The Observer

Thomas Kuhn

However, the incommensurability thesis is not Kuhn's only positive philosophical thesis. Kuhn himself tells us that “The paradigm as shared example is the central element of what I now take to be the most novel and least understood aspect of [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]” (1970a, 187). Nonetheless, Kuhn failed to develop the paradigm concept in his later work beyond an early application of its semantic aspects to the explanation of incommensurability. The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.

Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries Kuhn now moves past his initial topic of paradigm to scientific discovery saying that in order for there to be a discovery, an anomaly must be detected within the field of study. He discusses several different studies and points out the anomaly that invoked the scientific discovery. Later in the chapter he begins to discuss how the anomaly can be incorporated into the discovery to satisfy the scientific community.

There are three different characteristics of all discoveries from which new sorts of phenomena emerge. These three characteristics are proven through an experiment dealing with a deck of cards. The deck consisted of anomalous cards (e.g. the red six of spades shown on the previous page) mixed in with regular cards. These cards were held up in front of students who were asked to call out the card they saw, and in most cases the anomaly was not detected.(link now dead)

See if you recognize the validity of what I am saying, then you would have to know something a little bit more about the person who uses the name of Plato. Is to understand, that I was already given an anomalous event within my own life. It rocked the very foundation in face of all that science has given me.

 The Observer. I never gave it much thought other then to see that while it is very subjective in the terms that I  may explore consciousness.  There is a obvious meaning of the term in the sciences that  needed to be explained. I do understand that context in terms of measure,  but I understand as well,  that any subjective state asks how it is that in the chaos of these subjective symbolisms,  how is one to be able to make sense of the language used? It is obviously not the language of mathematics and physics.

In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and observable with what can be measured. Thus the quantum mechanical observer does not necessarily present or solve any problems over and above the (admittedly difficult) issue of measurement in quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical observer is also intimately tied to the issue of observer effect.

A number of interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably "consciousness causes collapse", give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. For instance, Fritjof Capra writes:

"The crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not only necessary to observe the properties of an object, but is necessary even to define these properties. ... This can be illustrated with the simple case of a subatomic particle. When observing such a particle, one may choose to measure — among other quantities — the particle's position and its momentum" ^[1]

However, other authorities downplay any special role of human observers

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."^[2]

Critics of the special role of the observer also point out that observers can themselves be observed, leading to paradoxes such as that of Wigner's friend; and that it is not clear how much consciousness is required ("Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"^[3]).

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.

The observer effect on a physical process can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques. However in quantum mechanics, which deals with very small objects, it is not possible to observe a system without changing the system, so the observer must be considered part of the system being observed.

"Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration." - Thomas Alva Edison, Harper's Monthly (September 1932)

Thomas Edison's first successful light bulb model, used in public demonstration at Menlo Park, December 1879

See Also:

• Quantum physics doesn't depend on definitions of observers

The Differences

Phil:....yet more importantly it is only in difference that often times much is learned.

IT is appropriate that such a point( self evident) in terms of "differences" is brought forward here for introspection, as a "inductive recognition of our journey's into society and our pursuance of understanding it's structure." This allows us to move forward under a new paradigmatic model for consideration attempts of what shall be introduced back into that same society. One will be able to see "the list" from which this first entry speaks too. It goes beyond the page 200. The Title in which I had given this exercise was based on the page number 63, hence the title, "63:Six of Red Spades


Thomas Kuhn

However, the incommensurability thesis is not Kuhn's only positive philosophical thesis. Kuhn himself tells us that “The paradigm as shared example is the central element of what I now take to be the most novel and least understood aspect of [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]” (1970a, 187). Nonetheless, Kuhn failed to develop the paradigm concept in his later work beyond an early application of its semantic aspects to the explanation of incommensurability. The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.

Now you must know this is an extract of a process that was presented to me in context of this book by Thomas Kuhn. I do not know if any can follow along. As I mention in a previous comment to Phil, it was more to the idea of the beginning of a "inductive process" in recognition of the Aristotelean arch that this example of Bacon and Plato was to recognize how such a method was to be used to project themself forward in time, while existing as the individuals they were. They needed to see beyond the boundaries of self encumbered, to see that the sun shined as a fixture in the ideal, and in this aspect, knew it to be, that such an ideal can exist too in an ideal state.

"I was the justest judge that was in England these last fifty years. When the book of all hearts is opened, I trust I shall not be found to have the troubled fountain of a corrupt heart. I know I have clean hands and a clean heart. I am as innocent of bribes as any born on St Innocents Day." Sir Francis Bacon

IN the spirit of Sir Francis Bacon and his short time in prison, one wonders if Sir Francis Bacon needed to break free of the chains that bound him? Cloaked himself, so that such excursions into the communicative world would have allow him to portray and speak relevance to the conditions of those same times. Artistically endowed, in his opinion of those times as the plays of Shakespeare? To be free from persecution.

