual Standard Model of particle physics and Einstein's theory of gravity, General Relativity.

Symbols are important to convey what we can appreciate in "natures examples." While this image above is about clocks, it is also about "the past and the future." Which clock represents which to you?

I have been having amazing troubles with this until having looked at some of Marcia's Smilack's photography. I am not sure all my definitions are correct to hers but I have somehow seen a lot of my confusion disappear.

While reductionism was holding my mind to the compressible feature and condensible feature to the building blocks of nature, there was a much larger picture going on in discovering the "uncertainty of that micro perspective of the world" we force our minds to venture too.

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 76¹

It is not to nice when one does not include the "source of the writing involved" so I will have to go and look for where I took that quote from(I believe it is the Fabric of the Universe by Brian Greene, but I can't seem to locate the book for checking).

The idea here is to open this post entry with what was inherent in our actions "psychologically" could have had some basis in what we recognize of our relationship with nature. The relationship with the world around us. When are we most receptive to nature?

"
Golden Rectangle

I took the picture at a time of day when the tide was at exactly the right place to create this image: when the surface of the water reflected the underside of the bridge and they combined, together they produced what I named the Golden Rectangle as a nod to Pythagoras (my hero). The sensation I experienced at the time was of balancing consciousness and feeling.

By "bridging," a "whole picture materializes in reflection" in which we can "cross with" newly formed ideas. Had to have some basis in which the picture taken, may have a had a "greater meaning." How could it ever had made sense if you had not recognized what "the water to mean," and what the reflections cause us to recognize, as we learn to discover this wholeness within self?

"Striving" to bring "this perfection" to it's rightful place amongst the inquirers? What the resulting relation of student who takes the picture, will find as they delve into the world of what the unconscious "may represent" as it reflected from the reality onto the open water. The "past reflected" to what can manifest "toward" reality.

The future is then part of the "unconscious recognition" of what can be eventually be reflected, has some basis, before, "the past" can ever be solidified into reality?



It is important for you to see the source of this image of the circle within circles to understand that when you "mouse over the picture" you see how the "two pictures are used" to further my points about this interaction.

One has to follow the picture above to finally get to the source of this picture. It has been used to explain the process of distinguishing of explaining "the inner/outer" at any one time, while these processes could have transfixed us to one of it's particular domain.

So by completing "this circle," I had too, in some way, include the idea of "symmetry of psychological action," as I had come to instill this act of "the student/teacher within each of us." Had to gain independence by growing confidence in engaging the world. That is was necessary, to not be thwarted by the restrictions of, "being less then desired," or a "broken flower pot" on this road to discovery.

Finally, we also hope that this series furthers the discussion regarding the nature and function of 'the mandala'. In the spiritual traditions from which Jung borrowed the term, it is not the SYMMETRY of mandalas that is all-important, as Jung later led us to believe. It is their capacity to reveal the asymmetry that resides at the very heart of symmetry. By offering a new view about how consciousness itself is structured - in a fundamentally paradoxical fashion - and how these structurings are reflected in principles according to which the mandala is organized, we are able in this series to show how personality itself may be thought of as having an essentially 'liminocentric' design.

Symmetry Breaking



It was never my intent to confuse people by bring this "psychological action" to the forefront in relation to "science's measure of the statement," but to help people become aware of this relationship we have with reality. That you can "gain confidence within the self" to explore beyond the limitations of what science saids in terms of acceptable proofs and attempts at falsification." By setting the goals, in your explorations to discover "more about the world we live in" then just laying our heads to rest on "a medium" to take over. What does it mean to you?


The two clocks depicted in the official logo for the CPT '04 meeting are related by the parity transformation (P). The inversion of black and white represents charge conservation (C), while time reversal (T) is represented by the movement of the hands of the clock in opposite directions.

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz

This is a historical reference as well as leading to a conclusion I won't say it for you just that I present the idea, "written word," and then you decide what that message is. You might have thought it disjointed, but it's really not, as you move through it.


Internet Philosphy-Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) Metaphysics

There are reasons why this article is being put up, and again, developing a little history to the "line up Lee Smolin prepared" is an important step in discerning why he may have gone down a certain route for comparative relations in terms of "against symmetry."


Click on link Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

I have no one telling me this, just that any argument had to have it's "foundational logic of approach" and learning to interpret why someone did something, is sometimes just as important as the science they currently pursued, or adopted, in light of other models and methods. It does not necessarily make them right. Just that they are delving in model apprehension and devising the reasons why the model they choose to use, "is" the desired one, from their current philosophical development and understanding.

So they have to present their logic.

