Acoustic Hawking Radiation

What did we learn from studying acoustic black holes? by Renaud Parentani

The study of acoustic black holes has been undertaken to provide new insights about the role of high frequencies in black hole evaporation. Because of the infinite gravitational redshift from the event horizon, Hawking quanta emerge from configurations which possessed ultra high (trans-Planckian) frequencies. Therefore Hawking radiation cannot be derived within the framework of a low energy effective theory; and in all derivations there are some assumptions concerning Planck scale physics. The analogy with condensed matter physics was thus introduced to see if the asymptotic properties of the Hawking phonons emitted by an acoustic black hole, namely stationarity and thermality, are sensitive to the high frequency physics which stems from the granular character of matter and which is governed by a non-linear dispersion relation. In 1995 Unruh showed that they are not sensitive in this respect, in spite of the fact that phonon propagation near the (acoustic) horizon drastically differs from that of photons. In 2000 the same analogy was used to establish the robustness of the spectrum of primordial density fluctuations in inflationary models. This analogy is currently stimulating research for experimenting Hawking radiation. Finally it could also be a useful guide for going beyond the semi-classical description of black hole evaporation.

I am held to a state of profound thinking when I thnk about Einstein in a dream I had. Where his satisfaction was raised, as a surpize, as I listen to the very sound of ice in a glass jug as I slowly turned it? From it, a certain recognition by Einstein held him in amazement as this sound seem to satisfy what he was so long search for in his answers. Yes it is a dream, but this set the stage from what I had been doing previous as I was thinking about the Webber bars and the way research was moving along this avenue to detect grvaiational waves. Movements to the giant Ligo inteferometers, to help us in our pursuate.

I know it is not always easy to understand the thinking here as it is piecemealed, while my minds works to weave a cohesive picture here. So, my apologies.

There is a special class of fluids that are called superfluids. Superfluids have the property that they can flow through narrow channels without viscosity. However, more fundamental than the absence of dissipation is the behavior of superfluids under rotation. In contrast to the example of a glass of water above, the rotation in superfluids is always inhomogeneous (figure). The fluid circulates around quantized vortex lines. The vortex lines are shown as yellow in the figure, and the circulating flow around them is indicated by arrows. There is no vorticity outside of the lines because the velocity near each line is larger than further away. (In mathematical terms curl v = 0, where v(r) is the velocity field.)

Early on the very idea of measuring discrete functions in relation to how we might percieve quark and gluonic natures which arose from the gold ion collisions, raises the very idea of how we may look at the analogies sought to help shape perspective from the horizon, to what is emitted? A Virtual Photon released in pair production at the horizon can become?

While I had come to recognize the differences in thermodynamic principals held in context of the blackhole, the very idea of He⁴raises some interesting scenario's in relation to sound values, while "extreme curvature" had been lead too as a singularity in the blackhole?? This singuarity thought to besimlar to the hawking no bondary proposal would not sit well with how the very nature of the blackhole actually becomes the superfluid that we hav come to recognize in the collider perspectives. This changes things somewhat. How fortunate is it in relation to how we see the supersymmetry that coudl arise inthe action fo symmetry break that signs could be lea dto the nature of the phton release and stretched under the aupsice of theis grvaiutional field?

Overlap of "quantum" and "classical" behaviour

Explanations of Hawking radiation around a black hole often use a description of quantum-mechanical pair production effects occurring on a curved spacetime background. Although this paradigm does not obviously lend itself to a "classical" reinterpretation, research on the black hole membrane paradigm has revealed some overlap between "classical" and "quantum" descriptions.

Plato:

What conditions would have allowed such a scene to be developed in supersymmetrical view, that I had wondered, could such a perfect fluid be the example needed? What blackholes hole would allow such a view to be carried down to this level in gold ion collisions, that we might see the results of string theory, as a useful analogy in the discernation of what can now be brought forward for inspection.

