New Conceptualization: The Distance on the Brain:)

Now again before you jump to conclusions and say what a crackpot I am, listen to what I have to say about how I see in the coordinates assigned to the corner of the room. I give explicit idealizations in terms of measure, yet in these same quadrants, something much more had to be realized.

I accept the theoretical position of what the vacuum might mean from the beginning of time (?), or that it has always existed, and that events, are recognized from it's quivering in the very nature of that space-time fabric. But more then this the example below, asks not that you focus on the membrane that is demonstrated but of what causes this membrane to act as it does.

You see this is what sort of transfixes me to such views, where such distances are connected, even though there are problems with this view. Elasticity of a kind stretches far beyond our imaginations, to have gravity explain itself in what the bulk might represent in the space of all things. Bubble nucleation takes on new meaning here, all the while discrete things attract our attention in this world, there is something happening beyond the seen here, to understand what is not seen is very much real too.

Stretching the Brain

Quantum Gravity: The Blackhole

Drawing Plane and Coordinate Systems More information is given here in Wiki.

There is no "distance" separating cosmological events, from the cubic centimeter in the corner of the room? I have to tell you why I see this, and what lead me to conclude such a thing. As I relay at bottom of page, this will be the subject of the next posted thread.

Imagine spreading such malicious comments as those in bold below?:)

Brian Greene

Sure. One of the strangest features of string theory is that it requires more than the three spatial dimensions that we see directly in the world around us. That sounds like science fiction, but it is an indisputable outcome of the mathematics of string theory. So the question is, where are these extra dimensions? One suggestion is that they're all around us, but they're small relative to the dimensions that we directly see and therefore are more difficult to detect.

I guess the link to source is good enough sometimes but not the page with which the url exists?:)

Sometimes all it takes is a concept to fuel the direction with which we might presume to deal with this world of the spacetime fabric. Brian Greene surmizes, and in a synoptic mode aligns our view for consideration, or a Lee Smolin, in developing Three roads, previews quantum gravity approaches for consideration. This "lineage", is developed in this sense.

The Fabric of the Cosmo, by Brian Greene, is a good source for inspiration, on my "The Fifth Dimension, is the Spacetime Fabric." I am gone in a whisper, and advancement is placed for those who will exceed our limitation in how we percieve the world. This is the way it has always been. On and upward.:)

Good people like Gerard t'Hooft help direct our attention in a most appropriate way, even amidst the ramble of rejection of any theoretical position. Once the comment is established, then indeed we move ahead to wonder and draw the conclusions we do, with a whole page of such reasoning. This whole blog is filled with this central idea.

Imagine molecules in the corner cubic centimeter of the room( nice visulaization for a strting point), and all that exists in this space is contained, all, the information of the universe at large? Would I have triggered ideas in the notion that Pierre Auger seen something unusual in cosmic interactive features of our current earth, as a playing field for particle reductionism? In face of LHC and all the wonderful toys that have been produced to extend vision in a reductionistic world? You have to remember John Ellis here, is how I ascent to views in these two different ways.

Gerard t' Hooft:

The predominant force controlling large scale events in the Universe is the gravitational one. The physical and the mathematical nature of this force were put in an entirely new perspective by Albert Einstein. He noted that gravitation is rooted in geometric properties of space and time themselves. The equations he wrote down for this force show a remarkable resemblance with the gauge forces that control the sub-nuclear world as described in the previous paragraph, but there is one essential difference: if we investigate how individual sub-atomic particles would affect one another gravitationally, we find that the infinities are much worse, and renormalization fails here. Under normal circumstances, the gravitational force between sub-atomic particles is so weak that these difficulties are insignificant, but at extremely tiny distance scales, of the order of 10-33 cm, this force will become strong. We are tempted to believe that, at these tiny distance scales, the fabric of space and time is affected by quantum mechanical phenomena, but exactly how this happens is still very mysterious. One approach to this problem is to ask: under which circumstance is the gravitational force as strong as it ever can be? The answer to this is clear: at the horizon of a black hole. If we could understand the peculiar physical phenomena that one expects at the horizon of a black hole, and if we could find a meaningful description of its quantum mechanical laws, then perhaps this would open up new perspectives.