The Identity of Indiscernibles

The Identity of Indiscernibles (hereafter called the Principle) is usually formulated as follows: if, for every property F, object x has F if and only if object y has F, then x is identical to y. Or in the notation of symbolic logic:

F(Fx ↔ Fy) → x=y

This formulation of the Principle is equivalent to the Dissimilarity of the Diverse as McTaggart called it, namely: if x and y are distinct then there is at least one property that x has and y does not, or vice versa.

The converse of the Principle, x=y → ∀F(Fx ↔ Fy), is called the Indiscernibility of Identicals. Sometimes the conjunction of both principles, rather than the Principle by itself, is known as Leibniz's Law.

It is almost if the computerize world is to be developed further, "this logic" had to be based on some philosophical approach? Had to be derived from some developmental model beyond the scope of "the approach to quantum gravity" that it had it's basis designed in the area of research, a university could be exploiting itself?


In 1671 Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646-1716) invented a calculating machine which was a major advance in mechanical calculating. The Leibniz calculator incorporated a new mechanical feature, the stepped drum — a cylinder bearing nine teeth of different lengths which increase in equal amounts around the drum. Although the Leibniz calculator was not developed for commercial production, the stepped drum principle survived for 300 years and was used in many later calculating systems.

This is not to say the developmental program disavows current research in all areas to be considered. Just that it's approach is based on "some method" that is not easily discernible even to the vast array of scientists current working in so many research fields.

Why Quantum Computers?

On the atomic scale matter obeys the rules of quantum mechanics, which are quite different from the classical rules that determine the properties of conventional logic gates. So if computers are to become smaller in the future, new, quantum technology must replace or supplement what we have now. The point is, however, that quantum technology can offer much more than cramming more and more bits to silicon and multiplying the clock--speed of microprocessors. It can support entirely new kind of computation with qualitatively new algorithms based on quantum principles!

Increasing complexity makes it very hard to describe complex systems and imagine if your were going from the top down, what constituent descriptors of reality we would have to manufacture, if we wanted to speak about all those forms and the complexity that makes up these forms?

Moore's Law

Moore's law is the empirical observation that the complexity of integrated circuits, with respect to minimum component cost, doubles every 24 months[1].

Johannes Kepler: The Birth of the Universe

I measured the skies, now the shadows I measure,
Sky-bound was the mind, earth-bound the body rests Kepler's epitaph for his own tombstone

I always like to go back as well and learn the historical, for it seems to pave the way for how our good scientists of the day, use these times to begin their talks.

From the outset, then, symmetry was closely related to harmony, beauty, and unity, and this was to prove decisive for its role in theories of nature. In Plato's Timaeus, for example, the regular polyhedra are afforded a central place in the doctrine of natural elements for the proportions they contain and the beauty of their forms: fire has the form of the regular tetrahedron, earth the form of the cube, air the form of the regular octahedron, water the form of the regular icosahedron, while the regular dodecahedron is used for the form of the entire universe. The history of science provides another paradigmatic example of the use of these figures as basic ingredients in physical description: Kepler's 1596 Mysterium Cosmographicum presents a planetary architecture grounded on the five regular solids.

Perhaps on an "asymmetrical recognition" of what becomes the "matter distinctions" of form, from "another world perspective" to what beauty and harmony mean and housed within the definitions of symmetry.

So while you may have been fast track by Lee Smolin in his lecture talk in Paris of 2006, think carefully about what the Platonic tradition means, and what is revealed of the "asymmetrical/entropically challenged views developed from the high energy sector.


Johannes Kepler (December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630)

For instance, Kepler was explicit about the intellectual safeguards that, in his view, the Christian faith provided for scientific speculation. In connection with the apriorism of the world view of antiquity (a good example is the Platonic dictum Ex nihilo nihil fit—nothing is made from nothing), he wrote: "Christian religion has put up some fences around false speculation in order that error may not rush headlong" (Introduction to Book IV of Epitome astronomae copernicanae, c1620, in Werke Vol. VII p. 254).

So even though Platonic contrast the Pythagorean views, Plato has an idea about what existed before all things manifested. So to think such solids could have made their way into the various forms, what were these descriptions, if not for the very idea of the birth of the universe of Kepler's time?


Kepler's Platonic solid model of the Solar system from Mysterium Cosmographicum (1596)

So in speaking to the information based on symmetries how could one have formed their perspectve and then lined up one line of thought with another?

Philosophically, permutation symmetry has given rise to two main sorts of questions. On the one side, seen as a condition of physical indistinguishability of identical particles (i.e. particles of the same kind in the same atomic system), it has motivated a rich debate about the significance of the notions of identity, individuality, and indistinguishability in the quantum domain. Does it mean that the quantum particles are not individuals? Does the existence of entities which are physically indistinguishable although “numerically distinct” (the so-called problem of identical particles) imply that the Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles should be regarded as violated in quantum physics? On the other side, what is the theoretical and empirical status of this symmetry principle? Should it be considered as an axiom of quantum mechanics or should it be taken as justified empirically? It is currently taken to explain the nature of fermionic and bosonic quantum statistics, but why do there appear to be only bosons and fermions in the world when the permutation symmetry group allows the possibility of many more types? French and Rickles (2003) offers an eccellent and updated overview of the above and related issues.