So having recognized the two phases of superfluids that ha dbeen created how woud such analogies move th emind to coisder this other nature of of a helium whose viscosity woud have allowed the sound to travel under the same aupsice held in context of the photon whose naure would havebeen rvealled in redshifting? Would suchj a thing held in context of blue shifting be cancelled out in quark/gluonic phases. that the analogy no longer suits our purpose? While sound i analogy in helium may have revealled the very nature of the superfluid designs we woudl like to see in comparsion to how thephotons are looked at with such short distances? They are cancelled out here?


Thorne: Black holes and time warps…, chapter 11, "What is reality?"

The laws of black-hole physics, written in this membrane paradigm, are completely equivalent to the corresponding laws of the curved-spacetime paradigm – as long as one restricts attention to the hole's exterior. Consequently, the two paradigms give precisely the same predictions for the outcomes of all experiments or observations that anyone might make outside a black hole …"

What is a Phonon/Photon?

Phonon:

A particle of sound. The energy E of a phonon is given by the Einstein relation, E = hf. Here f is the frequency of the sound and h is Planck's constant. The momentum p of a photon is given by the de Broglie relation, p = h/λ. Here λ is the wavelength of the sound

Photon:

A particle of light. The energy E of a photon is given by the Einstein relation, E = hf. Here f is the frequency of the light and h is Planck's constant. The momentum p of a photon is given by the de Broglie relation, p = h/λ. Here λ is the wavelength of the light.

As you look at the picture above, the very depths to which vision might have been imparted in recognition of this supefluid, what value would be assign something held in the context of the wave nature to have seen it described as a granulization and then thought of in terms of the langangrian perspective as cosmic strings which cross this universe? Make sure you click on the picutre.

Granularity of the Fluid?

Taken from the horizon, how would this fluid look if held in context of William Unruh's previously thought "continous nature" or as a discretium release of Hawking like phonons? It may be "by analogy" help physicists with respect to the nature of gravitational blackholes?

The Single Photon Experiment at Rowan University is a Success!

Einstein/Bohr Debate

"Not often in life has a man given me so much happiness by his mere presence as you have done," Einstein wrote to Bohr. "I have learned much from you, mainly from your sensitive approach to scientific problems."

John G. Cramer

This column is about experimental tests of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics. The question at issue is whether we can perform experiments that can show whether there is an "observer-created reality" as suggested by the Copenhagen Interpretation, or a peacock’s tail of rapidly branching alternate universes, as suggested by the Many-Worlds Interpretation, or forward-backward in time handshakes, as suggested by the Transactional Interpretation? Until recently, I would have said that this was an impossible task, but a new experiment has changed my view, and I now believe that the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds Interpretations (at least as they are usually presented) have been falsified by experiment.

The Single Photon Experiment at Rowan University is a Success!

Entanglement applies to two or more particles even if one of them is used as input to the two slit experiment, it is not applicable to single particle experiments.

Afshars experiment is conducted in such a manner that it is the setup of the experiment coupled with the conservation of momentum that allows us to know exactly which slit the photon has gone through.

Whilst knowing which way the photon has gone we also manage to show the absense of interference with both slits open via intererence minima.

Measurement without “measurement”: Experimental violation of Complementarity and its aftermath

Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity of wave and particle aspects of quantum systems has been a cornerstone of quantum mechanics since its inception. Einstein, Schrödinger and deBroglie vehemently disagreed with Bohr for decades, but were unable to point out the error in Bohr’s arguments. I will report three recent experiments in which Complementarity fails, and argue that the results call for an upgrade of the Quantum Measurement theory. Finally, I will introduce the novel concept of Contextual Null Measurement (CNM) and discuss some of its surprising applications. Web-page: users.rowan.edu/~afshar/ Preprint (published in Proc. SPIE 5866, 229-244, 2005): http://www.irims.org/quant-ph/030503/

Violation of the principle of complementarity, and its implications
Shahriar S. Afshar

Bohr's principle of complementarity predicts that in a welcher weg ("which-way") experiment, obtaining fully visible interference pattern should lead to the destruction of the path knowledge. Here I report a failure for this prediction in an optical interferometry experiment. Coherent laser light is passed through a dual pinhole and allowed to go through a converging lens, which forms well-resolved images of the respective pinholes, providing complete path knowledge. A series of thin wires are then placed at previously measured positions corresponding to the dark fringes of the interference pattern upstream of the lens. No reduction in the resolution and total radiant flux of either image is found in direct disagreement with the predictions of the principle of complementarity. In this paper, a critique of the current measurement theory is offered, and a novel nonperturbative technique for ensemble properties is introduced. Also, another version of this experiment without an imaging lens is suggested, and some of the implications of the violation of complementarity for another suggested experiment to investigate the nature of the photon and its "empty wave" is briefly discussed.

