Quantum Gravity at Planck Length

It was necessary to bring some of this infomration here while things are getting sorted out elsewhere.

6.4 Spacetime Topology Change
by Joseph Polchinski

This subsection is not directly related to black holes, but deals with another exotic question in quantum gravity. Gravity is due to the bending of spacetime. It is an old question, whether spacetime can not only bend but break: does its topology as well as its geometry evolve in time?

Again, string theory provides the tools to answer this question. The answer is ‘yes’ — under certain controlled circumstances the geometry can evolve as shown schematically in figure 9.

Posted below is Steinhardt informtaion, and his cyclical universe have been highlighted for consideration. The informtaion about the Planck satelitte ready for deployment in 2007 should open our eyes to a few of the issues that are evolving.

Primordial Gravitational Waves

Although I have designated the title above, I want to add current trends for future observations by speaking to this one first.

It is sometimes evident that such comments made by Peter Woit would have to have enormous amounts of data to back up the reasons why research should not be moving in the direction it is. I do not have alot of time right now so I will just put up this for now.

Planck was selected as the third Medium-Sized Mission (M3) of ESA's Horizon 2000 Scientific Programme, and is today part of its Cosmic Vision Programme. It is designed to image the anisotropies of the Cosmic Background Radiation Field over the whole sky, with unprecedented sensitivity and angular resolution. Planck will provide a major source of information relevant to several cosmological and astrophysical issues, such as testing theories of the early universe and the origin of cosmic structure. The scientific development of the mission is directed by the Planck Science Team.

How would such information force us to consider the subject of gravitational wave generation in microscopic avenues, and all of a sudden dismiss quantum geometrical considerations as revealled on topological forms? Would it?

Max Tegmark and others, current working in this area, will have been provided with a deeper look at what they have been postulating in regards to "topological forms," in the cosmos. As many know, this relationship is part of my attempts at comprehension of what happens at such quantum levels and why quantum geometry is not relevant to cosmolgical scales for considerations.

For such comments, that would have implied Higher Dimensions to be revealled in the Spacetime Fabric, would have been verified? But like the Cyclical Universe, I could go the way of any model that does not follow the current established trends of thinking.:)It would be consequential, if such speaking is not backed up, but as we know any ear that is lent to discussion, the reasons why before hand, would always be a important one to consider?:)

Light Humour From Another

When your feeling all alone in the dimensional world, think about Homer's triumph:)

Well, it should be obvious to even the most dim-witted individual who holds an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology, that Homer Simpson has stumbled into... the third dimension.

.....and tongued tied, as to how you would explain yourself to others, on these higher dimenisonal realizations, just recognize you are not alone:)


No, you can't play with it; you won't
enjoy it on as many levels as I do

GR Reduced From Higher Dimensions?

Earlier in my blog, I posted a subject called the Classical discription of the quantum world

Now it was a big leap of faith on my part that I saw these events as distilliations of a larger and more dynamic universe that cooled to proportionl views that I had related in that post. But now, this might be rejected based on the work done on this cosmological observatory, that is not mirrored from a larger proportional view of that early universe? What does this mean?

If planck epoch arises to expansitory features revealled in our cosmos, then, early universe detection is a valid assumption of this earlier design?

That the comments posted by Arun in the blog entitled crackpotism, contrasted to my statement, has much more discussion behind it to consider.

Arun said: So, string theory embraces both General Relativity and not-General Relativity!!!! In other words, string theory says nothing definite.

Plato said: And about Arun's comment about GR. Phase transitions would be reduced holographcally from higher dimensions( the standard model would have been decribed from earlier states ), would finally show up there?:)

If one did not recognize earlier states of existence and just accepted the cosmological playground sight seen, it always existed in this form then:) That is, if we take the standard set by observation:)

I for one thought, topological considerations would have been formulated from earlier cosmic designs, but apparently this might have been subject to scrutiny, and thought out. Rejection of the soccer ball design as well?:)

So I guess I'll get to it here and post the following for consideration.