***

See:

Oh Dear!... How Technology has Changed Things

Orators Reduced to Written Words

See Also:

Revolutions for Change

Observation Pays Off

Using the Architecture of Disaster Capitalism

I have read that 80% of the world do not have access to the Web. ) The Web has been largely designed by the developed world for the developed world. But it must be much more inclusive in order to be of greater value to us all.

Tim Berners-Lee Speech before Knight Foundation-14 September 2008

There is always this patience factor that we could build in any system. What we may see in the introduction to transforming society must be a slow growth and careful process. But, if we were to institute large changes, then how could we do it without stirring the "public pot" and introducing large scale reformations for what we thought most apropos for these societies and the principals with which we shall imbue this change. "Elect new governments" who bring this to bear as a platform to our cities and small towns across the globe.

The crisis on Wall Street? Not much time now before the changes are made under the principals of the "banking system" under the bailout initiative.

It was important to me to understand how "paradigmatic changes" were sitting at the heart of these initiatives." How capitalism can rear it's head to employ such tactics, for those same changes "filtered down to a public."

Politically enshrined capitalism, had become distant too, from the heart of the society with which it seeks to govern. The negotiation features of the elite were signs of a time intrade when "such distance was created." This auspice of change is the idea of the WTO which is again "transforming itself" into the framework of the FTAA(Free Trade Area of the Americas). EU by example sought to create a strength, and brings purpose under this initiative?

The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) (Spanish: Área de Libre Comercio de las Américas (ALCA), French: Zone de libre-échange des Amériques (ZLÉA), Portuguese: Área de Livre Comércio das Américas (ALCA), Dutch: Vrijhandelszone van de Amerika's) was a proposed agreement to eliminate or reduce the trade barriers among all countries in the Americas. In the latest round of negotiations, trade ministers from 34 nations met in Miami, Florida, United States, in November 2003 to discuss the proposal.[1] The proposed agreement was an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, Mexico and the United States. Against the market are positioned Cuba, Venezuela and later Bolivia, Ecuador, Dominica, Nicaragua and Honduras, which entered the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in response, and not strongly opposing but not supporting Argentina, Chile and Brazil.

So we are all the wiser now, of institutional changes that can be brought into the society. Have you seen "this feature before?" Look to our governments and the rules of governance? Sure countries have been overthrown , but this is not what we seek here. We seek to bring equality to every facet of the world's populations that we might all share in the prosperity of knowledge that can help us bring change to our current situations in a "peaceful and intentional way."

A few years ago I chatted with a woman involved in relief work in war-ravaged areas. I wondered aloud whether Internet access should be low on the priority list after clean water, and other critical resources. She responded by telling me the story of a young man who had taught himself English, and with a connection to the Internet, how he set up his own translation business. This business provided income for the village as well as opening up new communications opportunities. I learned that I should not prioritize for others. Instead, I should listen to their concerns and opportunities and then do what I can to help.Tim Berners-Lee Speech before Knight Foundation

20% of the Population only Aware?

Well the transformation process then begins. It is to recognize that the potential exists for an advancement for business to bring information to the greater population, then, to what has already existed.

It is here that the idea of an humanitarian effort seeks to include the rest of our societies in education freely gathered. Open access to education. That we would seek our governments to ensure that "access to information" would be part of the initiatives to bring small town prosperity, in terms of knowledge, to all who seek to advance and be transformed by their personal ideology and freedoms. To seek from, and develop, the platforms that are implemented in a "open and free society" which seeks to invent, and be creative. One that does not discriminate between the rich and the poor. Gender, or the colour of ones skin. To participate in the advancing of views of alls it people "globally" regardless of which country you come from.


Where the Architecture comes in.

A shift in paradigm can lead, via the theory-dependence of observation, to a difference in one's experiences of things and thus to a change in one's phenomenal world.

ON Thomas Kuhn

How many of us are quite liberal to understand that "crisis" brings about change? In the case of "ole institutions" falling away like Wall Street, to see it become something much more in terms of the access to investment and the way we trade? That contractor development(mercennaries) in the face of war has brought new business to bear instead of countries who are out to provide peace keepers. Instead of an offensive fighting force that governments can distant themself under reconstruction.

But lets move on here to consider the ramification of "Revolution for change." The understanding of how the implication of capitalism could change under the auspice of "this seeking" to bring the humanitarian effort to freedom and access to information that the rest of that 80% of the global society may be included?

