John Venn

The early historical work can be derived from personages. Helps sometimes to illucidate the avenue and abtractions that seem only fitted for the abstract mind?

Do people like to deal with such issues? I am finding that as I am learning, I am tryng to find the means with which to express myself, so that such a basis is understood when I bring togehter the thoughts I like to do, into other areas. So it is necessary to see how such abstract avenues play their role in my "fantasy journey's" and then introduce the deepr pursuate to explain myself more coherently.

A painting of John Venn by Charles E. Brock. Photograph by Christopher Hurst, Hamilton-Kerr Institute, University of Cambridge

John Venn (August 4, 1834 - April 4, 1923), was a British mathematician, who is famous for conceiving the Venn diagrams, which are used in many fields, including set theory, probability, logic, statistics, and computer science.

He was born in Hull, Yorkshire. He entered Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge in October 1853 and graduated in 1857. Shortly after graduating he was elected a fellow of the college. He was ordained as a deacon at Ely in 1858 and became a priest in 1859. In 1862 he returned to Cambridge as a lecturer in moral sciences.

So having lead one to the esence of this individual I wanted to introduce a journey that combined a few different avneues, and how I go to that point. But before I do this, the image with which I wanted to supply, will do wonders on the unification idea manifesting in my own mind.

Thomas Young's Double Slit Experiment

The double-slit experiment consists of letting light diffract through two slits producing fringes on a screen. These fringes or interference patterns have light and dark regions corresponding to where the light waves have constructively and destructively interfered. The experiment can also be performed with a beam of electrons or atoms, showing similar interference patterns; this is taken as evidence of the "wave-particle duality" explained by quantum physics.

Society and all it's function might have seemed beyond the approach of a method to determination that could underlie it's very existance by functions that would have never made sense had they not been curtailed to a way of seeing. I exploit this ability to see underneath society and its basis, by bringing together perspective, hopefully in a sound mangagement style and artistic endeavor, no less then the work of Lewis Carroll and his fictous name sake, that will be revealled soon enough.



This image below will serve it's purpose when it comes time, so being part of this overall post, this directs us to the amazing value of mathematicians as they exercizes their creatve abilities beyound the abstract frames they have give themself.

Lewis Carroll's fame is universal. I can easily cite a couple dozen books that mention him or quote from his books. Temptation to quote from Alice's experiences with which so many people can identify, is indeed great. But the trend may be reversing. In the introduction to a book I have recently come across, the author found it necessary to mention that in the whole of the book there is not a single reference to either Alice in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass - the two books that made the name of Lewis Carroll a household item the world over. However, his other works are either forgotten or known far less. In real life he was a mathematician C. L. Dodgson with deep interest in symbolic logic and logical reasoning. I have described elsewhere one of his probability and the doublets puzzles.

Now for some, the Feynmen diagrams become a useful toy model for defining the interatcive phases, and for me, being Junior in these aspects, I come with a lot of speculation, but no less the need for something to hang my hand on. It was interetsing for me to see that such defintions and pathways would have been exemplified by such drawings to hold the perspectve to specific interactve phases.

Now a given wide a berth to my speculation, from Young to Feynmen, I saw this content from Dirac's early work, as example used the matrice design? The work of Feynmen, leading from this. Now not to spread the willy nilly fate of wrong information, I would have to qualify this statement, and I wil do so at a later date. I will watch for such statements in my journeies and draw from them for support, if given. I would not lesson this view, by stating the topological pathway would have been incorporated into a design of strings no less held to such views of feynmen lines, that it would have explained these interactve phases as well. I think peope do not understand this very well?

So the work her ehas been lead nto a area of math that defnes the thinking process I have in a way that might not have been considered before? I wil expound even greater to confuse the masses, by introdcution of other areas that I found explicable by uniting avsion of such phase as to ask what value would GHZ entnaglement serve, but to have found the questions of the like sof Gerard t' hooft haunting when it comes to the questions also posed by Penrose. Do we need a new quantum mechanical view?

This highlighted my thinking and of course directed it too the state of examination given by Smolin and others, as we expound greatly on the essecne of Thomas young and his expeirment, and the basis bneeded for detrmination of the Trigger?:) I bet some see the principals now shown as I lead into other areas soon?:)

You had to understand, that Alice and Bob serve their purposes in a strange wonderful way. That one asks where had the photon gone, in it's illustrous journey of possibile pathways, that we did not wonder what intiatied this process? Would such a signature have highlighted the view with the question of the rigger signifying some deeper inherent basis of existance. That signalled other views to manifest into the world of gravtonic perceptions, no less dictating our understanding of time variable measures?

The Looking Glast

Could "Chaos" have been Implied in the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator, as Supersymmetry?