The significance of the largest scale CMB fluctuations in WMAP:

Now of course, we must remember that the way in which I am looking at this universe is that we see it in it's earlier state, as spread out(higher dimensional attributes), much like we see the discription of the early computerize version shown here .

Computerized Model of Andrey Kravtsov.

The current state of the universe, globally, would be a derived from some view point that represents the current shape and size of the universe. Represents its current age, to design? At least, this is what would have been derived from the sources I am considering in light of the assumption I am making, has some realistic version, that would hold to such spherical considerations. Hold on Peter Woit:)



So such a point although subject to these phase transitions are in the end understood on the other end of the scale of consideration from that early universe to today. To what passes us by? We are attempting to measure at this point in time, what "rings true" through all of us?:)

Induction and Deduction

Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.

The interesting thing about developing vision is of course recognizing the framework with which you will make deductions about the world, and the structures with which you will deal. If held to pre-establish routes, and leading indicators of geometrical design, leading to higher dimensional attributes revealled in topological discourses, then such vision would have required the mind accept higher dimensional attributes first?



Often the very idea, of distilling information, inductively looking at the object of consideration, would have been like sitting in front of a picture and realizing that the very ideas about inductive and deductive reasoning would have made them self know in some way or form. So for me, recognizing the piecing that has gone on with the royal road to geometry, Plato's discourse with Aristotle at the top of this web page, part of deciphering this global village of ideas, is to soak up the picture of Rapheal.

So what I have done here is brought together another idea(the arch), in the comprehension of this picture for consideration. That in model comprehension( and just for the sake of it accept string theory for a moment) it is always much easier to accept the picture as it is, without really understanding the deeper implications of it.

Now in my research, and looking at what happened with Lenny Susskind and the work he was doing, such a inspirative insight of the string vibration in his head would have been a recognition and culmination of other things, before, this image materialized in his brain.

If we understand the topic of this thread, inductive and deductive modelling would have helped one recognize that the model acceptance would have immediately forced the mind to consider inductive and deductive features, as topological expressions of the roads leading from this geometry of expression to higher dimensinal attributes no less then what John Baez describes for us in using Platonic Solids for comparison.



In order to get to what is self-evident, such realizations of higher dimensions would have asked the mind to exercise it's ability to move in these higher abstract worlds, by looking at differents model comprehensions and acceptances, to prepare it for extensions and realizations of those same realities we live in?

"We hold these truths to be self evident"

Should have been emblazoned on the American mind, and the realization of the way in which such truths once accepted, help us to move on and further develope the models we would want of the society as recognition of this whole picture. Simplified, such realizations signify the grokking and acceptance of the model and the ability, to play with other avenues of consideration, and in this case, strings as an example.

It could be Loop or Penrose as well and recognition, that the standard model is part and parcel of the whole view. One would have recognized this if they had understood that to go beyond the standard model and include gravity they had already bypassed this idea and formulation in a conprehensive whole.

From the planck epoch in cosmological understanding, grand unification, made this implicite in the design as part of a comprehensive whole of the dimensional significance of the developing cosmos.

Roger Penrose and the Quanglement

Order and Chaos, by Escher
(lithograph, 1950)



I will give Peter Woit and the group time to formulate the topic that should present itself shortly on their blog gathering. How the integration and question presented by Penrose was very helpful in how we digest early universe information. I will speak more on that, and universe clumping then.




Penroses Influence on Escher

During the later half of the 1950’s, Maurits Cornelius Escher received a letter from Lionel and Roger Penrose. This letter consisted of a report by the father and son team that focused on impossible figures. By this time, Escher had begun exploring impossible worlds. He had recently produced the lithograph Belvedere based on the “rib-cube,” an impossible cuboid named by Escher (Teuber 161). However, the letter by the Penroses, which would later appear in the British Journal of Psychology, enlightened Escher to two new impossible objects; the Penrose triangle and the Penrose stairs. With these figures, Escher went on to create further impossible worlds that break the laws of three-dimensional space, mystify one’s mind, and give a window to the artist heart.