Who are in control of your access to the internet?

I am advocating an access and freedom to information which may alter the course of these businesses/governments, intranet creation , which can allow access to the internet. I am also "guessing" that the telecommunications would be changed in that assess to conversation has now been preceded by a communication that can happen in real time through such a high speed internet access. Many of us played with this feature before is would a new business on the internet.

Such historical developments, in terms of the Internet as to profiteering has sought to compartmentalize, to gain access to money creation and wealth. Who controls the Internet?

Earlier, I posted on the idea of "the Library" as a universal implement(hot zone) whereby all people can gain access to information. That like the laptop-book, becomes a source of information to develop further, what we are doing in the real world. This would be moving slowly, while we know this exists now and is a security infraction to those who do not guard their own access to the internet.

Product development currently in existence would bring about potentials greater then currently are being expressed by the 20% of the population. If given to the ability of advertising, would see it's product manufacture base, if it were already sitting at the precipice of this change, access to a greater market?

But again I have gone to far here.

It was only to demonstrate what might be recognized, if for instance, we saw a health care system, and the businesses that provide the insurance under employer/employee negotiated settlements, recognize, that as a cost to providing this benefit to it employees, it is much cheaper in a country like Canada for providing that benefit. It serves to help business recognize what profiteering seeks to do by implementing a "for profit health care system."

It demonstrates that as "two tier system" those that have money, and those that don't, have preferential treatment to moving ahead of those who have the same needs at the same time.

Heralded from the 21st Century: String Theory

I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

It is sometimes important to know what race of rebels had been raised to realize that such a revolution in the making had started from a place of thinking that many others
began to think about as well?

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

In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?"

See here for more information.

It is important to know where such models began to influence the idea to generate theoretical model for an apprehension of how we view this universe? Given the study at hand here are the following people for consideration.

Whence began this journey and revolution?

LEONARD SUSSKIND:

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

So we have to take stock of the movements that change democratic societies. To have found such governments will change and fall according to the plight of it's citizens in science. As it goes with "theoretical positions?"

Working to understand the development of the model in consideration was needed in order for one to understand why Lee Smolin methodology to work science from a historical perspective is one I favour as well. It is sometimes necessary to list these developmental phases in order to get to a position to speak with authority. Find that "with certainty" we can make certain comments? Find, we must be confronted again, to say, any progress will go from There.

The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

I first read Thomas Kuhn's famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions a quarter-century ago, soon after the publication of the second edition. I had known Kuhn only slightly when we had been together on the faculty at Berkeley in the early 1960s, but I came to like and admire him later, when he came to MIT. His book I found exciting.

Evidently others felt the same. Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science. Soon after Kuhn's death in 1996, the sociologist Clifford Geertz remarked that Kuhn's book had "opened the door to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge" into the study of the sciences. Kuhn's ideas have been invoked again and again in the recent conflict over the relation of science and culture known as the science wars.

So we know where the idea of science wars began do we not? What instigates conflict as a healthy perspective to progress of the sciences. We will see the story unfold within this blog.

For some reason people might of thought my views were just held to Lee Smolin and the work that I had been accumulating with regards to his views of the Universe. While I had shown the cover of his book countless times, I would like to say that I have accumulated "other books," like those of Brian Greene as well.

Does this make me an expert on the subject in question or what ever Lee Smolin has written? Of course not.

But the work I have been doing, has not been limited to what the authors themself have given to the public in their outreach writing books. I have been at this a few years now, so I would like people to think this is not just a jaunt of journalism, that has been given to the public in it's books but has been a labour of love to understand my place in the universe.

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (ISBN 0-375-70811-1) is a book by Brian Greene published in 2000 which introduces string theory and provides a comprehensive though non-technical assessment of the theory and some of its shortcomings.

Beginning with a brief consideration of classical physics, which concentrates on the major conflicts in physics, Greene establishes an historical context for string theory as a necessary means of integrating the probabilistic world of the standard model of particle physics and the deterministic Newtonian physics of the macroscopic world. Greene discusses the essential problem facing modern physics: unification of Einstein's theory of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Greene suggests that string theory is the solution to these two conflicting approaches. Greene uses frequent analogies and mental experiments to provide a means for the layman to come to terms with the theory which has the potential to create a unified theory of physics.

The Elegant Universe was adapted for a three hour program in two parts for television broadcast in late 2003 on the PBS series NOVA.

Thanks Q9 for the link to "Elegant physicist makes string theory sexy." I was going to posted it the day when you gave it to me, but instead seeing that Clifford of Asymptotia had it (same day), I thought I wouldn't. But as fate has it I must.