See:Quantum Harmonic Oscillators


Fortunately being the junior here in knowledge comprehension, the benefits, as of my having wrongly thought a certain way, allows "fantasy a great journey." I have wondered, could I have ever attained such insights that would awaken even the most determined individual to the quest of, to finally rest easy and a warm satisfaction?

Let's hold the Trigger in suspension. What is it's potential, had such symmetrical realizations made the axis of this process move according to some plan not seen? Are There methods seen in the matrices, that revolve around this "i" that woud have given the photon dispersement some relevance to a interactive phase within context? How about gluon perceptions? Tipler's lightcones also comes to mind here, as such a process?

I am so afraid to trip on my tongue, that such words listed, would have provided the necessary crackpot label. I wondered whether I should continue. But a motivation is borne of it's own accord, I couldn't help see some relevance to the "uncertainty in langrange points."

Although chaotic planetary motion had not been observed, experimentalists had encountered turbulence in fluid motion and nonperiodic oscillation in radio circuits without the benefit of a theory to explain what they were seeing.

Could have exemplified such unequilibrium, that at first, it made no sense to me that such points could have ever accomplished anything. Was there a lesson from lorentz and his model butterfly that such models had found the transfer from one state to another, could reveal such supersymmetrical acts of consideration in having found the anti- anything, and soon learnt, that it was the other side of the equation? The 720 degree turn, that brought the history of this action into a complete whole, and accord.



I would like to say this is nice to see that Lee Smolin has taken the time to help set things straight. This caught my eye.

This is linked to a Post written by Peter Woit called, " Why No New "Einstein"?

Lee Smolin:

6) With regard to the non-standard quantization, in which holonomies, but not local field operators are well defined, it is of course true that when applied to standard systems this leads to inequivalent results. “This apparently leads to unphysical consequences, such as an unbounded spectrum for the harmonic oscillator.” But, give me a break, do you really think someone is proposing to replace the standard quantization of the harmonic oscillator with the alternative one? What is being proposed is that the quantization used in LQG is well suited to the quantization of diffeo invariant gauge theories.

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

I have to read things over quite a few times before it seems to sink in, but reference to three sphere and the understanding of Poincare's model did not reduce my interest in seeing such correlations in how we saw such langrange points develope into this suspended state for the trigger to make itself known?

Many physicists find extra dimensions a distasteful notion. In remarks to an American Physical Society newsletter, physicist Frank Wilczek of MIT called the black hole study a sound way to test an unattractive idea.

"There's no question that the Auger observatory will be sensitive to this signal, if it exists," says Penn State's Stéphane Coutu, a member of the international Auger Observatory team. "We'll definitely look."

All of us are on the same wavelenght right? Blackhole determinations, set the stage, for what we hope to percieve is, "the basis of this trigger?"

How wonderful this rubber band that is slipped over the sphere, and as it expands from this point, "the loop" now becomes a exemplifier of all those things manifested from the spherical gaze of the harmonics?

What image is given from the blackhole to realize, that the gravitonic messager sent from the daisy of Taylor, would have found the penduluminaric thoughts in Greg's Egans's "animations of Lissajous" and a coordinated frame?

Gravity Leakage: Energy Accounted for in LHC Predictions?

If people were going to do test runs and predictions, how would they fair before the process is up and running?

Lubos Motl:

What does he say about the cosmological constant? Well, it does not exist. The accelerating expansion of the Universe is, Dvali argues, due to a "leak of gravitational force" into extra dimensions that only appears at very long distances.

So how is this supposed to support views of the space allocated to the views of a bulk with possibilties of expression, if contained in the graviton gatherings? How would high energy support the new visionary aspects of langrange points knowing that Gia has a way to measure. Would this support Gia's views?

Leaking Gravity May Explain Cosmic Puzzle
By Sara Goudarzi
Special to SPACE.com
posted: 28 February 2005

Dvali would modify the theory of gravity so that the universe becomes self-accelerating, eliminating the need for dark energy. He presented his work here earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Dvali borrows from string theory, which states that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the four we are familiar with: three directions and time. String theory suggests that gravitons -- hypothetical elementary particles transmitting gravitational forces -- can escape to other dimensions. Dvali says this would cause "leaks" in gravity over cosmic proportions, reducing gravitational pull at larger distances more than expected.

"The gravitons behave like sound in a metal sheet," says Dvali. "Hitting the sheet with a hammer creates a sound wave that travels along its surface. But the sound propagation is not exactly two-dimensional as part of the energy is lost into the surrounding air. Near the hammer, the loss of energy is small, but further away, it's more significant."

