Langlands Duality

Appointed to Princeton as an instructor after completing his doctoral studies, Langlands taught there for seven years and was promoted to associate professor. He spent 1964-65 at the University of California, Berkeley as a Miller Foundation Fellow and an Alfred P Sloan Fellow. Then in 1967 he returned to Yale University as a full professor. However Langlands spent 1967-68 visiting in Ankara, Turkey having an office next to that of Cahit Arf. After five years at Yale he returned again to Princeton, this time as professor of mathematics at the Institute for Advanced Study. He has remained at the Institute for Advanced Study since his appointment there in 1972.

In 1967 he wrote a letter to Weil which contains profound mathematical ideas which continue to drive a whole area of mathematical research. The letter was 17 pages hand-written and sent in January 1967. It sketched what soon became known as "the Langlands conjectures". Weil had the letter typed and this typed version circulated widely among mathematicians interested in the topics. Casselman writes in [3] that the letter contained:-

... a collection of far-reaching and uncannily accurate conjectures relating number theory, automorphic forms, and representation theory. Theses have formed the core of a program still being carried out, and have come to play a central role in all three subjects.

The work of Robert Langlands

....is currently a Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He has won several awards recognizing his outstanding contributions to the theory of automorphic forms, among them an honorary degree from the University of British Columbia in 1985.

Letter to André Weil from January, 1967

Dear Professor Weil,

While trying to formulate clearly the question I was asking you before Chern’s talk I was led to two more general questions. Your opinion of these questions would be appreciated. I have not had a chance to think over these questions seriously and I would not ask them except as the continuation of a casual conversation. I hope you will treat them with the tolerance they require at this stage. After I have asked them I will comment briefly on their genesis.

It might be good to begin from statements made from Weil and this letter circulated. It might help set up early history and thoughts and ideas lead into the Langland Duality Lubos has renamed. References made by Lubos today and following correspondance by Peter Woit. Lubos Motl, opens his blog entry with following link.

Gauge Theory and the Geometric Langlands Program by Edward Witten
August 10th, 2005 Based on notes by Ram Sriharsha

Introduction
The Langlands program of number theory, or what we might call Langlands duality, was proposed in more or less its present form by Robert Langlands, in the late 1960s. It is a kind of unified scheme for many results in number theory ranging from quadratic reciprocity, which is hundreds of years old, to modern results such as Andrew Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s last theorem, which involved a sort of special case of the Langlands program. For today, however, I will not assume any prior knowledge of the Langlands program.

Langlands duality , by Lubos Motl

I am using Witten's favorite word "duality" instead of "program" because it is a bit more concrete; it's puzzling why the mathematicians haven't realized that their terminology can be sharpened. I encourage everyone to respect that the official terminology has changed to a "duality" right now.

Notes for Witten Lecture by Peter Woit

Witten gave a lecture on the beach at Stony Brook on the topic of gauge theory and the Langlands program two months ago, and lecture notes are now available. Lubos Motl has a posting about this, where he promotes the idea that people should stop referring to the “Langlands Program” and just refer to “Langlands duality”.

Langlands Program and Physics by Peter Woit

One of my minor hobbies over the years has been trying to understand something about the Langlands conjectures in number theory, partly because some of the mathematics that shows up there looks like it might be somehow related to quantum field theory. A few days ago I was excited to run across a web-page for a workshop held in Princeton earlier this year on the topic of the Langlands Program and Physics. Notes from some of the lectures there are on-line.

Geometric Langlands Program

This program is dedicated to the investigation of the geometric Langlands, its relationship to other areas of mathematics, and its relationship to physics;

THE LANGLANDS PROGRAM AND PHYSICS NOTES BY MATT SZCZESNY

The following are notes from the workshop on connections between the Langlands correspondence and Physics that took place at the Institute for Advanced Study at the beginning of March, 2004. Its purpose was to bring together researchers in representation theory and string theory to explore the question of whether it is possible to give a physical perspective on the geometric Langlands correspondence. Certain parts of geometric Langlands make use of tools arising in Conformal Field Theory (CFT), and so provide a point of contact between the two fields.