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (2004) is the second book on theoretical physics, cosmology and string theory written by Brian Greene, professor and co-director of Columbia's Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP).[1]

Greene begins with the key question: What is reality? Or more specifically: What is spacetime? He sets out to describe the features he finds both exciting and essential to forming a full picture of the reality painted by modern science. In almost every chapter, Greene introduces its basic concepts and then slowly builds to a climax, which is usually a scientific breakthrough. Greene then attempts to connect with his reader by posing simple analogies to help explain the meaning of a scientific concept without oversimplifying the theory behind it.

In the preface, Greene acknowledges that some parts of the book are controversial among scientists. Greene discusses the leading viewpoints in the main text, and points of contention in the end notes. Greene has striven for balanced treatment of the controversial topics. In the end notes, the diligent reader will find more complete explanations relevant to points he has simplified in the main text.

Once you get this view of the gravitational connection between everything, the form of graviton, you get this preview of the bulk and what lensing may mean. It is hard not to think of "dimensional perspectives in relation to the energy" describing the particles of science in some way. Witten below in his "Strings Unravel" lets you know what string theory has accomplished.

Warped Passages is a book by Lisa Randall, published in 2005, about particle physics in general and additional dimensions of space (cf. Kaluza-Klein theory) in particular. The book has made it to top 50 at amazon.com, making it the world's first successful book on theoretical physics by a female author. See Where are my keys?

It's alway nice having one's own blog and nice that I can retained my dignity under the name of Plato. It keeps my personal life from being treated with disrespect at the whim of the stroke of a delete key. Of course I am willing to take my lumps understanding such a role as "older student." After being expose to the exchange between people in the tribe, it's thinking can do all kinds of damage to each other? But I would like to think that all sides remain cool to positions they hold in society

A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down by Robert B. LaughlinFrom the Publisher:

Why everything we think about fundamental physical laws needs to change, and why the greatest mysteries of physics are not at the ends of the universe but as close as the nearest ice cube or grain of salt.

Not since Richard Feynman has a Nobel Prize-winning physicist written with as much panache as Robert Laughlin does in this revelatory and essential book. Laughlin proposes nothing less than a new way of understanding fundamental laws of science. In this age of superstring theories and Big-Bang cosmology, we're used to thinking of the unknown as being impossibly distant from our everyday lives. The edges of science, we're told, lie in the first nanofraction of a second of the Universe's existence, or else in realms so small that they can't be glimpsed even by the most sophisticated experimental techniques. But we haven't reached the end of science, Laughlin argues-only the end of reductionist thinking. If we consider the world of emergent properties instead, suddenly the deepest mysteries are as close as the nearest ice cube or grain of salt. And he goes farther: the most fundamental laws of physics-such as Newton's laws of motion and quantum mechanics -are in fact emergent. They are properties of large assemblages of matter, and when their exactness is examined too closely, it vanishes into nothing.

See Laughlin, Reductionism, Emergence

Out of all this uncertainty that exists at the level with which we think about in "those dimensions" what value any constructive diagram if it did not lead you to the understanding of the building blocks that a condense matter theorist may describe as manifesting in our reality?

The Year is 2020 and that's our Eyesight

Columbia physicist Brian Greene inhabits a multiple-perspective landscape modeled after M.C. Escher's artwork in a scene from "The Elegant Universe," a public-TV documentary based on Greene's book.

Q: Hawking has said that there could be a “theory of everything” produced in the next 20 years, or by 2020. Do you get that same sense? Or will there ever be a theory of everything?

A: Well, I always find it difficult to make predictions that are tied to a specific time frame, because as we all know, one of the exciting things about science is that you don’t know when the big break is going to happen. It could happen tomorrow, it could happen 10 years from now, it could happen a century from now. So you just keep pressing on, making progress, and hope that you reach these major milestones — ideally in your own lifetime, but who knows? So I don’t know if 2020 is the right number to say. But I would say that string theory has a chance of being that unified theory, and we are learning more and more about it. Every day, every week, every month there are fantastically interesting developments.

Will it all come together by 2020, where we can actually have experimental proof and the theory develops to the point that it really makes definitive statements that can be tested? I don’t know. I hope so. But hope is not the thing that determines what will actually happen. It’s the hard work of scientists around the world.

But anyway onto what I wanted to say and "being censored" I couldn't.

Clifford is defending his position on how Lee Smolin and Peter Woit have assigned a "perspective view" to string theory as a modelled approach. As a theoretical discovery of science, Clifford from my view, had to show that this process is still unfolding and that any quick decision as to giving String theory such a final vote of opinion from Lee Smolin was premature. I have supported Clifford in this view because of where we had been historically in the past years that the formulation of string theory has been given.