Michael Faraday

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

While it is always nice to see history in it's developemental stages, it is also nice to see this segment of the developemental process encoded in GR developement. Some take offence to this as well, but the beginning geometric design had to have it's basis in how such logic could extend through this process. This is a important feature of how develoepment could have been mapped.

Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions

Who would imagine that this simple law [constancy of the velocity of light] has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?

—Chap. VII.

If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we now supplement the propositions of Euclidean geometry by the single proposition that two points on a practically rigid body always correspond to the same distance (line-interval), independently of any changes in position to which we may subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean geometry then resolve themselves into propositions on the possible relative position of practically rigid bodies. 1 Geometry which has been supplemented in this way is then to be treated as a branch of physics. We can now legitimately ask as to the “truth” of geometrical propositions interpreted in this way, since we are justified in asking whether these propositions are satisfied for those real things we have associated with the geometrical ideas. In less exact terms we can express this by saying that by the “truth” of a geometrical proposition in this sense we understand its validity for a construction with ruler and compasses.

You have to forgive my awkwardness and juvenile attempts at understanding, how I ever entered the non-eucldean world and became familiar with expressionistic attempts of defining that particular world is beynd me. It's all through my writing here, is this blog as I continue to find the wording for what a "banana tastes like," yet having words at the tip of the tongue would have asked that all mathematcial interpretation be expressed in the universal language of math.


While we deal with the physics aspect of reality we can as well see the "world of vision" that is needed in context of this "geometrical design" to know that what is unseen, can also be mapped in this process. Simple experimental processes are good indicators of this vision that is needed and applied in our daily lives.



While such a simple experiment would have found that views in physics considerations would have limited some of the brane world happenings to such expression, this points to what is held to the brane. It would have been a good comprehension that such views are not like what could have left the brane and entered the bulk, but having udertsood well, that such calorimetic designs have been encapsulated. What was left as signatures, Sean Carroll demonstrated to us, in the Cern Public Relations and trigger responsiveness, that many are trying to comprehend.

I understood this well already. That any design through out this understanding of physics, would have realized, that the comprehension of GR would have lead us through to the understanding of what had left that brane, and Gia's example of the metal plate suits me well sometimes in this regard. But also, to understand that the resonance of being, would have understood also, that such gravitonic expressions moved beyond what had been held to in our standard model of expressions?



So coming back to the physics applications I wanted to undertsand this relation, so being part of this overall process, how would geometries express themselves? A parallel process was being developed in my mind in the way process was being developed in strings? So such a method brought to bear with GR views needed to understand that the inception of developing topological views, would have found it's history, in how we see this geometrcial process developed right from the euclid's postulate to topological views now held. How could this be accomplished? Had there ever been such a thought to map this process right from the instigation of euclidean postulates, to now?

It was thus I found such consistancies, in that such hierarchy of our geometers of our past, would lead us to understand our relation with a world that although is unseen has been very important in physics relations, to what is happening consistant with the way the we measure with the world of GR.

We indeed had to understand that GR was lead to a understanding in Riemann's world to know that such cosmological curvatures would have exemplified our greater undertanding of this inherent feature of geometry beyond the eucldeean world of straight lines and billiard ball tragetories.

Thus we know then, that Gaussian curvatures could have been exemplified in Maxwell's attempt at joining the views of Faraday, in a process, that is part and parcel of the work Einstein did.

So such views beyond the idealization of what could have existed in the gravitonic perception, needed to understand well, that such features would have been exemplified beyond the standard model as a carrier. That it could exist beyond the curtailments of brane world happenings, and be part of a bulk.

So what vision would apply then to such a world, if such consistancy were to apply itself as part and parcel of the view of euclidean demonstration? That such a geometrical process could have been seen right from the brane to it's fruitation as a model of greater possibilties? Steinhardt and Turok were very helpful here in a greater view. But stil this did not exemplify the understanding that such "a point" could be significant in the developing view of a cosmological expansionistic sense, and reval that such spheres as they develope also reveal the history of a liminocentric view of reality seen in our Calorimetric view of the trigger?

How ever difficult it is to accept this developing view, it is not without merit that such a process that is hidden in our human makeup, would also direct our view to what is most desirous in this wholeness that needs to be establised in our sciences.

Although it is urecognized by a lot of people, the layered plates and the deeper integrative views we have of our reductionistic processes, are viable means to interpretation and coming to terms with the greater comprehension of a world that is very dynamcial at that level. Can exist around us now.

That how simplistic to me, that such examples of the collider ad the arrow of direction loop de loop might have revealled a greater boson construct of a circle to sphere, as child's play. But if such a process were to begin, how would we ever see this line, develope into a circle, and the greater context of Gr seen in how the trigger is realized?