What Lies Beneath

The Bottom up approach?

R.B.Laughlin:

The paper by Senthil et al. [9] is an attempt to address this issue mathematically. It deals specifically with a suspicion many of us have had that quark confinement, one of the most cherished features of the standard model, may be a collective effect that emerges at a phase transition and thus not fundamental at all. The paper is complicated, an unfortunate side effect of the difficulty of the task, for it is not generally possible to deduce emergent phenomena from first principles. The best one can do is postulate them and then demonstrate plausibility by showing that small corrections get smaller as the measurement scale increases. Such convoluted arguments are ripe with opportunities for mistakes, regardless of how careful the authors have been, so the test of emergent universality that counts is always experimental. This, in turn, forces the theory to address not quark confinement itself but an allegory of it one might hope to test in a table-top experiment. The logic is maddeningly indirect, but unfortunately the only approach that is legitimately scientific.

Fig. 1. In quantum chromodynamics, a confining flux tube forms between distant static charges. This leads to quark confinement - the potential energy between (in this case) a quark and an antiquark increases linearly with the distance between them.



In the Q<->Q measure, the understanding of this distance in the metric was understandable?


Now this is March of 2000.


What Lies Beneath?



Still as a layman, such general talks need better clarification? If you set the stage from planck length, then how indeed does LQG arise here?

Here's another view.

Witten:One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist's suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics.

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/witten/oh/10.html

Robert Laughlin:The true origin of these rules is the tendancy of natural systems to organize themselves according to collective principles. Many phenomena in nature are like pointillist paintings. Observing the fine details yields nothing but meaningless fact. To cor rectly understand the painting one must step back and view it as a whole. In this situation a huge number of imperfect details can add up to larger entities of great perfection. We call this effect in the physical world emergence.

http://large.stanford.edu/rbl/lectures/index.htm

"Lightening," as Strings, Strike?

With a "supersymmetrical realization" capable of being disemminated in the brain? What could have manifested from it's beginning? To have nature exemplify this greater potential "for new airs to breath life " into other possibilties of minds constructs "real objects" and "things"?

Are the brain matters limited in terms of this new math? A perspective on the origination of what this universe was before it settled into "the cosmic bands of creation," we know as matter constituents of a galaxy kind.

Flower representation (plank epoch and guth's expansnonary universe) as a torodial expression of form? As the basis of this supersymmetrical realization, seen in mathematical enlightenment? Makes it hard ,to see how expansionistc views could have been missed in gaining this toposense?

Mind Over Matter: Brain Waves Guide a Cursor's PathBy Rick WeissWashington Post Staff WriterMonday, December 13, 2004; Page A08

Wolpaw's "thinking cap" sports 64 sensors (the polka dots) that detect electroencephalographic (EEG) signals generated by neurons. With a software program analogous to those used in voice-recognition programs, which "learn" people's verbal quirks over time, people can gain control over a cursor's movement in two dimensions by modulating signal intensities in certain regions of the brain, Wolpaw and co-worker Dennis McFarland reported in last week's early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Now it's never easy to see how such tomographical initiatives of the brains complex firings, might have a issue with the way we do things? So early work here, and the ideas of cursor control stimulation from human contact rhythmns could exemplfy the greater complexity of control that the minds likes to extend from itself?

No less the idea that calorimetric views would measure some event in particle reductionistic views, about how things work. As a picture, is taken. Views condensed into greater meaning from a huge outlay of supersymmetrical issues, into this crazy bands that streak across our mind sky?

Here we have gone to extremes to say, "that the brain has a third arm" and we know how it works and we can use it?