Smolins interpretive stance of the blackhole horizon( glast determnations fuel this venture into recognition of a discrete approach to measure,) in what is emitted on a cosmological scale. Others who paved the way for this horizon problem, take us back, Hawking, to the pre-established roads to wonder, where today does subject sit? How well in minds has this conclusion played out, that we have ventured forth in a wonderful way to approach this in such a theoretical fashion. That only "pure thought", mathematics, could have paved the way of where physics will continued on in physical interpretation.

I will introduce the idea of this "membrane analogy in the cubic centimentor:)" for further consideration, shortly after I attend to getting wood fuel for the winter months today.

Looking Under The Lamp Post

Foundational Mathematics and Physics?

I reproduce the post written below to Peter's Quantum Gravity Commentary because that basis of determinations supported by John Baez, introduces a new line of thinking, that as a layman, forces me to think about mathematics and physics in their context.

John Baez:

In short: it may be less important to work on physics when there’s a high chance one is barking up the wrong tree and ones work will wind up in the dustbin of history, than to do math that’s clearly good.

This issue, of course, is part of what Peter’s blog is all about
But, I understand the disappointed feelings you are expressing, because physics is a wonderful quest. It’s very hard to give it up, even in times like ours when it’s hard to tell if real progress is being made..

As the thinking of General Relativity unfolded I could not help to consider the developement of geometry through this process. Now, we have interesting physics experiments in relation cosmological questioons. Applicability of the enviroment to particle reductionism and collisions( see Steven Gidding here on blackhole production, or Pierre Auger experiments spoken to by John Ellis) in a modern world.

Corections made here in post after seeing no post their on Peter Woit's site>

Interesting ways in which to measure gravitational deviations?

So do we say, no gravitational differences exist? Two avenues to exploration make themself known and also the question of how we might see landscape abilities spread through interactive phases at levels of energy detrminations that warrant such views relative to physics developement and mathematical forays? I am getting confused.


John Baez said: The existence, number, and character of supergravity theories depends strongly on the dimension of spacetime!

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-07/msg0033897.html

John, you point out the basis of Peter's Blog and assert the basis of math as a lone venture outside of physics. Might it be concievable, that math should have the basis of physics at it's core, as it extends itself in those abtract realms?

Ex:

IN Sylvester surfaces, while it seems these shapes "beautiful", it would have not made more sense if the Dynkin diagrams, a introduction by Nigel Hitchens, would help us see B Field manifestation as interesting outside of the physics, yet related?

In a QG atmosphere, such landscape applicabiltiy would help extend concept developement to math relations you speak of in different weeks?

More Quantum Gravity Comments

Aristotle: Commenced his investigation on the Wisdom of the philosphers. "Thales says that it is water" it is the nature of the arche, the originating principle. Water is the Nature of All Things"

Now relax before you start assigning numerical values to the opening statement:) Might I see a greater context in the evaporation(decay), of course, and I will say I like to think all things have some issue in this regard? Some evidence?:)

After I wrote my post below on quantum gravity and related Jacques comments, I was glad to find Lubos Motl and Peter Woit both had created similar posts to address this issue a little more deeply. Reference to John Baez was also very important, from the basis of clearing up the view points Peter holds to in regards to his feelings on quantum gravity as well.

I know that my view is much distant from the qualified aspects of these gentleman have to offered. I find hope, that there might be this capable resolution to giving perspective to where perspective is needed. This is valuable to me, as I know with some conviction the idea of this landscape will not let go of my inquiring mind.

Finding methods of application in the weak field measure were held in mind when dimensional significance was assign those extra dimenions. As we find the attempts at experimental verification less then satisfying, or the views to moon measure(?), it became clear to me, we already were doing things in this regard, and just were not privy to these views.



I know too, to limited the alchemical relation or be torched on the ground of crackpotism rules assigned a numerical value to any opening statement, so I had to be careful here in referring to the Thalean view:) This aspect was consider when I held to view the new methods at dealing with gravity with our space born measuring eye to eye. I have nothing more to say about the too and fro, and the distant measurte her eof our global planet, that I would too consider the extension of the Reimannian view had also be extended by me and not limited as Peter might have thought.