Tiny Bubbles

AS a child, Einsten when given the gift of the compass, immediately reocgnized the mystery in nature? If such a impression could have instigated the work that had unfolded over timein regards to Relativity, then what work could have ever instigated the understanding of the Pea as a constant reminder of what the universe became in the mind of a child, as we sleep on it?

Hills and Valley held in context of Wayne Hu's explanations was a feasible product of the landscape to work with?

'The Princess & The Pea' from 'The Washerwoman's Child'

If Strings abhors infinities, then the "Princess's Pea" was really a creation of "three spheres" emmanating from the "fabric of spacetime?" It had to be reduced from spacetime to a three dimensional frame work?

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.

Was it really fantasy that Susskind was involved in, or was there some motivated ideas held in mathematical structure? People like to talk about him without really understandng how such geometrical propensities might have motivated his mind to consider conjectures within the physics of our world?

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.

You had to realize that working in these abstractions, such work was not to be abandon because we might have thought such abstraction to far from the tangible thinking that topologies might see of itself?


Poincaré Conjecture Proved--This Time for Real
By Eric W. Weisstein

In the form originally proposed by Henri Poincaré in 1904 (Poincaré 1953, pp. 486 and 498), Poincaré's conjecture stated that every closed simply connected three-manifold is homeomorphic to the three-sphere. Here, the three-sphere (in a topologist's sense) is simply a generalization of the familiar two-dimensional sphere (i.e., the sphere embedded in usual three-dimensional space and having a two-dimensional surface) to one dimension higher. More colloquially, Poincaré conjectured that the three-sphere is the only possible type of bounded three-dimensional space that contains no holes. This conjecture was subsequently generalized to the conjecture that every compact n-manifold is homotopy-equivalent to the n-sphere if and only if it is homeomorphic to the n-sphere. The generalized statement is now known as the Poincaré conjecture, and it reduces to the original conjecture for n = 3.

While it is very dificult for me "to see" how such movements are characterized in those higher spaces, it is not without some understanding that such topologies and genus figures would point to the continuity of expression, as "energy and matter" related in a most curious way? Let's consider the non-discretium way in which such continuites work, shall we?

From one perspective this circle woud have some valuation to the makings of the universe in expression, would identify itself where such potenials are raised from the singular function of the circular colliders. Those extra dimensions had to have some basis to evolve too in those higher spaces for such thinking to have excelled to more then mathematical conjectures?

We can also consider donuts with more handles attached. The number of handles in a donut is its most important topological information. It is called the genus.

It might be expressed in the tubes of KK tower modes of measure? That such "differences of energies" might have held the thinking to the brane world, yet revealled a three dimensional perspective in the higher diemnsional world of bulk. These had to depart from the physics, and held in context?



Clay Institute

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. Poincaré, almost a hundred years ago, knew that a two dimensional sphere is essentially characterized by this property of simple connectivity, and asked the corresponding question for the three dimensional sphere (the set of points in four dimensional space at unit distance from the origin). This question turned out to be extraordinarily difficult, and mathematicians have been struggling with it ever since.

While three spheres has been generalized in my point of view, I am somewhat perplexed by sklar potential when thinking about torus's and a hole with using a rubber band. If the formalization of Greene's statement so far were valid then such a case of the universe emblazoning itself within some structure mathematically inclined, what would have raised all these other thoughts towards quantum geometry?

In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

(Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)


Was our thoughts based in a wonderful world, where such purity of math structure became the basis of our expressions while speaking to the nature of the reality of our world?