D-Branes by Clifford V. Johnson

D-branes represent a key theoretical tool in the understanding of strongly coupled superstring theory and M-theory. They have led to many striking discoveries, including the precise microphysics underlying the thermodynamic behaviour of certain black holes, and remarkable holographic dualities between large-N gauge theories and gravity. This book provides a self-contained introduction to the technology of D-branes, presenting the recent developments and ideas in a pedagogical manner. It is suitable for use as a textbook in graduate courses on modern string theory and theoretical particle physics, and will also be an indispensable reference for seasoned practitioners. The introductory material is developed by first starting with the main features of string theory needed to get rapidly to grips with D-branes, uncovering further aspects while actually working with D-branes. Many advanced applications are covered, with discussions of open problems which could form the basis for new avenues of research.

While Clifford's book I do not have, I understand that the "second revolution" was necessary to help us move to consider where string theory was to take us. It was progressing in the theoretics as a model to help us see science assuming the ways in which such models adjust us to possible new views in science. Clifford may not of liked the implication of a Grokking of a kind that would refer to consuming model approaches and then becoming what you eat?

Clifford:

I’ve found that different people have different takes on what it means to have a “theory of everything”. There is a popular idea (perhaps the most common) that this somehow means that this theory will describe (at least in principle) all known basic physical phenomena (constituents and their interactions, if you like) once and for all. Others mean something less ambitious, a theory that consistently describes the four fundamental forces and the things that interact with them, achieving a unification of all the forces and phenomena that we currently understand. I personally think that the first idea of a theory of everything is rather naive, and my personal hunch (and bias from what I’ve learned about the history of science) is that there is simply no such thing.

So of course entertaining the idea of a "theory of everything" leaves a bad taste in some peoples mouth, and having them to reason that it is the naivity of such a thought, that I immediately felt insulted. Clifford saids,"this theory will describe (at least in principle) all known basic physical phenomena (constituents and their interactions, if you like) once and for all" and may have been the case for those less then spending the time and effort, would have probably been insulted as I was. I of course came to recognize the positive aspect of the second position Clifford assumes.

Bench Marks of theoretical Progress

Anyway there are positions that we can take when we look back and reassess everything that we have been doing in reading the public outreach, like so called "bench marks" to see if such progressions still have have a evolutionary way to go.

Edward Witten-Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime

Unravelling String Theory

But what is string theory? It may well be the only way to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics, but what is the core idea behind it? Einstein understood the central concepts of general relativity years before he developed the detailed equations. By contrast, string theory has been discovered in bits and pieces — over a period that has stretched for nearly four decades — without anyone really understanding what is behind it. As a result, every bit that is unearthed comes as a surprise. We still don’t know where all these ideas are coming from — or heading to

See more here



So what shall we use to measure what had first seem so abstract in Susskind's mind as a "rubber band," or the start of Veneziano views on such strings at inception? We've come a long way.

Something that I perceived back in 2004 help to "shape my views on the way I speak" "today" allows for us to consider that strings take it's rightful place within the building blocks of matter, that following Robert Laughlins lead, it was that we shifted our times from the first three seconds of Steven Weinberg, to the "First three Microseconds" of strings within the process of the unfolding universe.

The resulting collisions between pairs of these atomic nuclei generate exceedingly hot, dense bursts of matter and energy to simulate what happened during the first few microseconds of the big bang. These brief "mini bangs" give physicists a ringside seat on some of the earliest moments of creation.

See How Particles Came to be?

While Laughlin may have not seen the continued relevance of particle reductionism it was leading to some amazing insights. I now wonder now, if held to the comparisons of this superfluid, how it would have appealed to him? I think Witten in last plate above recognized what had to be done.

Change that Had Consequences

In the post, Hermetic Ties, I showed how historically information was engraved, crafted, into the woodcuts, for knowledge based on alchemist interests. I further explained the process as I have come to know of it in terms of developing this "inquisitive search into the mystery's of what life" is about how the questioning mind of any person can become the "way of the teacher" as well, enclosed within that same person.

The teacher/student relation then is inherent in each of us, that we understand how one can push the other in our inquirers. Comparable to "this Arch of understanding" I spoke about.

Geometrically, I laid this over top of the circle, mandalic in interpretation, that it served to raise the wonder in mind of what is driving this relation of the student with the world around them. "As the teacher" finding consequence to every inquisitive act, in answer.