Lubos said:

But that's not how it works in the quantum world. If an event is very "weak" - such as a decay of a light nucleus - quantum mechanics dictates that with a probability close to one, the process has *no* impact whatsoever on spacetime geometry (or the electromagnetic field); and there is a small probability that one produces one (or a few) gravitons (or photons).

Although I would not like to invoke mysticism in this venture, the "weak field" view had amazed me when I understood that a measure would be capable in a new global perspective, spoken to here.

While I had to remind of compassion that exists, I had to interrupt the flow of the site for a minute, so that perspective was brought back from all the political ramifications and warring views materializing about the oil and gas reserve that is being gobbled up from other countries to secure the resource for the United States.

This did not look good to me, as I looked back to the views of the terrorism being fought in another land, might have also held the security of these reserves to lives willing to be sacrificed. That's all I wil say about this, and holding these thoughts, I wanted to continue to speak to that subject of quantum gravity regardless of the tragety taking place on our globe. I won't assignthese values to a God, becuase the science is still very compelling to me that we are limtied as always from a wquantum mechanical perspective that weather itself produces.

So without these views on weak field measure I undertsood now that in my mind, this process was not needed in looking at the dimensinal valuation aldeberger and others are doing, becuase we can measure this gravity in ways tha we are not accustomed too.

It is not bad a reason now to consider that this Thalean view although very wrong for our current day, I understood well "first principle" from his perspective was based on water. So to me finding this calibration point amidst the field qualites of a planet much greater in perspective to this ths beautiful globe of water, fresh water resources become critical issues with such large populatins covering the face of these land masses.

So try as you might to argue with me about the tangibility of a landscape one is painted inhow weassign the relativity measure to our features of water pervasive ness amidst mas detrmination of hills and valleys. Thsi was a conceptually success in my mind even while good science minds are embroiled inthe requiremets of how to assign symmetry breaking froma supersymmetrical world, ther had to be some constant in thought. Some valuatin about th eidea of the landscape to make it applicable in how we loking at this functionin our world measures.

No where did I mention the perfect fluid of the strong coupling, but iwas very aware of the nedd for the quantum mechanical process to be addrssed conceptually. I of course from layman views am stl subject to mistakes inmy views but I struggle hard to over come these by continuing to learn and watch.

Here I would like to give credit to Clifford of Cosmic Variance for taking this discussin further, and the perception of Smolins for this integrative civilized discussion without invoking the Intelligent design issue. I have now gone past the resistance to landscape analogies to continue to perfect the view of a dimensional reality that few want to acknolwedge and deal with.

If indeed I wanted to assign transcendance to the computer world, the sentient being would be one that recognizes that a world in graphic resoluiton, had now paved the way for the Thalean group of mathematicans who Peter Woit mentioned. Might these people break the barriers of mathematicians from the world of theoretical into the world of physics.

I always had trouble understanding why theoretics would be so held in distain holding the mathemtic mind, but I understand this resistance when a personality would have been assigned, a ID classification, even though the physics had to be correlated in those same equations? They had to be able to operate at the edge, and continue on from that point.

So indeed this point of mass assignation, is indeed a troubling one, while I still see fluidity as a continous feature of supersymmetrical view? Such allocations of discretion were less then appealing, although necessary, as a measure of the depth of perception. So how do we resolve it?:) I am not sure either, but for some strange reason I can't let go of the view of a continous nature, when left to see decay as a measure of what existed in another state.

So of course we look for this trigger. This place where all might agree and if all created, started from such a place then how shall we assign our reason to what shall be the best way to proceed?

I wanted to add Lee Smolin's comments here.

Lee Smolin said:Of course if the theory is right-and we never assume so-we must show more. We must show that the ground state is semiclassical, by solving the dynamics. This is a hard problem, analogous to showing that the ground state of water is a solid. But as this is the focus of attention there are beginning to be significant, non-trivial results on how classical spacetime can emerge from a background independent quantum theory.

UV Fixed Point

Clifford draws our attention to further talks here in his post and directs us to what Jacque Distler has to say.

I must say this is a refreshing look with Jacques contribution to further the layman point of view. Such links are worth while in the advancement of the "sentient being" that Clifford might have thought the computer world could have developed into once we assign our geometries to that world, as we would of numerical relativity and the designs we get from this look. Thomas Banchoff should be commended forthis contribution to fifth dimensional idealism in the computer world, with the notion of graphics design as a whole new approach to this understanding. Who said mathematics guys are a little to abstract for the laymen view?