Bubble Nucleation

Some people do not like to consider the context of universe and the suppositions that arose from insight drawn, and held to possibile scenario's. I like to consider these things because I am interested in how a geometical cosistancy might be born into the cyclical nature. Where such expression might hold our thinking minds.


Science and it's Geometries?


Have these already been dimissed by the physics assigned, that we now say that this scenario is not so likely? Yet we are held by the awe and spector of superfluids, whose origination might have been signalled by the gravitational collapse?

Would we be so less inclined not to think about Dirac's Sea of virtual particles to think the origination might have issued from the very warms water of mother's creative womb, nestled.

Spheres that rise from the deep waters of our thinking, to have seen the basis of all maths and geometries from the heart designed. Subjective yet in the realization of the philosophy embued, the very voice speaks only from a pure mathematical realm, and is covered by the very cloaks of one's reason?

After doing so, they realized that all inflationary theories produced open universes in the manner Turok described above(below here). In the end, they created the Hawking-Turok Instanton theory.

The process is a bit like the formation of a bubble
in a boiling pan of water...the interior of this tiny
bubble manages to turn itself into an infinite open
universe. Imagine a bubble forming and expanding at the
speed of light, so that it becomes very big, very quickly.
Now look inside the bubble.

The peculiar thing is that in such a bubble, space and time
get tangled in such a way that what we would call today's
universe would actually include the entire future of the
bubble. But because the bubble gets infinitely large in
the future, the size of 'today's universe' is actually infinite.
So an infinite,open universe is formed inside a tiny, initially
microscopic bubble.

Collapse of the Blackhole

String theory grew out of attempts to find a simple and elegant way to account for the diversity of particles and forces observed in our universe. The starting point was to assume that there might be a way to account for that diversity in terms of a single fundamental physical entity (string) that can exist in many "vibrational" states. The various allowed vibrational states of string could theoretically account for all the observed particles and forces. Unfortunately, there are many potential string theories and no simple way of finding the one that accounts for the way things are in our universe.

One way to make progress is to assume that our universe arose through a process involving an initial hyperspace with supersymmetry that, upon cooling, underwent a unique process of symmetry breaking. The symmetry breaking process resulted in conventional 4 dimensional extended space-time AND some combination of additional compact dimensions. What can mathematics tell us about how many additional compact dimensions might exist?

One of the chief features that have caught my mind is the way in which extreme curvature might have been enlisted to take us a to a place where the infinities have been curtatiled to a way of thinking. You need a model in which to do this, if you are to think that the events in the unverse are to be considered out of what the pre big bang era might have entailed had ths action been defined properly?

So immediately one see's the benfit of cyclical unverses being developed as well as understanding that the particle reductionistic views were well within the range to consider superfluids as part of the working of this interior blackhole? How did one get there?


Kaluza-Klein theory

A splitting of five-dimensional spacetime into the Einstein equations and Maxwell equations in four dimensions was first discovered by Gunnar Nordström in 1914, in the context of his theory of gravity, but subsequently forgotten. In 1926, Oskar Klein proposed that the fourth spatial dimension is curled up in a circle of very small radius, so that a particle moving a short distance along that axis would return to where it began. The distance a particle can travel before reaching its initial position is said to be the size of the dimension. This extra dimension is a compact set, and the phenomenon of having a space-time with compact dimensions is referred to as compactification.

So first and formeost gathering a perpectve that could immediate take us into the understanding of how these circles could ahve gained value in conceptual models. Of course every one wants the truth and mathematics is saying okay where the heck do we find the matematics that is so pure that by the very means enlisted would take us from the states of superfluids and their capabilities?

Strominger:

That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.

So it is very important that if such views are taken down to these extreme levels that some method be adopted to maintain what might have emerged from the basis of the reality where such pure states as superfluids, may have simplified, immmediate symmetry breaking as arisng from some geoemtrical method?

The general theory of relativity is as yet incomplete insofar as it has been able to apply the general principle of relativity satisfactorily only to grvaitational fields, but not to the total field. We do not yet know with certainty by what mathematical mechanism the total field in space is to be described and what the general invariant laws are to which this total field is subject. One thing, however, seems certain: namely, that the general principal of relativity will prove a necessary and effective tool for the solution of the problem for the toal field.