If one does not comprehend the way in which the images can set up the mind for other things, then it becomes extremely difficult for it to accept any other models for consideration in the mathematical realm leading to issues of quantum gravity?

A Sphere that is Not so Round

Of course the most basic shape for me would be the sphere, but in our understanding of the earth and the images that we see of earth, our view is shattered by the first time we seen this enormous object, from the eyes of those who had always been earth bound and restricted to the calculation of a abstract world.

Now it is not so round, and the views we recieve of this information help us to understand a few things about the way in which we will look at the earth and its weak field manifestation, as one extreme of the whole gravitational framework we like to understand over this complex perspective of our cosmos from the very strong gravitational foreces, to the very weak.

Gravity is the force that pulls two masses together. Since the earth has varied features such as mountains, valleys, and underground caverns, the mass is not evenly distributed around the globe. The "lumps" observed in the Earth's gravitational field result from an uneven distribution of mass inside the Earth. The GRACE mission will give us a global map of Earth's gravity and how it changes as the mass distribution shifts. The two satellites will provide scientists from all over the world with an efficient and cost-effective way to map the Earth's gravity field.

The primary goal of the GRACE mission is to map the Earth's gravity field more accurately than has ever been done before. You might ask, how will GRACE do this? Two identical spacecraft will fly about 200 kilometers apart. As the two GRACE satellites orbit the Earth they are pulled by areas of higher or lower gravity and will move in relation to each other. The satellites are located by GPS and the distance between them is measured by microwave signals. The two satellites do not just carry science instruments, they become the science instrument. When mass moves from place to place within the Earth's atmosphere, ocean, land or frozen surface (the "cryosphere"), the gravity field changes.

Highlighting in bold, it would not be necessary to go into a full explanation if we considered in context the cosmic string and clumping in our universe? But I have moved to far from the point of reference of our two systems of consideration here so back to the next point.

NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.

One of the interesting ideas in these shapes is understanding what can cause disturbances within their fields and how we might look at these issues if we move our consideration from the normals views of measure stick and straight lines, to variations we have demonstrated on earth(hills and valleys). To how we would percieve "resonance" created in the sun, and use this, to determine the volatile solar coronas that would be ejected into space but of weather systems affected as well. This is a good monitoring tool fore warning system that could affect communication within the sphere of our own influence.



But let me take this one step further, in that we consider both these frames, in context of each other and ask the connection in lagrangian way. How would we see gravitational points of consideration related to each other? Would this help those less inclined to understand the variations in perspective of gravity to comprehend the value Einstein lead us through, to take us to a much more dynamical view of the cosmos?

So in the one sense to take what we know of the formulation at a euclidean level and move it accordingly, to cosmological perspectives. This is a apprehenson of Gr that we are geometrically lead through, to perspectives of the space we would now enjoy of Gauss. Having Reimann views here of spherical consideration, we understand well, the developing roads to mathematical perspective debated and shunned by Peter?:)

So looking at the way in which we entertain the earth view, and how we interpret the sun, we do not limit our views just to the spherical balls one might like to say is self evident, but having the knowledge of what we are lead through geometrically as well as toplogically, it becomes a much more interesting reality to entertain.

A Happy News Years to all those who visit:)

Where to Now?

Once you see parts of the picture, belonging to the whole, then it becomes clear what a nice picture we will have?:) I used it originally for the question of the idea of a royal road to geometry, but have since progressed.

If you look dead center Plato reveals this one thing for us to consider, and to Aristotle, the question contained in the heading of this Blog.

It is beyond me sometimes to wonder how minds who are involved in the approaches of physics and mathematics might have never understood the world Gauss and Reimann revealled to us. The same imaging that moves such a mind for consideration, would have also seen how the dimensional values would have been very discriptive tool for understanding the dynamics at the quantum level?