Gluonic perception is ever pointed towards the reductionistc view, but where shall such a limit exist, if the energy had moved beyond the confines of the collisions?

Search for Extra-dimensions with ATLAS at the LHC: The Lions Den

I have often wonder whether or not my opinions about left and right aspect battling in society, are right?:) Peter Woit saids string theory is right wing financed? I hate to dread that media has been perversive enough in order to support political factions affecting science?

So I'll tell you how affected I have become too, so you can see that the greater significance and responsibility is not really about right and left, but about science's perspective about the state of affairs beyond the matters at hand?

I couldn't help think of the flavour of good scientific minds, who would rise to the challenge, and make the theoretical approach some struggle between good and evil? As some atheistic attempt, "to remove informative possibilities" from the subject that might have come from the "trigger of emergent properties"? I don't say change quantum mechanical porpityies either just that we see it in context of a new model. Is this wrong, or right?

Fancy free, and without adeu, I cast myself on what it must be like, if such a fancy was taken to the issues of "Intelligent design," that it could have ever undermined the basis of this literary conversation, to have scientists designated here and there, as a division, regardless of the virtues of scientific inquiry held to both.

So herein, begins the story.:)

"The soul that rises with us, our life's star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar."

"Intimations of Immortality" by William Wordsworth

>"Or, if through lower lives I came--
Tho' all experience past became,
Consolidate in mind and frame--
I might forget my weaker lot;
For is not our first year forgot?
The haunts of memory echo not."

"Two Voices" by Tennyson

"As to you, Life, I reckon you are the leavings of many deaths,
No doubt I have died myself ten thousand times before."

""Leaves of Grass" by Walt Whitman



Solidus of Justinian I (r. 527–565), 538–565

Byzantine; Minted in Constantinople
Gold; Diam. 3/4 in. (1.9 cm)
Bequest of Joseph H. Durkee, 1898 (99.35.7406)
Coins connected an emperor to his subjects. Through inscriptions and images, they conveyed imperial ideals and commemorated auspicious events. The emperor paid the army and received taxes in coins, and he was responsible for maintaining their weight and purity. This coin was minted under Justinian, whose preference for a completely frontal portrait—rather than the traditional profile—would set a standard for the rest of Byzantine history.


The struggle then is something contained back in our history, to have those who will guide us through common sense to say, that the evils of society are no less the roads taken by revisionist who would try and change the path of Christianity? Be smited by, those who hold on religious tenant might have been extolled into the future of lives? Where go these "lost souls" while they converge on string theory and try and change history?:)

From A Defense of an Essay of Dramatic Poesy (1668) by John Dryden

Imagination in a man, or reasonable creature, is supposed to participate of reason, and when that governs, as it does in the belief of fiction, reason is not destroyed, but misled, or blinded: that can prescribe tot he reason, during the time of the representation, somewhat like a weak belief of what it sees and hears; and reason suffers itself to be so hoodwinked, that it may better enjoy the pleasures of the fiction: but it is never so wholly made a captive as to be drawn headlong into a persuasion of those things which are most remote from probability: 'tis in that case a free-born subject, not a slave; it will contribute willingly its assent, as far as it sees convenient, but will not be forced....Fancy and reason go hand in hand; the first cannot leave the last behind; and though fancy, when it sees the wide gulf, would venture over, as the nimbler; yet it is withheld by reason, which will refuse to take the leap, when the distance over it appears too large

Missing E_T and its uses (LHC)?

This larger font sized comment directs us in our quest to wonder what had been going with the anti-stringy camps who might have challenged the views? Is there sufficient data to back up the statements, other then to stand as "religous converts of a point of view," soley spoken by the "more advanced," might have their reasons why this approach is insufficient? Other then, to hold the roads of a predawn attempts in christianity to a societal way of thinking, contrary, to the established views written in the years of Constantinople in 538?:)

Thanks to the high collision energy and luminosity of the LHC, the ATLAS detector will be capable of revealing the existence of extra spatial dimensions in some substantial region of parameter space. The talk will summarize recent studies from the collaboration on different possible signals predicted by models where the dimensions are "large", where they are of size ~TeV^-1 or where they are "warped". These signals include direct emission of Kaluza-Klein states of gravitons, virtual effects of graviton exchange and gauge boson excitations. We shall also discuss the possibilities of observing black holes.

In post below this one the question of extra energy was a important one in that it highlights the question of those "extra dimensions or not." For my generalized view, there is no leading explanation to the general public that would annouce how this diversion from current scientific approaches of Cern, will lead to satisfaction of the road of super string theory has taken. To understand, it is not willy nilley approach to some "Intelligent design quest" that such string theorists had been cornered too, in discription by anti-stringy voices?