Monkeys Adapt Robot Arm as Their Own


Image: Miguel Nicolelis, M.D., Ph.D., professor of neurobiology and co-director of the Center for Neuroengineering, Duke University Medical Center, with robot arm. PHOTO CREDIT: Duke University

"In our new experiments, the idea is that by using vision and touch, we're actually going to create inside the brains of these animal a vivid perceptual image of what it is to have a third arm," he said.

The greater complexity of a system would have known that the physiological coordination of views, could have, "photosynthesis processes"? Used chemcial derivatives endocronologically reduce to the euclidean view. While it existed, within this massive torodial view of the human body? Reduced it, to viable means of expression?

So why is it so difficult to accept the idea "that if a Professor is walking across the room, that many of his students would congregate.:)" Just as they would in any other attempts at defining the nature of this reality?

Hooft, Witten and now Lauglin himself understands, that we have face to face with a problem? By arguing "stuff", would we have divested ourselves of recognition of this Third Superstring Revolution? Of course not.:)

BrainInfo Site

Vision

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

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

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



LEONARD SUSSKIND:

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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


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

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

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

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

Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey

A look at the higher dimensionsBy Michio Kaku

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

Emergence= Phase Transitions of Symmetry?

Witten said:

One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist's suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics.

Part of the difficulty was realizing that the end result of a current depiction of the universe, and the reality around us now, had led us to assumption discrete manifestations of a earlier prospective universe. From that early universe, until now.

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

Now the apparent contradiction is to understand that when the views are taken to those small spaces, reductionistic features of a discrete nature have forced us to consider the building blocks of matter, but at the same time, something else makes it's way into our views that would have been missed had you not realized that the space contains a lot of energy?

To build this symmetrical and simple model of elegance, you needed some model, some framework in which to consider the distant measure here would be ultimately derived from the blackhole and it's dynamics? The simple solution would help you recognize that any massless particle emitted from this state, would automatically signal the closest source of consideration that any of us could have imagined.

Even Smolin, recognized the Glast determinations. Why I have said, that Smolin could not have gotten any closer then what is surmised from the origination of emission from the blackhole consideration?

Space-Tearing Conifold Transitions

Many years ago in my doodling, I created some comparisons to what I would have percieved in describing a point, line and plane. To me, I wanted to find a way to describe this point amidst a vast background of all points, so by constructing this diagram, and by realizing coordinates, intersection of lines and planes seemed a interesting idea to get to this point.

This brought some consideration to what was being shown by Greene below.


The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 326


Now at the time, this being far removed from the stories that are developing in string theory, learning that having moved to brane considerations we can see where three brane world wrapped around a sphere could produce wonderful things for us to further ponder. That such emissions, from the gravitatinal collapse could all of a sudden produce, massless vibrating strings. We know then that such strings can be a photon or a other massless particles?:)


The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 327

Part of the problem then for me is to figure out the stage of the developement of the cosmo what stage followed which stage, and the scheme within the cosmological display, the torus that had to become a sphere, or sphere collapsing to a torus? Concentrations of gravitonic expressions?

There were geometrical consideration here to think about.

Physicists found that a three-brane wrapped around a three-dimensional sphere will result in a gravitational field bearing the appearance of an extremal black hole, or one that has the minimum mass consistent with its force charges. Additionally, the mass of the three-brane is the mass of the black hole and is directly proportional to the volume of the sphere. Therefore, a sphere that collapses to a point as described above appears to us as a massless black hole, which will return to the discussion later.

Now as you know from my previous thread on the Flower considerations, color is a wonderful thing, but if my view was to be consistent, then how could there be any tearing in the use of a topological structure? The flower became very symbolic to me of what we see in the universe unfolding in these galaxies?

Two-dimensional strings trace out two-dimensional worldsheets. Since strings, according to Feynman's sum-over-paths formulation of quantum mechanics, simultaneously travel by all paths from one point to another, they are always passing by every point in space. According to physicist Edward Witten, this property of strings ensures that six-dimensional figures called Calabi-Yau spaces (theorized to be the shape of the other dimensions of our universe) can be transformed by certain topology-changing deformations called flop transitions without causing physical calamity. This is because strings are constantly sweeping out two-dimensional worldsheets that shield the flop transition point from the rest of the universe. A similar thought process goes toward the ability of Calabi-Yau spaces to undergo more drastic changes called space-tearing conifold transitions.