Such results then become the new and alternate plan to what is used to describe this new found relation. Ways in which the driving force of "wanting to learn" become an inherent "topological feature" of what begins descriptively, now has this inner/outer consequent to "expanding the frontiers of our knowledge base," inherently expanding the "fluttering of this egg of colour" that surrounds each of us.

Debate if you will the words associated to "fluttering of this egg" and ask your self about what science has accomplished in mapping neurological sequences with the patterns of thought in relation to the condensible brain? What it might reveal of the "condensible features." Might such action also reveal in the "outer cover?"

"In 1680, Isaac Newton worked on the abstract problem of gravity and he changed the world. In 1820, Michael Faraday discovered a connection between the exotic phenomena of electricity and magnetism and his discoveries electrified the world. Einstein's 1905 conceptual obsession with space and time led to nuclear energy and the operation of accelerators for knowledge, for cancer therapy and for machines that provide luminescent x-ray photographs of viruses and toxins. In 1897, the "useless" electron was discovered. In 1977, Fermilab discovered the bottom quark and in 1995 the top quark was found. The lessons of history are clear. The more exotic, the more abstract the knowledge, the more profound will be its consequences." Leon Lederman, from an address to the Franklin Institute, 1995

So before this "act of change existed," the position of the student/teacher had already formed a consensus. I was looking to find this place amongst the order of such changes. It became the study I have placed myself "in" as I look to understand what scientists are saying from the "accepted position" they assume. As they work to develop "insight" and "model changes" to what we already know. To push "beyond" these boundaries of thought. The "standard model" perhaps.

That I may give credence to what is hidden by Raphael in "his painting" is to gather a lot of perspective of the history of the times. To have them all resting on the "stairs and ladder of progression" to perfecting this relation "of the inquirer."

The painting serves in this "mandalic sense" to represent the action of Plato and Aristotle as key figures in this relationship of "above and below." Inner and outer. Why their centralized location in the picture

I have been short on time, so the articles that I have read are snippets of the "larger picture" while I can get back to more research.

But the essence "is" that along with "this change with discoveries," scientists have this way about handling things. This has been reiterated by Clifford and others in science. So I just wanted to highlight this. AS part of this fundamental status of moving to ward these consequences and statement of change.

The science press and scientists themselves do science a disservice when they seek to dramatize a discovery by emphasizing that it discredits a previous theory. Such coverage typically does not discuss whether the earlier theory was tentative or whether the new result modifies a well-established but incomplete theory. This dramatization feeds the popular image that all scientific knowledge is tentative. Much is tentative, but much is well understood and unlikely to be discredited. We scientists need to convey more about the status of our knowledge than can be learned from the muddy "most scientists believe" statement. We need our listeners to know what is tentative and what is not so that they understand better the ragged but cumulative progression of science and can use current knowledge effectively, with an understanding of its inherent uncertainties, in personal and political decision making.

So again by giving credence to what scientists have requested by those who are of the science themself, serve as role models for what is accepted, as we investigate and report.

To visit perspective scientists in the know, are not the way in which to say, "hey listen I have found this to be so and so," and have some "revolutionary change." To let them alone, and continue to push the boundaries of the trade by investigating the work that they do, and learn accordingly. To read what they have written, and join in by asking what you are not sure about. Of course depending on the scientist's openness to sharing of themself, realizing "the greater message" can be conveyed to the many.

How did they get to their perspective positions that they know more then what you know and we had not assimilated the required knowledge? What is every statement saying, about what you know of the science "against" what they have learnt and we may lack the comprehensive understanding of what laws we see applied in every case.

Under this whole post exist the thoughts then about Thomas Kuhn and the paradigm as it would have shown itself as "change that had consequence." Only now do you see this relation here while speaking about change and consequence, did you not know that it followed some rules according to some kind of model and research?

Thomas Kuhn

See here for more information on the person, and model perspective. The paragraph is taken to show the connection to the research work already done in the past, on my part. The label as well will reveal earlier thinking as I integrate what I understood of the philosophy, and "other perspectives" as well.

The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.

Finiteness of String Theory and Mandelstam

It might be that the laws change absolutely with time; that gravity for instance varies with time and that this inverse square law has a strength which depends on how long it is since the beginning of time. In other words, it's possible that in the future we'll have more understanding of everything and physics may be completed by some kind of statement of how things started which are external to the laws of physics. Richard Feynman

I was lead into this subject of Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin's book called, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity." As a lay person reading what our scientist's have to say, I have a vested interest in what can start one off and find, that changes are being made to the synopsis first written. Did I understand his position correctly from the very beginning? I'll have to go back over my notes.