As part of this process of comprehension for me, was trying to see this evolution of ordering of geometries and the topological integration we are lead too, in our apprehension of the dynamics of high energy considerations. If you follow Gr you understand the evolution too what became inclusive of the geometry developement, to know the physics must be further extended as a basis of our developing comprehension of the small and the large. It is such a easy deduction to understand that if you are facing energy problems in terms of what can be used in terms of our experimentation, that it must be moved to the cosmological pallette for determinations.

As much as we are lead to understand Gr and its cyclical rotation of Taylor and hulse, Mercuries orbits set our mind on how we shall perceive this quantum harmonic oscillator on such a grand scale,that such relevance between the quantum and cosmological world are really never to far apart?

As I have speculated in previous links and bringing to a fruitation, the methods of apprehension in euclidean determinations classically lead the mind into the further dynamcis brought into reality by saccheri was incorporated into Einsteins model of GR. Had Grossman not have shown Einstein of these geoemtrical tendencies would Einstein completed the comprehsive picture that we now see of what is signified as Gravity?

So lets assume then, that brane world is a very dynamcial understanding that hold many visual apparatus for consideration. For instance, how would three sphere might evolve from this?

Proper understanding of three sphere is essential in understanding how this would arise in what I understood of brane considerations.

Spherical considerations to higher dimensions.

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

a 1-sphere is a pair of points ( - r,r)
a 2-sphere is a circle of radius r
a 3-sphere is an ordinary sphere
a 4-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space
However, see the note above about the ambiguity of n-sphere.
Spheres for n ≥ 5 are sometimes called hyperspheres. The n-sphere of unit radius centred at the origin is denoted Sn and is often referred to as "the" n-sphere.

INtegration of geometry with topological consideration then would have found this continuance in how we percieve the road leading to topolgical considerations of this sphere. Thus we would find the definition of sphere extended to higher in dimensions and value in brane world considerations as thus:



In topology, an n-sphere is defined as the boundary of an (n+1)-ball; thus, it is homeomorphic to the Euclidean n-sphere described above under Geometry, but perhaps lacking its metric. It is denoted Sn and is an n-manifold. A sphere need not be smooth; if it is smooth, it need not be diffeomorphic to the Euclidean sphere.

a 0-sphere is a pair of points with the discrete topology
a 1-sphere is a circle
a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere
An n-sphere is an example of a compact n-manifold without boundary.

The Heine-Borel theorem is used in a short proof that an n-sphere is compact. The sphere is the inverse image of a one-point set under the continuous function ||x||. Therefore the sphere is closed. Sn is also bounded. Therefore it is compact.

Sometimes it is very hard not to imagine this sphere would have these closed strings that would issue from its poles and expand to its circumference, as in some poincare projection of a radius value seen in 1r. It is troubling to me that the exchange from energy to matter considerations would have seen this topological expression turn itself inside/out only after collapsing, that pre definition of expression would have found the evoltuion to this sphere necessary.

Escher's imaging is very interesting here. The tree structure of these strings going along the length of the cylinder would vary in the structure of its cosmic string length based on this energy determination of the KK tower. The imaging of this closed string is very powerful when seen in the context of how it moves along the length of that cylinder. Along the cosmic string.

To get to this point:) and having shown a Platonic expression of simplices of the sphere, also integration of higher dimension values determined from a monte carlo effect determnation of quantum gravity. John Baez migh have been proud of such a model with such discrete functions?:) But how the heck would you determine the toplogical function of that sphere in higher dimensional vaues other then in nodal point flippings of energy concentration, revealled in that monte carlo model?

Topological consideration would need to be smooth, and without this structure how would you define such collpases in our universe, if you did not consider the blackhole?

So part of the developement here was to understand where I should go with the physics, to point out the evolving consideration in experimentation that would move our minds to consider how such supersymmetrical realities would have been realized in the models of the early universe understanding. How such views would have been revealled in our understanding within that cosmo?