In order for me to consider the comlexity of the question certain insights about the nature of our universe has pointed out that there always had to be something existing, even in face of what any of us might thought of as a singularity in that blackhole collapse. But it is not that easy.

One had to assume that the bulk represented the continuance of some kind of flunctuating field of endeavor, that could hold our thoughts to dimensional attributes shared in the presetnation of Reimann's sphere. Gauss saw this early and gaussian coordinates also help to unite Maxwell into the glorifed picture of a dynamcial world?

The replacement of a 1-D sphere ( a circle ) with a 0-D sphere ( two points ) can create a different topological shape. A do-nut has a circle, round its lesser diameter, which is pinched to nothing. The do-nut turns into a cresent or banana-shape, with the two end-points repaired by the two points of a zero-dimensional sphere. The torus cum cresent can now transform into a ball, without further tearing.

This is as if Klein's hidden extra dimensions of space transformed from the one curled-up shape to another, comparably to the normal extended three dimensions changing the shape of the universe from a torus to a ball.
The evolution of the universe may involve such transmutations between curled-up Calabi-Yau spaces.

Equations governing the 'branes' showed that, from our limited three-dimensional view-point, the three-brane "smeared" around a three-dimensional sphere, within a ( curled-up ) Calabi-Yau space, sets up a gravitational field like a black hole.
The space tearing conifold transition from three to two dimensional sphere happens to increase the number of holes by one. These holes determine the number of low mass particles, considered as low energy string vibration patterns. The shrinking volume of the 3-D sphere goes with a proportionate mass decrease to zero: a massless black hole.

Is Special Relativity Wrong?

New Physics?

Possible violations of Lorentz invariance are an ideal signal of new physics because nothing in the Standard Model of particle physics permits the violation of special relativity. Therefore, no conventional process could ever mimic or cover up a genuine signal of Lorentz violation.

Now before I move to the jest of the post, a little clarification and wonder before moving on to the opening statement.

This is taken from the article in the Guardian, and then is requoted below, where I will requote ,the quote of the quote.

Peter Woit quotes:)

Witten's attitude towards string theory seems to remain unchanged, he's quoted as saying:

"Critics of string theory say that it might be too big a step. Most physicists in other fields are simply agnostic and properly so," says Witten. "It isn't an established theory. My personal opinion is that there are circumstantial reasons to suspect that it's on the right track."

Now I mentioned the difficulties that I was having in regards to Smolin and the string perspective and coming to look at the way in which experimentation might be the end all answer to model assumptions? Alas in recognition of the validity, a quick departure everyone is having with what model they are firmly entrenched in? As far as I know, Peter Woit doesn't have a model?:) A healthy skeptic maybe like the amazing Randi, as in science's mode of operandi requim? The clarifications seem to becoming loud and clear.

Anyway on to an important question and where I thought Smolin was working. Sorry I could be wrong, but I am trying awfully hard to gain perspective.


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.

So here is the thing that has sort of stump me. I know Smolin is a quantum gravity man, or this is what I had surmise and appreciated greatly from his book, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity." Well the thing is, if Smolin had stopped at SR then it is quite plain that he is attempting to define quantum grvaity scenario from this perspective?



Now comes the understanding of the image that I put on Lubos's site that he might have wondered, without anything to associate it with? Well wonder of all wonders.:) This is of course one of a few experiments the Alan has detailled for us.