From what I had understood contrary to this view of the string camp, it's only opositon was LQG and the roads that lead in that general direction. At least these were directions that operated from a basis of discrete or continuity, other then mere speculation of the sort that would dissuaade most readers from idolizing , and being drawn into the lair of lions?:)

It was as if the rhtymns of life could been entangled in minds and the quantum Harmonic osccilator embedded to language that science found in the true numerical basis of eisstance, that it could be cast in forms of shakesperean words, and hidden from the view by Francis Bacon's true discourse on history?

On constitution reform, Jefferson Davis words needed revision, to have a man like Benjamin Franklin stand up and devote a treaty on reason? It would guide the American view, to a healthy and just system of inquiry, as to the rights and freedoms shared by the American views? What lessons lie in scientific inquiry then to have those who stand at the forefront, and make it some intangible realism of the "forces of light and darkness "fighting to bring society into it's talons?

"Death, so called, is but older matter dressed
In some new form. And in a varied vest,
From tenement to tenement though tossed,
The soul is still the same, the figure only lost."

Poem on Pythagoras, Dryden's Ovid.


See:

ICHEP'04-Accepted Abstracts for Session 12: Beyond the standard model

The Trigger

Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Why no new Einstein?

This article entitled above has been thought about in terms of the issue brought forth by Peter Woit and Lubos Motl rspectively.

When I seen Sean's post it brought back to me the work I had been doing to understand the way in which such measures allow us to precieve the interactive feature of the world that few of us will ever see without these means of measure.



It also brought me back to how we see in terms of calorimetric views, in the Glast satelitte. Here was two methods, that used similar processes, to help us understand the interact feature we might seen in the reductionist priciples that are happening right now out in the cosmo and what the potential was through particle collisions.

Part of the counterpart of looking at particle creation would have been able to understand the part of the calorimeters that are used to measure the evidence produced. IN this context, it lead me to the Atlas information held at CERN. It also made me think of Glast determinations of early universe indications from the calorimeter located in the Glast satelitte.

Sean Carroll:

As a theorist (and one who grew up in astronomy departments), one of the most fascinating concepts in high-energy experiments is that of a trigger. Each detector will witness approximately one billion collisions per second, which is a lot. You might imagine that you're faced with two problems: simply recording all the data from each event, and then sifting through them for the interesting bits. You're right, but it's much worse than you think. That's because each event isn't just a few bytes if data; it's of order one megabyte per event. There's simply no way you could record all of the data.

So indeed such views move our consideration to what happens at these levels and the beginning of this process known as the trigger. Mine, is a generalized view and without inducing the features of Intelligent Design and such, I am still amazed that ths issue has moved some of these minds to wonder about the forces of light and darkness, and what these gentlemen might have seen as the "good and evil of the world?"

Is this what it has come down too? That the requirment of Cern will not have found the means to point us in the direction of the "basis of all design" and leave us to wonder what that trigger might have been? I think, as vague as I lead, I have been lead? On the contrary, such sharing that had taken place has alowed me the oortunity to explore these potentials amongst a segment of the population, that few had ever dared to enter froma public perspective.



It seems quite simple to me, that such a basic question belies the level of commitment that our forebears have in "directing us." To look at, "what could exist in the space around us," and we had not understood that something could exist in both worlds of design. That the weak and strong, might show us, that there is a basis? Again here I am cautioned by John Ellis's views.

Toward the end of a ten-year experiment in 1991, postdoc Hungye Dai of the University of Utah was puzzling over some really unusual data. The experiment was Fly’s Eye, which pioneered a new method of studying ultra-high-energy cosmic rays by monitoring the faint flashes of ultraviolet light produced in the sky when the particles hit the upper atmosphere. Lead scientist Pierre Sokolsky recalls when Dai showed him the anomalous numbers. Sokolsky thought they were a fluke from the detector: “You know, you always expect to see stuff like that, and it’s usually just junk,” says Sokolsky. “So I told him to go away, and to look at it some more.”

So we are indeed looking for this method, this trigger, that would unite both possible worlds, to understand as we look around us, something exists which we had never entertained before? Microstate blackholes and blackholes of the cosmo, as triggers?

But if this is so, then what language would suit us to know that the basis of this existance can operate in both seemingly unrelated views of GR and Quantum mechanics?

So like Smolin, we are looking hard for this trigger, and many scientists are engaged from different perspectives to say that if we unite in this view, then indeed the new spirit of Einstein was born, because we set him free amongst the population?

Missing E_T and its uses (LHC)?

Why No New Einstein

To them, I said,
the truth would be literally nothing
but the shadows of the images..