Against Symmetry

The term “symmetry” derives from the Greek words sun (meaning ‘with’ or ‘together’) and metron (‘measure’), yielding summetria, and originally indicated a relation of commensurability (such is the meaning codified in Euclid's Elements for example). It quickly acquired a further, more general, meaning: that of a proportion relation, grounded on (integer) numbers, and with the function of harmonizing the different elements into a unitary whole. From the outset, then, symmetry was closely related to harmony, beauty, and unity, and this was to prove decisive for its role in theories of nature. In Plato's Timaeus, for example, the regular polyhedra are afforded a central place in the doctrine of natural elements for the proportions they contain and the beauty of their forms: fire has the form of the regular tetrahedron, earth the form of the cube, air the form of the regular octahedron, water the form of the regular icosahedron, while the regular dodecahedron is used for the form of the entire universe. The history of science provides another paradigmatic example of the use of these figures as basic ingredients in physical description: Kepler's 1596 Mysterium Cosmographicum presents a planetary architecture grounded on the five regular solids.

The basic difference that I see is the way in which Lee Smolin adopts his views of what science is in relation too, "Two traditions in the search for fundamental Physics."

It is strange indeed to see perfection of Lee Smolin's comparison and having a look further down we understand the opening basis of his philosophical thoughts in regards to the title "against symmetry?"

Some reviews on the "Trouble With Physics," by Lee Smolin

Seed Magazine, August 2006

Time magazine August 21, 2006

Discover Magazine, September 2006 &

Scientific American, September 2006

Wired September 2006:15 :

The Economist, Sept 14, 2006

The New York Times Book review, Sep 17, 2006 by Tom Siegfried

The Boston Globe, Sept 17, 2006

USA Today, Sept 19, 2006

The New York Sun, by Michael Shermer, Sept 27, 2006

The New Yorker,  by Jim Holt Sept 25,2006

The LA Times, by K C Cole, Oct 8, 2006

Nature,

by George Ellis (Nature 44, 482, 5 Oct. 2006)

San Fransisco Chronicle , by Keay Davidson, Oct 13, 2006

Dallas Morning News, by FRED BORTZ, Oct 15, 2006

Toronto Star, by PETER CALAMAI, Oct 15, 2006

But before I begin in that direction I wanted people to understand something that is held in the mind of the "condense matter theorist." In terms of the building blocks of nature. This is important basis of understanding, that any building block could emergent from anything, we had to identify where this symmetry existed, before it manifested in the "matter states of reality."

Everyone knows that human societies organize themselves. But it is also true that nature organizes itself, and that the principles by which it does this is what modern science, and especially modern physics, is all about. The purpose of my talk today is to explain this idea.

So it is important to understand what is emergent and what exists in the "theory of everything" if it did not consider the context of symmetry? AS a layman trying to get underneath the thinking process of any book development, it is important to me.

Symmetry considerations dominate modern fundamental physics, both in quantum theory and in relativity. Philosophers are now beginning to devote increasing attention to such issues as the significance of gauge symmetry, quantum particle identity in the light of permutation symmetry, how to make sense of parity violation, the role of symmetry breaking, the empirical status of symmetry principles, and so forth. These issues relate directly to traditional problems in the philosophy of science, including the status of the laws of nature, the relationships between mathematics, physical theory, and the world, and the extent to which mathematics dictates physics.

The idea here then is to find super strings place within context of the evolving universe, in terms of, "the microseconds" and not the "first three minutes" of Steven Weinberg.

So it is important to see the context with which this discussion is taking place, in terms of the high energy and from that state of existence to what entropically manifests into the universe now.

Confronting A Position Adopted By Lee Smolin


A sphere with three handles (and three holes), i.e., a genus-3 torus.

This is only "one point of contention" that was being addressed at Clifford Johnson's Asymptotia.

Jacques Distler :

This is false. The proof of finiteness, to all orders, is in quite solid shape. Explicit formulæ are currently known only up to 3-loop order, and the methods used to write down those formulæ clearly don’t generalize beyond 3 loops.

What’s certainly not clear (since you asked a very technical question, you will forgive me if my response is rather technical) is that, beyond 3 loops, the superstring measure over supermoduli space can be “pushed forward” to a measure over the moduli space of ordinary Riemann surfaces. It was a nontrivial (and, to many of us, somewhat surprising) result of d’Hoker and Phong that this does hold true at genus-2 and -3.