One needed to be able to understand the scale feature of gravity from the very strong to the very weak in order to explain this developing concept of geometry and topological consideration no less then what Einstein did for us, we must do again in some comprehensive model of application.

The Sound of the Landscape

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, UK

As you know my name is Plato (The School of Athens by Raphael:)I have lived on for many years now, in the ideas that are presented in the ideas of R Buckminister Fuller, and with the helping hands of dyes, have demonstrated, the basis of these sounds in balloon configuration worth wondering, as simplice's of these higher dimensional realizations.

A Chladni plate consist of a flat sheet of metal, usually circular or square, mounted on a central stalk to a sturdy base. When the plate is oscillating in a particular mode of vibration, the nodes and antinodes set up form a complex but symmetrical pattern over its surface. The positions of these nodes and antinodes can be seen by sprinkling sand upon the plates;

Now you know from the previous post, that I have taken the technical aspects of string theory, and the mathematical formulations, and moved them into a encapsulated state of existance, much as brane theory has done.

I look at this point(3 sphere derivation from euclid point line plane), on the brane and I wonder indeed, how 1R radius of this point becomes a circle. Indeed, we find this "idea" leaving the brane into a bulk manifestation of information, that we little specks on earth look for in signs of, through our large interferometers called LIGO's



John Baez:

Ever make a cube out of paper? You draw six square on the paper in a cross-shaped pattern, cut the whole thing out, and then fold it up.... To do this, we take advantage of the fact that the interior angles of 3 squares don't quite add up to 360 degrees: they only add up to 270 degrees. So if we try to tile the plane with squares in such a way that only 3 meet at each vertex, the pattern naturally "curls up" into the 3rd dimension - and becomes a cube!

The same idea applies to all the other Platonic solids. And we can understand the 4d regular polytopes in the same way!

The Hills of M Theory

The hills are alive with the sound of music
With songs they have sung for a thousand years.
The hills fill my heart with the sound of music
My heart wants to sing every song it hears....

It's a wonder indeed that we could talk about the spacetime fabric and the higher dimensions that settle themselves into cohesive structures(my solids) for our satisfaction? What nodal points, do we have to wonder about when a string vibrates, and one does not have to wonder to much about the measure of the Q<->Q distance, as something more then the metric field resonates for us?

This higher dimensional value seen in this distance would speak loudly to its possiblites of shape, but it is not easily accepted that we find lattice structures could have ever settled themselves into mass configurations of my solids.



Lenny Susskind must be very pround of this landscape interpretation, as it is shown in the picture above. But the question is, if the spacetime fabric is the place where all these higher dimensions will reveal themselves, then what structure would have been defined in this expression from it's orignation, to what we see today?

Alas, I am taken to the principles of," Spacetime in String Theory," by Gary T. Horowitz

If one quantizes a free relativistic (super) string in flat spacetimeone finds a infinite tower of modes of increasing mass. Let us assume the string is closed,i.e., topologically a circle

What are Sounds in the New Concept of Theoretics Approach?

I must be true to my word, and follow the tidit of information that I posted on Peter Woit's site. I am pointing to the two positions that both Lubos and Peter declare of themselves, in what they choose to represent of their thinking.

Lubos Said:

As I go towards the present, physics of these topics becomes increasingly difficult, requires higher education, expertise - and I think that something remotely similar exists in any other sufficiently complex field of science, including e.g. number theory, too. Proving the Fermat Last Theorem is a pretty fancy thing that requires some new technology, does not it?

In what Lubos saids, there is no arguing about the prerequsites of insight that follow educational roads to comprehending the world. In a way, that I have mentioned, that few recognize.

So as a commoner and having followed this thinking over the last few years, it so happened that a conceptual frameworld developed that help me look at the physics and approachs that are developing at the the very front lines of theoretical and mathematical developement.