• 
  observations of neutral-meson oscillations
  
• 
  observations of neutrino oscillations
  
• 
  clock-comparison tests on Earth and in space
  
• 
  studies of the motion of a spin-polarized torsion pendulum
  
• 
  spectroscopy of hydrogen and antihydrogen
  
• 
  comparative tests of QED in Penning traps
  
• 
  determination of muon properties
  
• 
  measurements of cosmological birefringence
  
• 
  tests with microwave cavities and lasers
  
• 
  observation of the baryon asymmetry
  

New Clock Comparison Searches for Lorentz and CPT Violation

Ronald Walsworth and his Harvard-Smithsonian colleagues, in conjunction with theorist Alan Kostelecky at Indiana University, look at how atoms prepared in special magnetic states (the precision of their light emissions allow them to serve as “clocks”) vary in their timekeeping when moving at certain velocities (or "boosts") relative to the hypothetical Lorentz-symmetry-violating fields that may permeate the universe.

Quantum Geometry

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

- Hermann Weyl

I know I said I would post the discussion between Susskind and Smolin again for refreshing but I wanted to post the issue of Quantum Geometry first and then move there.

My area of research is superstring theory, a theory that purports to give us a quantum theory of gravity as well as a unified theory of all forces and all matter. As such, superstring theory has the potential to realize Einstein's long sought dream of a single, all encompassing, theory of the universe. One of the strangest features of superstring theory is that it requires the universe to have more than three spatial dimensions. Much of my research has focused on the physical implications and mathematical properties of these extra dimensions --- studies that collectively go under the heading "quantum geometry".

Quantum geometry differs in substantial ways from the classical geometry underlying general relativity. For instance, topology change (the ``tearing" of space) is a sensible feature of quantum geometry even though, from a classical perspective, it involves singularities. As another example, two different classical spacetime geometries can give rise to identical physical implications, again at odds with conclusions based on classical general relativity.

If one did not understand where this geometry will begin, then it does not make much sense for a person to consider the mathematics that will arise from this situation?

The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 231 and Pg 232

"But now, almost a century after Einstein's tour-de-force, string theory gives us a quantum-mechanical discription of gravity that, by necessity, modifies general relativity when distances involved become as short as the Planck length. Since Reinmannian geometry is the mathetical core of genral relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory. Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Reinmannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."

So I have shown I thnk the importance of the math involved and how it might address the quantum nature of the world in small things. We find, we can be quite comfortable in looking at the achievemets of Einstein, in leading us to a good perception about things on a cosmological scale. But moving back to the "quantum geometry," what are we describing here?

Quantum gravity is perhaps the most important open problem in fundamental physics. It is the problem of merging quantum mechanics and general relativity, the two great conceptual revolutions in the physics of the twentieth century. The loop and spinfoam approach, presented in this book, is one of the leading research programs in the field. The first part of the book discusses the reformulation of the basis of classical and quantum Hamiltonian physics required by general relativity. The second part covers the basic technical research directions. Appendices include a detailed history of the subject of quantum gravity, hard-to-find mathematical material, and a discussion of some philosophical issues raised by the subject. This fascinating text is ideal for graduate students entering the field, as well as researchers already working in quantum gravity. It will also appeal to philosophers and other scholars interested in the nature of space and time.

The same vigor with which string theory/M theory is attack for is fundamental points about the nature of the geometric world is no less important then what achivements and attempts are made by Rovelli. Each aspect of the societal influence theoretists and physics people engage in, is part and parcel of the individuals who are, hands on with the Elephant.


Edward Witten

Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime

Plato as a City Slicker

You all know the saying of this one thing, right?



The rest of the Republic answers this challenge. It does so by way of an analogy. Socrates says that it is difficult to distinguish what is going on in the soul, but it is easier to see what is going on in the state. Thus the state will be examined by analogy to the soul. Now we would say that the state is the macrocosm (makros, "large," kosmos, "universe"), the large scale analogue, and the soul is the microcosm (mikros, "small"), the small scale analogue. When matters are sorted out for the state, then the soul can be understood in its own right.

Well wisdom is bestowed upon us all, when we consider this one thing. Is it the stuff all dreams are made up of?