Out of My Later Years, Pg 48, Albert Einstein

Lubos reminds us in the "strominger linked statement" about the understanding that there is no physics, but I would like to work towards gathering perspective as I am to lead us to the theory in the thinking. What concepts made this thinking valuable might have arisen in the previous years might have found itself explained over and over again.

Where does the pure mathematics changes it's form?

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

The drive to tke this down to such levels of perception and wipe away all the faces of our concepts seems a hard struggle yet I think it a very capable thing in any mind that would move to the forms of pure math? What are these?

Such a simple psychological thinking that would have maintained our views, and find that enlightenment is just a few short steps away. Some mathematics might emerge that will unfold into our everyday world that wil bring together so many things?

So from where in all the probabilstic states could such thinking reveal the smoothness of topological fucntions and relayed the working of all the states havng been reached in the blackhole? Travels of the circle measured in te radius of that same cicle gives inherent energy valution to the concept of the blackhole being multiplied to seeing the macroscopic view of the universe having been driven to it's current state?

The familiar extended dimensions, therefore, may very well also be in the shape of circles and hence subject to the R and 1/R physical identification of string theory. To put some rough numbers in, if the familiar dimensions are circular then their radii must be about as large as 15 billion light-years, which is about ten trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (R= 1061) times the Planck length, and growing as the universe explands. If string theory is right, this is physically identical to the familiar dimensions being circular with incredibly tiny radii of about 1/R=1/1061=10-61 times the Planck length! There are our well-known familiar dimensions in an alternate description provided by string theory. [Greene's emphasis]. In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

(Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

So what particles will have emerged from such a process and we find ourselves facing the gluonic phases of sight, and what level should we assign these energy values in relation to the supersymmetrical state now recognized, and moved from in the symmetical breaking that is to be accomplished?

It is from these positions as I am making them clear, that even in face of the perspective shared by the Krausss's and Woit, that the continued efforts of LUbos and all the young minds might do as Peter Woit askes and bring the demands of the recognition of things, that emerge from this process, into full regalia.

For those who were skeptical, hopefully this sets up your minds as to what is being accomplished, and what is being said, is quite beautiful. I find this process very beautiful indeed.

Merry Christmas

Pre-Big Bang: Ekpyrotic and Cyclical

Juan Maldacena (Princeton IAS)

Singularities similar to Singularities of some blackholes in Ads₃->suggest no information Transfer

Has Speed of Light changed Recently?

You have to remember I am not as well educated as the rest of the leaque connected at Peter Woit's site. But how could one think anything less, then what perception can contribute, as less then what the educated mind might have thought of? If it did not have the scope enlisted by others in consideration cosmology might have expressed, then we might have reduced the value of reducitonism role in how we perceive the beginning of the cosmos?

So what Does Peter Woit say here? I am glad that the support(choir:) moved to Peter's cause for truth and enlightenment, is clarifying itself, instead of the ole rants that we had been witnessed too, in the past.

Understanding the clear disticnctions make's it much easier now, instead of what opportunities might have been past by? Of course I understood that he is quite happy with the life given, makes it all the more reason that the value of opinion will have direction(not hidden causes). Contributions by the the opinions generated, held to a educative process that we all would like to be part of.

Peter Woit:

In general, what I really care about and am willing to invest time in trying to carefully understand, are new physical ideas that explain something about particle theory, or new mathematical ideas that might somehow be useful in better understanding particle theory.

Strings /M theory moved to cosmological thinking because of where it had been?

Life, the cosmos and everything:

Lee Smolin stressed that it is only justifiable if one has a theory that independently predicts the existence of these universes, and that such a theory, to be scientific, must be falsifiable. He argued that most of the universes should have properties like our own and that this need not be equivalent to requiring the existence of observers.

Smolin's own approach invoked a form of natural selection. He argued that the formation of black holes might generate new universes in which the constants are slightly mutated. In this way, after many generations, the parameter distribution will peak around those values for which black-hole formation is maximized. This proposal involves very speculative physics, since we have no understanding of how the baby universes are born. However, it has the virtue of being testable since one can calculate how many black holes would form if the parameters were different.