Of course my statements have to be laid in contrast to what is being shown to us on a public scale. To have derived this thinking, gracefully exploding into new phase transitive models of apprehension. What better contrast then to have another mind like Peters Woits to contradict the mathematics that has been developed in string theory?

Peter makes it clear, that the mathematics is in question? If you attack the model of string/M theory you attack it's mathematics. There is no way to avoid this logically. Being the spokesman of why theoretcially this model of strings will never survive? In a innocent enough posting thread of his Peter voices this in a quiet humourous way by point out the logic of his thinking as well? That humour has to be based on some pre existing understanding of math in order to be driven into the jovial states of laughter?:)


Peter saids:

Mathematical Humor

Now for some comic relief:

A new issue of the Notices of the AMS is out. It contains an entertaining article entitled Foolproof: A Sampling of Mathematical Folk Humor with many examples of mathematical humor. Physicists also put in an appearance.

So as if this concept dropped into our views, from the 21 century(the future), we find that these concepts move the common person forward by having our front line physics and theoretcial people explaining how this concept is developing backwards or is it forwards?:)

Yes it is amazing to think, that a whole concept could exist within this reality and that the arguement is being fought on whether to accept this belief or not? That the substance of this reality could mathematical say the same things, from both Peter and Lubos. This will be then the basis of our interpretation, of the way we will derive the physics of approach by elements of structures, that have preceded us in our determnations revealled in the Einsteinian way? This exposition is articulated countless times, on a geoemtrical and topological determination, that rests early in Euclid's developement of postulates, continuing on to the road taken Reimann spherical which determinations lead us in our visions of gravity.

What the hell would any commoner know, if they did not understand that this basis of interpetation did not explode fractorially into the concept we now look at in terms of dimensional attributes above the spacetime we have come to accept and look at, in our everyday lives?



It is nice to have people Like Michio Kaku who can help orientate the common person into the reality that has moved these theoretical positions with clear and concise methods of interpretation. But my start of comprehension in based on the work of Savas Dimopoulos and the conection Nima and others have to a developing view about dimensional interpretation.

Savas Dimopoulos
Here’s an analogy to understand this: imagine that our universe is a two-dimensional pool table, which you look down on from the third spatial dimension. When the billiard balls collide on the table, they scatter into new trajectories across the surface. But we also hear the click of sound as they impact: that’s collision energy being radiated into a third dimension above and beyond the surface. In this picture, the billiard balls are like protons and neutrons, and the sound wave behaves like the graviton.

It is very hard for people to see this third dimension, but if the analogies help, then you should be able to understand the world of this tension, and the harmony involved generated from the musical comparison that is associated?

We can't actually hear gravitational waves, even with the most sophisticated equipment, because the sounds they make are the wrong frequency for our ears to hear. This is similar in principle to the frequency of dog whistles that canines can hear, but are too high for humans. The sounds of gravitional waves are probably too low for us to actually hear. However, the signals that scientists hope to measure with LISA and other gravitational wave detectors are best described as "sounds." If we could hear them, here are some of the possible sounds of a gravitational wave generated by the movement of a small body inspiralling into a black hole.

Have a look here and listen:)Make sure your speakers are on.

This helps one to distinquish the purposes of what might have been driven as a being represented in the manifestation of GR as a spacetime fabric . Holographically, these dimensions consolidate not as a point particles(harmonically driven interpretations) but as a strings on the brane?

The "air," of this particle identification, is density articluated( KK tower on brane thickness?), by energy determinations that are dimensionally related? The only way for us to see this, is to derive some topological feature, that moves into geometrical interpetations of that same energy value determination?



Without these graphs to demonstarte particle movements from collisions, how would you define topologically this energy distribution?

There is more to be added here, to complete this posting, that will show up later.

I would like to tantilize the minds view of this landscape, with a rendition of the Hills are alive with the Sound of Music, and what this looks like, as portrayed by Les Houches.:)