-Plato, The Republic (Book VII)

The inference of dimensional attributes scares many good minds away from the matters at hand?:)

Lubos Motl:

The only truly open questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics are those that also require us to understand dynamics of quantum gravity properly.

I think Gerard t' Hooft would like to change the way we see quantum mechanics? Non!

The Holographical Principle

I must add a very important note. It is still hard for me to believe that Lee Smolin wrote something that could imply that *he* was the author of the conjecture. Lee Smolin has nothing to do with the discovery of the holographic principle and I hope that he always refers to the real authors properly-and it was just you who did not read carefully enough. The holographic conjecture, based on the Bekenstein's bounds and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole,has been first proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and discussed in more detail by Lenny Susskind:

But my point is, that if we are lead to the understanding of gravity as GR does, then why would we not entertain the idea, that there are forces of gravity stronger, and areas, that are weaker?

Of course, to Plato this story was just meant to symbolize mankind's struggle to reach enlightenment and understanding through reasoning and open-mindedness. We are all initially prisoners and the tangible world is our cave. Just as some prisoners may escape out into the sun, so may some people amass knowledge and ascend into the light of true reality.

What is equally interesting is the literal interpretation of Plato's tale: The idea that reality could be represented completely as `shadows' on the walls

How will the photon respond in such shadows?

Why would we not extend this vision from GR understanding well, that such resistance by Einstein, required deeper thinkers to respond to the theory that they had put forth in Solvay?


by Jacob D. Bekenstein
TWO UNIVERSES of different dimension and obeying disparate physical laws are rendered completely equivalent by the holographic principle. Theorists have demonstrated this principle mathematically for a specific type of five-dimensional spacetime ("anti–de Sitter") and its four-dimensional boundary. In effect, the 5-D universe is recorded like a hologram on the 4-D surface at its periphery. Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case. Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle.

It is thus, it challenged the views, of even the most determined thinkers, professional or not, once the paradox of thought experiment was introduced? Set the targets for research and developement and the initiatives of the younger generation to excell where the limtations had been drawn.

So in the one sense such a strong stance by Einstein was the incentive for a generation to prove its ability and prowness to overcome the limitations set by Einstein.

Do I believe he understood this?

Most assuredly so, for such conversation and thought experiments would have never been inrtroduced in such a forum, as to the require greater participation of thinkers to succeed. Some even to their death, still felt Eisntein's challenge, and we have a wonderful area of developement that has moved our visions to wonderful interactive feature of "gluonic perceptions."

I believe also that Lee Smolin, from his current work, is to instill and gather strong leaders to focus in a direction that Lubos has spotted, as a signature of Lee Smolin ways. To discern the quality and direction, before gravitonic abilities are ever encountered.

So yes such attempts are interesting, in that we see Glast detrmination as viable pathways to solving the understanding of the world around us and even going to great lengths, to move these consderation down to the level we might seee in such energetic features where such gravities might have exemplied a measured interactive feature like those of the Calorimetric design.

So the challenge was given to both sides of the camps to give us a way inwhich to see how such a challenge could measure progress? Is it not here, that such a stance holds each other accountable?

Lee Smolins ways expermentally are driven, even as the world of Strings are driven to bring perspective to the engagement, of the "way in which we see?" Careful challeneges to the interpretation, that such ideas are held within the scope of the Calorimentric view and all the while, the challenge has been a puzzle to that "missing energy" going someplace?

Where is this if such a boundary has been understood and the puzzle offered for introspection, that each other wants the other to understand it's limitations?

So now we have the place in which such a challenge should make itself known and we have the likes of Cern's delivery on microstate blackhole production, to have found it's associative feature in how we see interactive features can happen all around us without cern? >John Ellis is careful to draw these distinctions for us.

Do we have Proof of this Missing Energy? If the answer is yes, then the issue has not been resolved?

Three Sphere

There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not some day be applied to phenomena of the real world.

— Nikolai Lobachevsky

Bernhard Riemann once claimed: "The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean." His prophesy was realized later with Einstein's general theory of relativity. It is futile to expect one "correct geometry" as is evident in the dispute as to whether elliptical, Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry is the "best" model for our universe. Henri Poincaré, in Science and Hypothesis (New York: Dover, 1952, pp. 49-50) expressed it this way.

A sphere is, roughly speaking, a ball-shaped object. In mathematics, a sphere comprises only the surface of the ball, and is therefore hollow. In non-mathematical usage a sphere is often considered to be solid (which mathematicians call ball).

More precisely, a sphere is the set of points in 3-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is a positive real number called the radius of the sphere. The fixed point is called the center or centre, and is not part of the sphere itself. The special case of r = 1 is called a unit sphere.