But with this format now I have the opportunity to...ahem... get it..directly from the horses mouth(no disrespect intended and written based on knowing how to read horses). As I said, I tried early on to see how the situation of string theory could be refuted. I "instigated" as a comparative front for Lubos Motl and Peter Woit to speak from each of their positions. I had to disregard "the tones" set by either, as to the nature of whose what and how ignorant one might be, and comparatively, one might be to intelligent design? To get "some evidence" of why string theory might not be such a good idea?

Now I believe this is a more "civil situation" that such a format has been proposed and that Lee Smolin can speak directly. As well as, "further information" supplied to counter arguments to Lee's position.


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

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.

Just a reminder about my skills. While I do things like carpetry, plumbing, electrical, I do not call myself a Carpenter, a Plumber or a Electrician. Nor shall I ah-spire to be more then I'm not, as I am to old this time around.

Greg Kuperberg:

The string theorists are physicists and this is their intuition. Do you want physical intuition or not?

Okay, Smolin is also a physicist and his intuition is radically different from that of the strings theorists. So who is right?

Yet, least I not read these things, can I not decipher "the jest" while it not being to technical? Shall I call it a Physicists intuition or I will only call my intuition what it is?

Jacques Distler:

When most people (at least, most quantum field theorists) use the term “finiteness,” they are referring to UV finiteness.

While the things above talked about from Jacques are served by hindsight, "the jest" follows what comes after this point.

The Jest of the Problem?

My present research concerns the problem of topology changing in string theory. It is currently believed that one has to sum over all string backgrounds and all topologies in doing the functional integral. I suspect that certain singular string backgrounds may be equivalent to topology changes, and that it is consequently only necessary to sum over string backgrounds. As a start I am investigating topology changes in two-dimensional target spaces. I am also interested in Seiberg-Witten invariants. Although much has been learned, some basic questions remain, and I hope to be able at least to understand the simpler of these questionsStanley Mandelstam-Professor Emeritus Particle Theory

Gina has asked questions in context of "academic excellence" in relation to what is being seen in relation to string theory. Of course we thank Clifford for providing the format for that discussion.

“The Trouble With Physics,” by Lee Smolin, Index page 382, Mandelstam, Stanley, and string theory finiteness, pages 117,187, 278-79, 280, 281, 367n14,15

For reference above.

Gina:

I raised 16 points that I felt Lee’s arguments were not correct or problematic. This is an academic discussion and not a public criticism, and I truly think that such critique can be useful, even if I am wrong on all the 16 points.

Three of my 16 points were on more technical issues, but I feel that I can understand Lee’s logical argument even without understanding the precise technical nature of “finiteness of string theory” (I do have a vague impression of what it is.) I think that my interpretation of this issue is reasonable and my critique stands.

I find this interesting based on what information has been selected to counter the arguments that Lee Smolin used to support his contentions about what is being defined in string theory.


Stanley Mandelstam Professor Emeritus Research: Particle Physics

My research concerns string theory. At present I am interested in finding an explicit expression for the n-loop superstring amplitude and proving that it is finite. My field of research is particle theory, more specifically string theory. I am also interested in the recent results of Seiberg and Witten in supersymmetric field theories.

So of course, here, I am drawn to the content of his book and what is the basis of his argument from those four pages. I hope my explanation so far summarizes adequately. For the lay person, this information is leading perspective as to the basis of the argument.

Lee Smolin:

Perturbative finiteness is a major element of the claim of string theory as a potential theory of nature. If it is not true then the case for string theory being a theory of nature would not be very strong.

-Perturbative finiteness has not been proven. There is evidence for it, but that evidence is partial. There is a complete proof only to genus two, which is the second non-trivial term in an infinite power series, each term of which has to be finite. The obstacles to a complete proof are technical and formidable; otherwise we would certainly have either a proof or a counterexample by now. There is some progress in an alternative formulation, which has not yet been shown to be equivalent to the standard definition of string theory.

-This is not an issue of theoretical physicists rigor vrs mathematical rigor. There is no proof at either level. There is an intuitive argument, but that is far from persuasive as the issue is what happens at the boundaries of super-moduli space where the assumption of that argument breaks down. In the formulation in which there is a genus two result it is not clear if there is an unambiguous definition of the higher order terms.

Is string theory in fact perturbatively finite? Many experts think so. I worry that if there were a clear way to a proof it would have been found and published, so I find it difficult to have a strong expectation, either way, on this issue.

It should be known here and here that all along I have been reacting to Lee Smolin's new book. The title itself should have given this away?

The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Thomas Kuhn

So of course knowing the basis of my thought development is a "good idea" as the links show what spending our dollars can do, having bought what our good scientist Lee Smolin has written.