Hooft, Witten and now Lauglin himself understands, that we have come face to face with a problem? By arguing "stuff", would we have divested ourselves of recognition of this Third Superstring Revolution? Of course not.:)

So instead of defining the state of the cosmo and the insignificance of the microscopic views of man's soulful journey, what value had we'd be lured in too, but by Curlies Pot of Gold?

The Republic: "You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only in the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life."

I don't think so. The expansive nature of the cosmo is still very relevant to the expansiveness yet to be contained with our humble brains? Some cannot leave the four-square of earth, and wonder about the shape, representing God, yet the diversity of opinion reocgnizes that a view has formed, of a world so few recognize.

Self-Organization of Matter

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 why is it so difficult to accept the idea that if a Professor is walking across the room, that many of his students would congregate.:) Just as they would in any other attempts at defining the nature of this reality?

Hooft, Witten and now Lauglin himself understands, that we have face to face with a problem? By arguing "stuff", would we have divested ourselves of recognition of this Third Superstring Revolution? Of course not.:)


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

Witten's statement has then brought myself to recognize strings will manifest as a emergent property of spacetime. It is a conceptual reocgnition, that does not falter under the guise of irrelevant possibilties, but one facet of a concerted effort.

Are Strings as Spacetime an Emergent Phenomena?

One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist's suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics.



Above Witten asks a legitmate question, and so does Gerard t'Hooft as shown in previous links. How would you change computerization to handle these new perceptions of previous experimental processes?

I have watched this gentlemen/woman develope this site(below) over the years and the the exchange of information from other forums. I learnt to appreciate the perspective that were forming.

There was a radical change in my perceptions, that to me ask that we reconsider the discription of all that we had learnt in regards to quantum mechanics, so that we look at the way we had develope concepts and experimental processes under this new language. It did not say, do away with all experimental processes, but asked us to look at them in another way?


Beyond String Theory

The Greek Pythagoras, for instance, was able to use abstract but simple mathematics to describe a natural phenomenon very precisely. He discovered the fractions that govern the harmonious musical notes. For example, a stretched string on a violin that produces a C note when you strike it, will give a C an octave higher when you divide its length by two. (Similarly, when we cut of a quarter of the length of the original srting, the new string will sound like an E note) This is a famous early example of the use of mathematics to describe a physical phenomenon accurately. Pythagoras used the mathematics of fractions to describe the frequency of musical notes. In the ages that followed, of Galilei, Kepler, Newton and Einstein, mathematics became the prime language to depict nature. The mathematics of numbers, sets, functions, surfaces etcetera turned out to be the most useful tool for those people that felt the urge to understand the laws governing nature.

Plato's Cave and Heisenberg, 21st Century with Witten

Breaking Symmetry

Here I sit in Brane world and the idea of "Pants" reaching different dimenisons seems intrigueing to me. Far beyond the views that one see from the light shining, from the open mouth of the cave, some far reaching ideas are manfesting into the world we see today. How weak then, the gravity in a world that has become solidly defined? Who entropic disorder has spoken to this solid and that solid, and from the light it all began?


Entropic Systems and Black Holes
The laws of thermodynamics, including the fact that heat energy will never flow from a colder to a hotter location, support the belief in entropy: in a closed system, energy will eventually wind down to zero

But wait by its very action, it's collapse, the supersymmetrical reality is envisioned as heat begins to generate. So we have within this universe, a method by which moments that had been defined in our beginnings, might now find itself expressed agin in the cosmo(a closed system?)


For me if we had UNDERSTOOD THE TRUE EXPLANATION OF THE STATE OF THE UNIVERSE FROM SUPERSYMMETRICAL BEGINNINGS, THEN SUCH A VIEW FROM THE CAVE WOULD HAVE DEFINED THESE MOMENTs FOR ME, AS PLATO IN SOLID FORMS THAT CRYSTALs WOULD HAVE DESIgen according to the five elements?



And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

Plato's Republic

[Glaucon]True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

[Socrates]And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

[Glaucon]Yes, he said.