Spheres can be generalized to higher dimensions. For any natural number n, an n-sphere is the set of points in (n+1)-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is, as before, a positive real number. Here, the choice of number reflects the dimension of the sphere as a manifold.

a 0-sphere is a pair of points

a 1-sphere is a circle

a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere

a 3-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space


Spheres for n ¡Ý 3 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. The notation Sn is also often used to denote any set with a given structure (topological space, topological manifold, smooth manifold, etc.) identical (homeomorphic, diffeomorphic, etc.) to the structure of Sn above.

An n-sphere is an example of a compact n-manifold.

In mathematics, a 3-sphere is a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere. A regular sphere, or 2-sphere, consists of all points equidistant from a single point in ordinary 3-dimensional Euclidean space, R3. A 3-sphere consists of all points equidistant from a single point in R4. Whereas a 2-sphere is a smooth 2-dimensional surface, a 3-sphere is an object with three dimensions, also known as 3-manifold.

In an entirely analogous manner one can define higher-dimensional spheres called hyperspheres or n-spheres. Such objects are n-dimensional manifolds.

Some people refer to a 3-sphere as a glome from the Latin word glomus meaning ball.

Poincare Conjecture

If we stretch a rubber band around the surface of an apple, then we can shrink it down to a point by moving it slowly, without tearing it and without allowing it to leave the surface. On the other hand, if we imagine that the same rubber band has somehow been stretched in the appropriate direction around a doughnut, then there is no way of shrinking it to a point without breaking either the rubber band or the doughnut. We say the surface of the apple is "simply connected," but that the surface of the doughnut is not...

In mathematics, the Poincaré conjecture is a conjecture about the characterisation of the three-dimensional sphere amongst 3-manifolds. It is widely considered to be the most important unsolved problem in topology.

The Poincaré conjecture is one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems for which the Clay Mathematics Institute is offering a $1,000,000 prize for a correct solution. As of 2004 it is becoming accepted that a proof offered by Grigori Perelman in 2002 may have disposed of this question, after nearly a century. Perelman's work is still under review.

Artists such as M. C. Escher have become fascinated with the Poincaré model of hyperbolic geometry and he composed a series of "Circle Limit" illustrations of a hyperbolic universe. In Figure 17.a he uses the backbones of the flying fish as "straight lines", being segments of circles orthogonal to his fundamental circle. In Figure 17.b he does the same with angels and devils. Besides artists and astronomers, many scholars have been shaken by non-Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry had been so universally accepted as an eternal and absolute truth that scholars believed they could also find absolute standards in human behavior, in law, ethics, government and economics. The discovery of non-Euclidean geometry shocked them into understanding their error in expecting to determine the "perfect state" by reasoning alone.

Deterministic Chaos Theory and the Cosmos

This gallery was inspired by a lecture of Dr. Julien Sprott and his work.To learn how these are created, check out my Strange Attractor Tutorial. Click on the images to enlarge them.

It was important for me to reveal how I am seeing the cosmo. How the superhighway has been spoken too, in regards to the Langrange points.These points are lead to and from unstable orbits. Points, where gravity balances out between bodies, like the earth and the moon. These are not to be considered stable equilibrium points.

Here we speak of the interactions of the Sun-Earth Lagrange point dynamics with the Earth-Moon Lagrange point dynamics. We motivate the discussion using Jupiter comet orbits as examples. By studying the natural dynamics of the Solar System, we enhance current and future space mission design."

So what would these winding paths around this point look like? You had to be able to see this work on a cosmological scale and in seeing this used in practise we have now gained in deterministc systems where previously we did not recognize the multiplicty of rotations within regions afffected, between gravitational points called L1 and L2.

The Roots of Chaos Theory

The roots of chaos theory date back to about 1900, in the studies of Henri Poincaré on the problem of the motion of three objects in mutual gravitational attraction, the so-called three-body problem. Poincaré found that there can be orbits which are nonperiodic, and yet not forever increasing nor approaching a fixed point. Later studies, also on the topic of nonlinear differential equations, were carried out by G.D. Birkhoff, A.N. Kolmogorov, M.L. Cartwright, J.E. Littlewood, and Stephen Smale. Except for Smale, who was perhaps the first pure mathematician to study nonlinear dynamics, these studies were all directly inspired by physics: the three-body problem in the case of Birkhoff, turbulence and astronomical problems in the case of Kolmogorov, and radio engineering in the case of Cartwright and Littlewood. Although chaotic planetary motion had not been observed, experimentalists had encountered turbulence in fluid motion and nonperiodic oscillation in radio circuits without the benefit of a theory to explain what they were seeing.