So what are Lee Smolin's thoughts today, and one can see where the interactions might have, raised a claerer perception of what falsifiable is meant in context of today's reasonings. Has this changed from 2003?

Lee Smolin:

My impression, if I can say so, is that many cosmologists undervalue the positive successes of CNS. It EXPLAINS otherwise mysterious features of our universe such as the setting of the parameters to make carbon and oxygen abundent-not because of life but because of their role in cooling GMC’s. It also EXPLAINS the hierarchy problem and the scale of the weak interactions-because these can also be understood to be tuned to extremize black hole production. Further, it EXPLAINS two otherwise improbable features of glaxies: why the IMF for star formation is power law and why disk galaxies maintain a steady rate of massive star formation.

So while we are engaged in the thinking of what can be measured from the big bang till now( Sean Carroll has given us a positon to operate from), but having the Poor man's collider introspective, helps us to consider how we may see the developement of particle interaction, as Pierre Auger experiments have reminded us?

Since the COBE discovery, many ground and balloon-based experiments have shown the ripples peak at the degree scale. What CMB experimentalists do is take a power spectrum of the temperature maps, much as you would if you wanted to measure background noise. The angular wavenumber, called a multipole l, of the power spectrum is related to the inverse of the angular scale (l=100 is approximately 1 degree). Recent experiments, noteably the Boomerang and Maxima experiments, have show that the power spectrum exhibits a sharp peak of exactly the right form to be the ringing or acoustic phenomena long awaited by cosmologists:

Then how would we see such changes and views that might of held the mind to variances in the landscape, as hills and valleys, portrayed in our cosmo? Perception between the Earth and the Sun. What shall we say to these values in other places of the cosmo? Will we see the impression of the spacetime fabric much differently then we do with the fabric as we see it now? Some might not like this analogy, but it is useful, as all toys models are useful?

Had we forgotten Wayne Hu so early here, not to have thought before we let this all slip from our fingers, as some superfluid and how we got there, Whose previous existance we had not speculated(what about Dirac), yet we understand the push to the singularity do we not?

"How do you actually make a collapsing universe bounce back? No one ever had a good idea about that,” Albrecht said. “What these guys realized was that if they got their wish for an ekpyrotic universe, then they could have the universe bounce back."

Such gravitational collapse sets the stage for what was initiated from, yet, we would not entertain cyclical models, that would instigate geometrical propensities along side of physics procedures?

So what do we mean when I say that we have pushed the minds eye ever deeper into the world of the Gluonic phases, which we would like so much to validated from such "traversed paths" that such limitations might have then been projected into the cosmo for a better perspective of time? Langangrain valuations alongside of the cosmic string? Which view is better?



When I started to look at the idea of these xtra dimensions, and how these would be manifesting and the experimental attempts at defining such, I recognized Aldeberger with eotvos contributions here, that a few might have understood and seen?

Together now such a perspective might have formed now around perspectve glazes that we might now wonder indeed why such a path taken by Aldeberger might now have been seen in such fine measures?

The Shape of the UNiverse in Omega Values

Having walked through the curvature parameters, in the Friedmann equations while understanding the nature of the universe, I thought would have been very important from the geometrical valuations, that I have been trying to understand. That it might arise in a terminology called quantum geometry, seems a very hard thing to comprehend, yet thinking about CFT measure on the horizon(Bekenstein Bound) is telling us something about the space of the blackhole?

So people have these new ideas about quantum grvaity and some might have choosen monte carlo methods for examination in the regards of quantum gravity perceptive.

Plato:

Now some of you know that early on in this blog John Baez's view about the soccer ball was most appealing one for consideration, but indeed, the sphere as the closet example could all of a sudden become the ideas for triangulations never crossed my mind. Nor that Max Tegmark would tell us, about the nature of these things.

JUst as one might have asked Max Tegmark what the shape of the universe was, he might of quickly discounted John Baez's soccer ball? Yet little did we know, that such a push by Magueijo might have had some influences? How would you measure such inflationary models?