There is no doubt that the "timeliness of statements" can further define, support or not, problems that are being discussed. I don't mind being deleted on the point of the post above, because our good scientist's are getting into the heat of things. I am glad Arun stepped up to the plate.

Part of finally coming to some head on debate, was seeing how Peter Woit along with Lee Smolin were being challlenged for their views, while there had been this ground swell created against a model that was developed, like Loop quantum gravity was developed. One of the two traditions in search for the fundamental physics. Loop qunatum Gravity and String theory(must make sure there is the modification to M theory?) Shall this be included?


Click on link Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

But as they are having this conversation, it is this openness that they have given of themselves that we learn of the intricacies of the basis of arguments, so the public is better informed as to what follows and what has to take place.


Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

So while this issue is much more complex then just the exchange there, I have not forgotten what it is all about. Or why one may move from a certain position after they have summarize the views they had accumulated with regards to the subject of String/M theory as a model that has out lived it's usefulness, in terms of not providing a experimental frame work around it.

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

What is Dark Matter/Energy?

When Chaos Goes Quantum?

All events shown here (except KEK test detector) were generated by Monte-Carlo simulation program, written by Clark. The visualizing software which produced the detector images was written by Tomasz.

While the sun was easily recognizable building "monte carlo" patterns in computer technology developed from SNO work made such views easily discernible?

Imagine putting all that information through a single point? That "point" is important in terms of the energy perspective. It reveals something very interesting about our universe.

If such experiments as listed here are to be considered in the "forward perspective" then what do you think we have gained in our understanding of supersymmetry? Yes indeed, the undertanding is amazing with the reading of what is given to us below in the Interaction.org links.

The complexity of the information seems well, like, "ligo information" being transcribed into a working image of the cosmos? Complexity of all that information/energy is being processed through the LHC experiment. Consider it's energy values, and all that is being produced as "particle constituents" and yes, there is more.

Cosmic particle collision understanding in this correlation of experiment at LHC, we learn much about the universe.

Quantum physics has revealed a stunning truth about “nothing”: even the emptiest vacuum is filled with elementary particles, continually created and destroyed. Particles appear and disappear, flying apart and coming together, in an intricate quantum dance. This far-reaching consequence of quantum mechanics has withstood the most rigorous experimental scrutiny. In fact, these continual fluctuations are at the heart of our quantum understanding of nature.

The dance of quantum particles has special significance today because it contributes to the dark energy that is driving the universe apart. But there’s a problem: the vacuum has too much energy. A naive theoretical estimate gives an amount about 10¹²⁰ times too large to fit cosmological observations. The only known way to reduce the energy is to cancel contributions of different particle species against each other, possibly with a new symmetry called supersymmetry. With supersymmetry the result is 10⁶⁰ times better—a huge improvement, but not enough. Even with supersymmetry, what accounts for the other 60 orders of magnitude is still a mystery.

Physics theory predicts that one of the most important particles in the quantum vacuum is the Higgs particle. The Higgs pervades the vacuum, slowing the motion of particles, giving them mass, and preventing atoms from disintegrating. Since it fills the vacuum, the Higgs itself contributes to the embarrassing factor of 10¹²⁰.

The next accelerators are opening a window on the pivotal role of symmetry in fundamental physics. New discoveries will teach us about the role of the Higgs particle and supersymmetry in defining the vacuum. Such discoveries are key to understanding what tames the quantum vacuum, a topic that is fundamental to any real understanding of the mysterious dark energy that determines the destiny of our cosmos.

It took me a long time to get to the very point made in terms of the supersymmetrical valuation by understanding what existed "before" was transform from to being by presented another possibily on the other side.

"In fact, these continual fluctuations are at the heart of our quantum understanding of nature."

The only known way to reduce the energy is to cancel contributions of different particle species against each other, possibly with a new symmetry called supersymmetry.

It had to be taken down to a reductionistic point of view in order for this to make any sense. You needed experiments in which this was made possible. Without them, how could we be "lead by science?"

Conclusions

Particle physics is in the midst of a great revolution. Modern data and ideas have challenged long-held beliefs about matter, energy, space and time. Observations have confirmed that 95 percent of the universe is made of dark energy and dark matter unlike any we have seen or touched in our most advanced experiments. Theorists have found a way to reconcile gravity with quantum physics, but at the price of postulating extra dimensions beyond the familiar four dimensions of space and time. As the magnitude of the current revolution becomes apparent, the science of particle physics has a clear path forward. The new data and ideas have not only challenged the old ways of thinking, they have also pointed to the steps required to make progress. Many advances are within reach of our current program; others are close at hand. We are extraordinarily fortunate to live in a time when the great questions are yielding a whole new level of understanding. We should seize the moment and embrace the challenges.

A new LHC experiment is born, is an effect from what existed before? What come after.