13:30 Lecture
Edward Norton Lorenz
Laureate in Basic Sciences
“How Good Can Weather Forecasting Become ? – The Star of a Theory”

Now I came to the image below in a most unusual way. Now when one sees the image as a butterfly, it is not hard to see how it might have some deterministic quality to it, that Edward might thought it significant for presenting to the masses on issues of climate change?

Edward Norton Lorenz is an American mathematician and meteorologist, and a contributor to the chaos theory and inventor of the strange attractor notion. He coined the term butterfly effect.

Now as I awoke after looking at this superhighway that is used inthe Genesis project I could not have helped identifying the strange attractor, somehwere in this interactive phase spoken about in the points of unequilibrium, and as possible changes in the patwern from one orbit to another. Not only did I see this in Lorenz's image, but in another one as well. so I'll place this one later at the end.

Edward Lorenz, an American meteorologist, discovered in the early 1960s, that a simplified computer model of the weather demonstrated extreme sensitivity to the initial measured state of the weather. He demonstrated visually that there was structure in his chaotic weather model, and, when plotted in three dimensions, fell onto a butterfly-shaped set of points. This is the trajectory of a system in chaotic motion, otherwise known as the "Butterfly Effect". A system in chaotic motion is completely unpredictable. Given the configuration of the system at any one point in time, it is impossible to predict with certainty how it will end up at a later point in time. However, the motion of the chaotic system is not completely random, as evidenced by the general pattern of the trajectory in this image.
Picture courtesy of: Scott Camazine / Photo Researchers, Inc.

It all starts to come togehter when it is undertsoo dthat visionistic qualites could have entered a new phase in human understanding where once this feature was unexpainable in a non deterministic way. Such a cosmlogical interactive system exist all through this cosmos now that we have undertsood the places where such capabilties are to exist? Thank you ISCAP for the "mantra of images" that have been displayed.



Time, seems to have brought them together for me, and what a strange way it has materialized. If Thales of Miletus was to have wondered about the basis of of the primary principal it would have been in Edward Lorenz's views that we had seen a system come together that was not fully understood before.

In the Time Variable Gravity measures of Grace it seems that the measure of the planet would have this basis to consider? While the mass features zeroed and changes according to the hills and valleys, would see this primary principal of some use?

Using Thales of Miletus primary principal, as a basis in the time variable measures of climate perspective, are we given a preview of what is not only happening in the cosmo, but is also happening in our deterministic approaches to weather predictions?

The theory of relativity predicts that, as it orbits the Sun, Mercury does not exactly retrace the same path each time, but rather swings around over time. We say therefore that the perihelion -- the point on its orbit when Mercury is closest to the Sun -- advances.

Given a appropriate response to the Daisey, Taylor was very helpful in explaining Mercuries orbital patterns, but now, this proces having moved to higher dimensional understanding recognizing the value of such images that the strange attractor brings to us? In a way, we have brought quantum mechanical processses together with relativity?

Genesis Spacecraft uses Tubes as Freeways

Without someview that would be consistent through out the cosmo, how would such points be of value? Did we not see this variation could exist when you travelled to another location, given higher dimensional comprehenisons? In order for this view to be scalable it had to have begun in some other way, that we could sufficely say that it was strong once and all pervasive, but now?

There are reasons for this story to be thought abou,t and here after seeing the greater challenge of gravitational consideration in terms of how we percieve Earth's relationship with the sun and moon. Now why did we not see the significance of gravitational considerations bring to us views of the cosmos before now? Consider space travel in light of these tubes?


LOOP-DE-LOOP. The Genesis spacecraft's superhighway path took it to the Earth-sun gravitational-equilibrium point L1, where it made five "halo" orbits before swinging around L2 and heading home.Ross

In the 18th century, European mathematicians Leonhard Euler and Joseph-Louis Lagrange discovered that in this rotating frame there are five gravitational sweet spots, now called Lagrange points. At these equilibrium points, the competing pulls on the third body balance each other, and the body remains motionless.

by Douglas L. Smith

A set of five of these balance points, called Lagrange or libration points, exist between every pair of massive bodies—the sun and its planets, the planets and their moons, and so on. Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736–1813) discovered the existence of the two points now known as L4 and L5, each of which is located in the orbital plane at the third vertex of an equilateral triangle with, say, Earth at one vertex and the moon at the other. So L4 is 60° in advance of the moon, and L5 60° behind it. Ideally, a spacecraft at L4 or L5 will remain there indefinitely because when it falls off the cusp, the Coriolis effect—which makes it hard for you to walk on a moving merry-go-round—will swirl it into a long-lived orbit around that point. Comet debris and other space junk tends to collect there, and Jupiter has accumulated an impressive set of asteroids that way.