Jacque Distler:

Yeah. I had hoped I was being clear.

I meant a nontrivial (non-Gaussian) UV fixed point. A Gaussian fixed point would be too much to hope for.

Now you must know that to see what he was saying, "Gaussian coordinates" determined below this post helped me to relate what was being said here. But more then this the statement of Jacques orientates what might be further implied and what had missed in my thinking.

So just to carry on a bit with this point "P" in gaussian coordinated of frame of UV, what realization exists that we could not find some relevance here in the geometry to have further exploited the mind's capabilties by venturing into the Wunderkammern of thinking. By association, of Nigel Hitchin's "B Field manifestations geometries" to realize that althought these might be limited to what Jacque is saying , then what value this geometry if we can not see the landscape as something real in time variable measures?

That we might attribute a globe, that while spherical in it's design, holds much more in it's determination. That while it might issue it's electronmagnetic field of lines, that it too could have found greater relevance in the issues of Quantum gravity, with those same inclinations of time variablenesss, that I allude too?



What am I missing that such events held to the brane in fermion distinction would not find boson production off the brane, as real as, the topic of time variableness that we might issue in geometrical feature of a globe. A globe, that is very bumpy indeed. Is this thinking limited in terms of landscape valuation? Not only in terms of brane and fermionic response, but of the real live correlation of the topic of branes in a more realistic sense, held to these geometries?

While indeed such B Field Manifestation becomes real in tangibles in our arguement of where our UV perspective might be held too, then "P" becomes of value in time variablemess, as a landscape ideology spread throughtout the brane world features? While it is also intriciately linked to our formation of landscape futher out in the recognition of the bumpy world?

So while we might see this landscape in terms of photon calorimetric association with Glast, what value besides gauusian coordinate might be freed, when we see dimensinal sigificance being represented with Glast as well. Is this thinking wrong?

Entanglement Interpretation of Black Hole Entropy

"Entanglement entropy" is the latest article posted by Lubos Motl. From this ideas are brought back for consideration, with Nigel and myself in trying to explain. I am not to swift sometimes in my explanations, so the inudation of links here direct underscore the probabilistic valuation one might assign perspective in relation to the topic assigned by Lubos in titled Link.



Plato said:

I was going after consensus in terms of how temperature on Bekenstein bound was seen in context of 5th dimenison and 5d comparisons.

Bekenstein image is very useful here as was Lee Smolins discription.

If not in your surprize(?) I do not think Lubos Motl and Lee Smolin are too far apart? Here is a better picture of the Lava lamp. The Window on the Universes, has extended our understanding here as well.



Entanglement Interpretation of Black Hole Entropy in String Theory

This allows the comparison of the entanglement entropy with the entropy of the field theory dual, and thus, with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole. As an example, we discuss in detail the case of the five dimensional anti-de Sitter, black hole spacetime

Glast determination in "calorimeric views" would be consistent the deeper look of gluonic perception at such levels? It would be hard to know this starting point yet the environment is conducive, non?

Three quarks indicated by red, green and blue spheres (lower
left) are localized by the gluon field.

A quark-antiquark pair created from the gluon field is
illustrated by the green-antigreen (magenta) quark pair on the right. These quark pairs give rise to a meson cloud around the proton.

The masses of the quarks illustrated in this diagram account for only 3% of the proton mass. The gluon field is responsible for the remaining 97% of the proton's mass and is the origin of mass in most everything around us.

Experimentalists probe the structure of the proton by scattering electrons (white line) off quarks which interact by exchanging a quantum of light (wavy line) known as a photon.

Remember that the age is determined by the dark matter density. Mathematically, the length is roughly the geometric mean of the mean free path and the distance light can travel without obstruction (the horizon scale).

On the Hypothese at the foundations of Geometry

I am trying to make my case on the greatest physics paper over at Cosmic Variance. One notices the slight misinterpretation I assigned, "geometical propensity to physics" that the case is more then just physi,s but the limmerack added envisioned, over such a paper that leads into physics.:) I see no difference now. So I refer to it as the greatest physics paper!