Yes, the idea is that universe was not born from colliding particles, but from the supersymetical valuation that existed in the universe in the very beginning. You had to know, how to get there. That such events are still feasible, and are being produced cosmologically as we see evidenced in the "fast forward" experiment.

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

So bear with me if you can.

Hi Plato,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best, stefan

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

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

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

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

Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here's the thing.

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

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

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

But first let me then deal with Stefan at Backreaction.

Lubos Motl:

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

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

So yes "Microstate creation of blackholes in space"

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

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

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

See:

Strangelets Do Not Exist?

The Fate of our Planet?

Are Strangelets Natural?-Saturday, September 30, 2006

Coxeter and Plato's Cave

IN Beyond the Dance of the Sun I give an image of Plato's Cave for consideration, about dimensinal perspectve.

This is not only held in my mind in terms of what free people are chained in their perspectives, but I also feel, that the leading characteristics were kindly put forward not only by my own position, but by those who I have listed throughout this blog.

Bolya, Heisenberg and Hooft?

There are "no wares" here to market(no advertising) other then what perception has granted me by "learning" and assuming the inherent nature of the leading perspectves in geometries and their relation to the real world.

Visitors' shadows manipulate and reshape projected images of "Buckyballs." "Buckyball," or a buckminsterfullerene molecule, is a closed cage-structure molecule with a carbon network. "Buckyball" was named for R. Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller (1895-1983), a scientist, philosopher and inventor, best known for creating the geodesic dome.

Imagine then, that such nanotechnology sites have taken us down to microperspectives and there are such things in the "geometry of being" that would dictate the technolgies that we use?

Was it so distant from the real world that such "projective geometries" exposed the correlation of knowledge from a man like Coxeter, that you would say "I would rather demomnstrate the technological aspect because this is real?"

You know you had to be more suttle then this. You knew you had to think of the sun's ray and "think" beyond in the Sun/Earth Relation in a lagrangian perspective. But you refuse?

It is better then, that the cynics remain chained. And allow themselves to spread their venom about the callousness of "good people who had ventured forth" and asked about dimensional perspective. Who is it, that remains in the box?

Focus then, on the science and what has been accomplished. You need no further explanation. No "back reaction" to what constituted this science.

HOUSTON, Texas, Oct. 31 -- Nobel laureate Richard Smalley, co-discoverer of the buckyball and widely considered to be one of the fathers of nanotechnology, died Friday at the age of 62 after a long battle with cancer.
Rice University professor Smalley shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry with fellow Rice chemist Robert Curl and British chemist Sir Harold Kroto for the 1985 discovery of a new form of carbon nicknamed buckyballs. Shaped like soccerballs and no wider than a strand of DNA, buckyballs each contain 60 carbon atoms arranged in a hollow sphere resembling two conjoined geodesic domes. Smalley coined the name "buckminsterfullerene" for the discovery in honor of architect and geodesic dome inventor Buckminster Fuller.

Fullerenes -- the family of compounds that includes buckyballs and carbon nanotubes -- remained the central focus of Smalley's research until his death. According to colleagues, Smalley's belief that nanotubes were a wonder material that could solve some of humanity's problems -- such as clean energy, clean water and economical space travel -- led him to crusade for more public support for science and to help found a business, Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc., in 2000 to make sure his discoveries made it to the marketplace where they could benefit society. Smalley was convinced that nanotubes could only be used to solve society's problems if they were manufactured in bulk and processed economically.

The socialogical foundation of thinking about our world here then is a far cry from the very foundationof the geometries and how human being may envision. How they may descend into mind. Thre posisbilties are endless,a nd I would just point to the images of flowers and the kalidescope they cause, as they reveal strange nodes and anti-nodes brought forth in mandalic pattern interpretations.

What symmetry is this, that we can create such patterns and see how beautiful they are? Some like Clifford like th easymmetry of certain flowers?

Again such liminocentric structure are a inhernet part of our consciousness developement and following this process, into reality is a very important step. Some will only like the pictures and some will venture deeper. That's always be the way of it.

How would I know this?:)

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.

# 184 Metamorphosis

"A Nuance" can be a compelling thing for the soul as it seeks to understand why something has caught it's attention.

IN that case, I pointed out the relation to Einstein's "early life" and the compass as an example. IN one other example, I pointed out the man who saw the geometry of his early life, as he noticed the shadows cast. The angles of geometry had made themself known.

Another example I used, was of my own younger brother who has since passed on in years, told me of his youth, and the realization of why he would teach deaf people to sign in his later life.

IN the sandbox of his youth, he was making tunnels, and all of sudden he could not hear the world around him anymore. He ran into the house crying asking mother why he could not hear?

These nuances may be called meme's by some?



You have to remember that the numbers correspond to pages that were read from the book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," By T.S. Kuhn. The individual that read this, made notes, and each of these notes corresponds to a page.