There is a little "tit for tat" going on right now, but I think the point has been made sufficiently clear as to where Gina's thoughts in regards to the points on Finiteness is being made beyond 2?

In these lectures, recent progress on multiloop superstring perturbation theory is reviewed. A construction from first principles is given for an unambiguous and slice-independent two-loop superstring measure on moduli space for even spin structure. A consistent choice of moduli, invariant under local worldsheet supersymmetry is made in terms of the super-period matrix. A variety of subtle new contributions arising from a careful gauge fixing procedure are taken into account.

Yes I think I have to wait now to see if the discussion can now move beyond the first three points raised? Hopefully Lee will respond soon?

How do you fight sociology

Because this by any of the leaders of string theory. it was left to someone like me, as a quasi "insider" who had the technical knowledge but not the sociological commitment, to take on that responsibility. And I had done so because of my own interest in string theory, which I was working on almost exclusively at the time. Nevertheless, some string theorists regarded the review as a hostile act.

The trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin, Page 281

I have discovered one of Lee Smolin's objection to a string theorist. They are only craftsman, and not seers.

# 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?

BigFoot: The Anomalistic Reality?

The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Thomas Kuhn

What can we say to those who practice science and have been told, no anomalistic conditions can exist in reality? How will they "act" when they have been shaken at the very roots, assuming, such a thing can happen to them as a "observer" of what is "real" to them?



What "if" their illusions have taken hold of them? What if, they jump into a river? Scientists are not like this? They see "everything?":)OuI! Non? They all looking for "truth" just like you, Lee Smolin. There are no causalities?

Nature in Analog Models

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

So forget about paradigmal change, and Kuhn's perspective about revolutonary change? A precursor to how things have always been done, now change, to become? Such an example is needed to push perspective unless you want to stay the way you have always been?

Evidence of Dis-ease?



Have we gotten so far to assume "the sickness" had indeed been caused by such theoretics and a "ventured mysticism," that the fault lied in those who venture forth and offer perspective and some who lacked visional meaning?

So as a "painter" Dali added "dimension" to the tesserack of our talks?:)

The artists begun to believe in the "mystical reality of life" and in so having succumbed to the death of all that has been forsaken(education), it will be strings that will lie at the root cause of this troubling disease?

What "seeing" has overtaken all that we have currently surmized. Is it such an artist of people who help free us of our rigidity?

I am trying to be sensitive as well here.

Bigfoot Toe Analogy

Backreaction: Lee Smolin's Trouble with Physics

BEE said:

Last night I had a nightmare! Bigfoot knocked at my door and wanted to talk to me about the existence of the string theory landscape. Still on east-coast time, I wiped off the sweat from my forehead but couldn't fall asleep again. I switched on my laptop, and decided its time to post the review on Lee Smolin's new book.

I found this a very interesting perspective by "B" on the "Theory of Everything" and how this can manifest in the deeper part of the subconcious mind. Of course the mind tries to deal with the incredibility of the world? How shall we come to deal with it's anomalies, if "repeatability" will not sanction the observer?

The unexpectedly hot output, if its cause were understood and harnessed, could eventually mean that smaller, less costly nuclear fusion plants would produce the same amount of energy as larger plants.

QGP tunnelling? So where are these times being presented? What is accounting for the conditions which allow for such tunnelling? A cosmological preview perhaps which allows for "new physics" to emerge?

Instead of the Newtonian inverse square law you’ll have an inverse fourth power law. This signature is being looked for in the ongoing experiments.

What things will shock the scientist? Change the "foundational basis" of thinking about the quantum reality?

The affect these things(?) can have on any mind is amazing, and of course, getting all the information is very important(observing what is wrong), so, we can assess what the heck is going on?

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!"


The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he:
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

What is happening in the trouble minds of the scientists as we have come to learn of their struggles to deal with the anomalistic(animalistic)world? :)The Jaquar, the elephant(how shall we describe quantum gravity)?

Maybe it is a joke of "incredibility to some" knowing more then what we lay people know? Yet, with all that has been said here, where will you bury your experience? How shall it now manifest into your life? What will now "motivate" your science?



"Diamagnetic situation" and what creates these holes in what runs consistently, and we see where such instances "float" the disc. How strange, had you not have arisen from the tribal forest life? To view the situations of all "science life" to see and know more then what taken for granted as thplane flew over head on first take?

Einstein when given the compass saw something strange in his youth? We know better now what that was. All "lay people" are in their youth? All "lay people" can learn? As a "lay person" I will listen very hard to what you are saying.

Fantastic journies



A flight between "heaven and Earth?" Some cherish the Eagle for seeing.

"Warren Seagull" is a wonderful bird? :) Parodies, will break us free?