The title of this thread is attributed to Bernhard Riemann and a paper he wrote that revolutionized our concept of space with geometry of distances(the metric). With Gauss's tuteluge on curvature that was being developed, Reimann moved to understand how such changes now would be considered, where space is no longer flat. He moved Pythagorean thereom from:

c²=a²+b² to c²=a²+b²-2ab cos Æ
where the right angle is no longer right but has magitude Æ then the above theorem has been generalized

The function that measures the instantaneous distance between two points was later used by Einstein where m and n vary over the intergers 1 and 2

ds²=g_mndx_mdx_n

On the Hypothese at the foundations of Geometry

By use of similar triangles and congruent parts of similar triangles on the Saccheri quadrilateral, ABDC with AC = BD and ‚A = ‚B = p/2, he establishes his first 32 theorems. Most are too complicated to be treated in a short paper, but here some examples are merely stated, some are illustrated and some are proven. For those proofs which are brief enough to show here, the main steps are indicated and the reader is invited to fill in the missing details of the argument. A century after Saccheri, the geometers, Lobachevsky, Bolyai and Gauss would realize that, by substituting the acute case or the obtuse case for Euclid's postulate Number V, they could create two consistent geometries. In doing so they built on the progress made by Saccheri who had already proven so many of the needed theorems. They were able to create what we recognize today as the "elliptical" and "hyperbolic" non-Euclidean geometries. Most of Saccheri's first 32 theorems can be found in today's non-Euclidean textbooks. Saccheri's theorems are prefaced by "Sac."

How far advanced our thinking has become, that we can move quickly here to other avenues of consideration? How much "inbetween" the leading thinking of Riemann that we can have gotten here in our "physics of geometries?" Is it a suttle generalization in words and limmerack that such a physics view could have seen nature at its finest, and explained in a mathematical way.

Gaussian Coordinates

We can sum this up as follows: Gauss invented a method for the mathematical treatment of continua in general, in which ?size-relations? (?distances? between neighbouring points) are defined. To every point of a continuum are assigned as many numbers (Gaussian co-ordinates) as the continuum has dimensions. This is done in such a way, that only one meaning can be attached to the assignment, and that numbers (Gaussian co-ordinates) which differ by an indefinitely small amount are assigned to adjacent points. The Gaussian co-ordinate system is a logical generalisation of the Cartesian co-ordinate system. It is also applicable to non-Euclidean continua, but only when, with respect to the defined ?size? or ? distance,? small parts of the continuum under consideration behave more nearly like a Euclidean system, the smaller the part of the continuum under our notice.

Yes so easy now that we can see this space in ways that the average person without the physics comprehension would have never found that the fancy brane worlds held to perspective on the developing sciences and recognition of such physics processes had been elevated.

Would the likes of a Peter Woit be stagnated on what he sees if such limitation to the math endowed creator of mind, would see that such limitations to spintronic value added, would only partake of the events held to this brane and that a wider audience would now see that such dynamicsi n this universe would be greatly enhanced by entering a whole new world of abstraction.

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, the gravitational potential due to an isolated source is proportional to rho + 3P, where rho is the energy density and P is the pressure. For non-relativistic matter the pressure is negligibly small, whereas for radiation P = rho/3. Therefore, for the same value of the energy density, radiation produces a deeper and more attractive gravitational potential (left) than non-relativistic matter (centre). If rho + 3P is negative, as in the case of quintessence ­ in this example P = ­2rho/3 ­ the sign of the gravitational field is transformed from attractive to repulsive (right).

Win Some, Loose Some

Does it all now rest in the eye of the beholder? Pictorially we now have a synoptic view below, that ones askes, can such cosmic variance have arisen from such a thing? Above, the picturing is leading to that comprehensive view?

We use our new detailed picture to ask: "What happened earlier to make this picture happen?" We can now begin to probe the earliest moments of the universe: Inflation (the rapid expansion of the universe a fraction of a second after its birth.). We have ruled out a textbook example of a particular inflation model. But others will be supported with this new evidence.

The Cosmic Triangle

This link was added to paper by Steinhardt as ole picture was used for perspective had been updated, so I gave updated link to Steinhardt, as well as his paper.



The Cosmic Triangle and the State of the Universe