I used the title "#63:Six of Red Spades" to drive home my point about "anomalistic behavior" and the problems facing scientist's.

What's life without a problem to solve?

I also bunched in Smolin because of his use of Kuhnian perspective recently. If Lee Smolin can use it in his new book, and invoke this subject into the engagement of science, then why not, at the intersecting roads to quantum gravity? :)

I have my reasons. While some of you may of had your own nuances made known, I also had many of mine that worked their way to the surface of my awareness.

#63:Six of Red spades-

Page 63-About red spades and black hearts.

Thus too, from my developing perspective and language, what use new models, if it were not given to ways in which one can percieve reality that others are not accustom too? I speak, but it does not make sense to a lot of people, yet, it is based on a model assumption I used, to drive forward my perceptions.

I never forgot what science required, or, what it was doing by experimental purposes.

Onto the Notes

A question/answer from Kuhnian book, synthesized from another into notes. I answered them.

It's been awhile. Here is the answer I gave in quote below.

Page 184:

Reversible and irreversible are levels infused in each other.

So a man weights the issues in his life and has something against he compares, what value could have been garnered from it when it has come into balance?

That it equals what he has been sure of in his attempts or is there differences that arose that caused further reaction?

A man who has found balance, and in looking at it from the whole page, recognizes, the duality in life as necessary changes in life? How did he come to know his values are different and how much more do they weight then the other?

You have found balance in your life, what does this mean?

It means that the very issues of the heart come into focus when something arises in opposition. What should happen then, that conflict arises from these differences? Is this a moment of change, that we could say in retrospection, that the life we have lived, has lived to the scale of truth to which I had set my own life to standard, and on review, the convictions and awareness grows beyond the borders of what was known to have been confined in experience?

That the boundaries of existance , and in moving into a new domain, sees where the life and all its events have made a statement for him,? Has revealed the pattern his life will now move too, and how far can this be taken?

Lets just say, that if the speed through which we had measured something was infnitely slow on a macro scale , how fast indeed would all life been contained in that blink of a eye? So what are we seeing then, that a whole life has been reviewed?

Would we not see the rise to non-euclidean spaces as a recognition of the differences of the triangle on a sphere or its hyperbolic counterpart, and what have we see from the flat plane in its measure? What is zero that we have not recognized that the symmetry here is space and what matters will move too?

What is a frozen space in analogy, that we would see all thing in contractive phases to see, is shape in matter determined, by the nature of gravitation forces inherent in that movement?

What would this mean in side one, who has seen the world and recognize the emotion that was dark in its manifestation, to have found a very slow moving world. Against one, which would have recognize, a higher value to emotive and inspirative connections? Funny how time can travel so fast?

If we slowly recognize the matters to which we had been involved in life, the ancient understanding of a process of Platos would have us acknowledge the platonic forms as a attempt to understand nature? That the very stars in their expression, would have understand the very nature of human kind in its growth from these matters?

When the matters are moved to the heart, there is the possibility for the mind to recogize the heart of these matters, as it will now be understood, as a measure of what we hold to truth. We each are unique in this measure, as we are individuals in our attempts at expression?

The metamorphosis, cacooned in a life lived, is a new page, when a man's eye has turned into that butterfly:)

Where does this energy flow into one?

You have it circulate the lower centers(The square base of the pyramid), or it can be transferred to the higher centers(triangulated)? A metamorphosis is required. The cacoon, now becomes the butterfly. Imagine, being wrapped like a cacoon and all that you had taken in, becomes transformed in the heart(you have learnt to work with the emotions), to the "heart in the mind?" You are no longer trapped in the body emotions, but have gained access to the spirtually qualities of life?

Inspiration and creativity is like a "nectar of a kind," when you think about the "substance of reality" and what culminates from using the energy, artistically embued?

Of course looking for those places that allow all of us to use this universal language, given it's place and time, I wonder? Can this place be the fifth dimensional backdrop I have spoken about often and placed "ideas in mind" from whence they come, all probabilties, because you did "own it" from what went inside?

#185:Symmetry Breaking

I spoke often as well of the "Scale of truth."

It is true that most scientists (at least the ones we know) would consider themselves to be puzzle-solvers as much as they are scientists. After all, a scientist who is not trying to solve puzzles must be a bored scientist indeed!

What is to be found when we are confronted with the heart and it matters? Would we then call it, "the Scale of Heart and Truth?"

A man reviews his life, and what has he seen in all that he has lived? What has been created in that all these truths, become fixed in a man's consciousness, not to have considered all that has been built?

What becomes the man's crucible, that all matters could have been combined, to arrive at the scale, to which such minds would excell too? How would we know this, and what value would we have attributed to a Ego that works to excell, to a Heaven, and recognize the Hell in which his life has been marred?

He would have to recognized that the matters and all life that he has been involved in, required the conviction of a Ego to excell and Crown itself. He would have recognized indeed, that such matters and the rotation out of, from that center now recognizes the mind that watches all that he can become and has become?

EnvironmentalChemistry.com: Periodic Table of Elements


A firm conviction of belief is then supported, in the validation, and we soon learn, what truth must be weighted against the heart of, that we have lived our life indeed?

Standard Model

So he realizes that he has been building this truth within self, and on the final analysis, what will you have to say about all that you have lived? What will you have to say abut all that you had choosen, and here now, the conscious you decides, and the adjustment here made?

Indeed the whole picture has now been looked at. The you, who observes now decides, and the whole map that is you, now moves ahead to what determination?

He comes back to life then? He has seen all that he has been, and what choices made. All that has become firmly inplanted within the life, and in all this that you now weight, has changed who you are. How could one become so different then, from all he has been, unless he has seen the whole picture?

Does he then recognized tht indeed that choice is the heart of all matters, and what moves such matters that we indeed recognize something anmidst its formation. That all energy in motion recognizes, that it has its motivation to be, and what gave it so?

So, if someone did not know where the "psychic interpetation was asked of the image of the Scale of Truth", then what purpose would it serve you going "back in time" to know that you will be sent "back to the future?" To access all that you had taken inside, and become "the sound" that gathers all information in the "new reality from which the stillness born" an assignment, given each soul willingly and purposely taken on?

Tomatoe Soup is Physical?

Spacetime in String Theory, by Gary Horowitz


Of course, one get's to thnking about where all this theoretical stuff is taking us, and the result of such conclusions become interesting in having consumed the model assumptions? Having Grokked it?

So how did you get "here" in the "mapping and finding of treasure" in recognition of thoughts that manifest and had taken us on ths wild journey?

Very simply we should see that the "fifth dimensional referencing" is based on a legitmate processes used to extend our thinking beyond what it assumes of 3+1. It existed in "other states" before this? Yes/No? :)

So what we have taken for real in our 3+1 now holds our mind in thinking beyond what it has as a "resulting frame of reference?" We do not ignore the science behind such thinking, as it is progressive in terms of the "theoretical stance" we take. Is it right or wrong? Well that remains to be seen.

Will "gravity waves" one day prove to be right/wrong, or shall we ignore them all together?? What have we spent in order to "refer too this thinking" as we see often of string theory? That it is a "waste of time and is fantasy induced" states of realization?

How did you get there to find your treasure trove? :)

The Philosophy of Death is one of Life?

Yes of course the entries like this one are philosphical in nature.

So I thought I would try and explain it as I understood it? Whether it's right or not, is how much you want to believe it? That's up to you.

Instructions for Vision 1: The Source (Eyes closed, external stimuli ignored)

O nobly-born, listen carefully:
The Radiant Energy of the Seed
From which come all living forms,
Shoots forth and strikes against you
With a light so brilliant that you will scarcely be able to look at it.
Do not be frightened.
This is the Source Energy which has been radiating for billions of years,
Ever manifesting itself in different forms.
Accept it.
Do not try to intellectualize it.
Do not play games with it.
Merge with it.
Let it flow through you.
Lose yourself in it.
Fuse in the Halo of Rainbow Light
Into the core of the energy dance.
Obtain Buddhahood in the Central Realm of the Densely Packed.

Each of the quoted paragraphs are directly linked. I wanted the science mind to be considered here, so I linked to my site in paragraph below and what liminocentrically structure means. A circle, with a dot in it, is a transcendant figure, once you move to the center?

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

I guess it might depend on how we live life now? :)

If we imagine history running back in time, we inevitably come to the epoch of the "big squeeze" with all the galaxies, stars, atoms and atomic nuclei squeezed, so to speak, to a pulp. During that early stage of evolution, matter must have been dissociated into its elementary components.... We call this primordial mixture ylem.

Having this kind of information at hand, and being lead by the basis of "interpretations of death," can we not die and are born many times in life? Change?

If you had lost the ability to grasp the physcial processes in our real(illusive) life, and moved the spirit, thinking, it was physically capable, to only find that you pass through, what are you to surmize?

If such physical process was the corner stone of our thoughts, then such a shock, that "the transferance" from the "waking mind" that sees around now, would have passed onto the subsconcious mind(deaths mind)and that once, it was where we dreamed, now sees, it is this dreams that is "the mind" of the soul.

Shall life had been so scattered, and the events disenchanted as "events," one from another(discrete), then what use the outcome of interpretation of the dream world, and the chaoticness with which we had been effected and dreamed in life?

The subsconscious then, becomes the mind of the soul?

Finally, we also hope that this series furthers the discussion regarding the nature and function of 'the mandala'. In the spiritual traditions from which Jung borrowed the term, it is not the SYMMETRY of mandalas that is all-important, as Jung later led us to believe. It is their capacity to reveal the asymmetry that resides at the very heart of symmetry. By offering a new view about how consciousness itself is structured - in a fundamentally paradoxical fashion - and how these structurings are reflected in principles according to which the mandala is organized, we are able in this series to show how personality itself may be thought of as having an essentially 'liminocentric' design.

You need a map? :) So you learn to see how structure is applied in the consequence and outward expressions, also, holds the "transcendant value" to where we see the light again. In our center?

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).

I always reiterate the "koan in life" that was most troubling, in regards to Greene's statement? By turning something inside/out, such a collapse to such a singuarilty has consequences for "information loss."

A new birth of "something old or in need of rejuvenation?) that is ready to turn? I don't see any of you, as any different.

See:

Books for the Dead are Really, Books for Life?

A Myth Created: Truth Felt, and a Life to Accomplish?

Project Satellite Energy Exchange (SEE)

December 15th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Tony Smith:

As to the time of Feynman soving the QED problem, in 1941 (according to Mehra’s Feynman biography The Beat of a Different Drum (Oxford 1994)) Feynman had the inspiration from Dirac’s paper of using the Lagrangian method, which led to Feynman’s 1942 Ph.D. thesis. As to that thesis, Mehra says “… Feynman mentioned that “the problem of the form that relativistic quantum mechanics, and the Dirac equation, take from this point of view, remains unsolved. …”. So, Feynman’s Shelter Island relativistic QED solution was developed after his 1942 Ph.D. thesis.

I must admit this morning, I woke up with some questions around non gravitational effects, and how we would see this in relation to the two body problem. Now again, I reiterate, that as a student, I am going to make mistakes, but I am equally enthralled with the idea that a "channel of movement" can exist in our perceptions, where high energy considerations where I had previously thought only the strong gravitatinal influences could exist. Now I know there is more to this then previously thought and I lay out the perception built over this

Scientific relevance of the Equivalence Principle

It is possible to ascribe two conceptually different kinds of masses to a body: an inertial mass and a gravitational mass. The inertial mass is the proportionality factor between a force (any kind of force) applied to the body and the acceleration it acquires in response to it in an inertial laboratory.The gravitational mass is a measurement of the property of the body to attract gravitationally anyother body (gravitational active mass), or to be gravitationally attracted by any other body(gravitational passive mass). Assuming the validity of the action−reaction principle (which leads toconclude that the center of mass of an isolated system must move with constant velocity in aninertial frame of reference) also implies that the gravitational passive and active mass of a bodymust be the same. Since both concepts refer to the same physical interaction, this result appears to be quite natural. The gravitational mass is the analog in a gravitational field, of the electric chargein an electric field −it can be viewed as a gravitational charge− while it has no apparent relation (in spite of the name) with the concept of inertial mass

Current experiments would have to say that our undertanding has changed a bit, by what we have currently and experimentally understood in our involvement as a measure of RHIC production, as philosphical endeavors to change what we now know?

Gravity is the missing link in Grand Unification.

Because of our uniquely poor knowledge of gravity--the weakest of all known forces-- and because gravity must have a key role in any Grand Unification theory, many aspects of gravity must be understood in greater depth and precision.

A SEE mission would improve our knowledge of a number of gravitational parameters and effects which are needed to test unification theories and various modern theories of gravity.

Science Objectives of Project SEE:

Test the inverse-square law at separations of
meters the radius of the Earth

Test the equivalence principle by composition differences at these separations

Test for time variation of G

Test for anisotropy of space and other post-Einsteinian effects

In this regard then, Langrangian perspectve in the Sun Earth relation, had some interesting perspective developements that bring satellite travel into perspective, so too our energy consumptions, for extended deep space travel, more then likely as we now "see" these relations.



Yes, I had indeed created some of the understanding that arises from Time Variable measures, and how we now percieve the earth. Not as some illustrous pearl that was the first images of mind, as John Glenn peered upon this planet, but now, through understanding and measure, we "see" the earth in new ways.



Not only having understood the lagrangian perspectve, I found some relevance to how we now "see" in the cosmo, but here now too, I can speak on the "WMAP mapping system" as a functionable reality of this lagrangian perspective, being pointed out in those same maps?

Dr Mark Haskins

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

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

Sure, let's be true to ourselves and others, for sure.:)

Building our Illusions?

Back to Fractal Neurodyamics and Quantum Chaos Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

Birth of the Universe

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


Quantum Gravity Era:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mental Constructs then? Okay?:)

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

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

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

You remember Robert Laughlin?

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

Articulating Oneself?

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

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

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

It's okay, your human.

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

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

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