Plato said:

When I looked at Glast, it seemed a fine way in which to incorporate one more end of the "spectrum" to how we see the cosmo? That we had defined it over this range of possibilties? How could we move further from consideration then, and I fall short in how the probabilties of how we might percieve graviton exchange of information in the bulk could reveal more of that spectrum? A resonance curve?

Variable "constants" would also open the door to theories that used to be off limits, such as those which break the laws of conservation of energy. And it would be a boost to versions of string theory in which extra dimensions change the constants of nature at some places in space-time.

One of the ways that has intrigued my inquiring mind, is the way in which I could see how xtra-dimensions might have been allocated to the views of photon interaction? We know the ways in which calorimetric design helps us see how fine the views are encased in the way Onion people work?

I had recognized quite early as I was getting research material together of Smolin's support of Magueijo, had something to do with the way in which he was seeing VSL approaches to indicators of time valuations?

Again, this is quite hard to conclusive drawn understanding, in that such roads lead too, would have instantly said that (speed of light in a vacuum)C never changes? How many good teachers would have chastize their students, to have this held in contrast to todays way we do things when looking at Magueijo?

Magueijo started reading Einstein when he was 11, but he wanted to comprehend the theory using mathematics rather than words. So he read a book by Max Born, which explains relativity in the language of mathematics. He quotes Galileo as having said, "The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics."

Let's look at what is being said from a fifth dimensional perspective, and tell me why this will not change the way we see? Why model comprehension has not sparked this foundational change in the way we look at the cosmos and the spacetrime fabric?

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

You know it sometimes boogles my mind, why such adventures had not given perspective to the age of the universe? We are talking about created events, that we work to help us see the nature, from a inception time.

Something indeed troubles me as I look out towards this universe, that by giving it's age to 13.7 billions years, that we are taking such events as spoken below in regards to superfluid states, as elements spawned out of that early expression.

The high energy nuclear physics experimental group at Columbia University is conducting research to study the collisions of relativistic heavy nuclei to understand the properties of nuclear matter at extremely high densities (similar to the center of neutron stars) and very high temperatures (much hotter than at the center of the sun). In fact, the temperatures and densities reached in these collisions are similar to those found in the early universe a few microseconds after the Big Bang.

So what is that troubles me so much? Well if you have given the age of the universe, then you have alloted a time sequence to each and every event in the cosmos? There is not one event, that can be older then the age of our universe?

Okay now that this basis is understood, why would I be wrong? Is there not a logic that holds to tell us that each and every event will speak to the time and place of it's origination, within context of the whole universe and but never apart from the initial expression?

That if, for one moment you had seen the a galaxy, who elemental structure given to the signs of the measure of this universe, then it would have been, and related itself, to the very age of our universe and never older?

So you see my problem then? That if I saw this universe as a landscape. That given the context, the shape, and value assigned in the Omega values, such geometrical propensities would have enlisted the mind to consider?Tthat the very age of our univese plus the events held in context of the universe, would have lead one to see the values assigned in a much larger global context?

To holes in the very nature of the fabric.

Having seen the nature of Kravtsovs computer simulations, as cosmic strings, then you would have understood that each of the events in the galaxies would have been connected to each other? Never older, then the age of the universe itself?

The Physics Experiment

PHENIX, the Pioneering High Energy Nuclear Interaction eXperiment, is an exploratory experiment for the investigation of high energy collisions of heavy ions and protons. PHENIX is designed specifically to measure direct probes of the collisions such as electrons, muons, and photons. The primary goal of PHENIX is to discover and study a new state of matter called the Quark-Gluon Plasma

Attributes of Superfluids

Professor Leggett was awarded a share in the 2003 prize for his research at Sussex in the early 1970s on the theory of superfluids.

There is a special class of fluids that are called superfluids. Superfluids have the property that they can flow through narrow channels without viscosity. However, more fundamental than the absence of dissipation is the behavior of superfluids under rotation. In contrast to the example of a glass of water above, the rotation in superfluids is always inhomogeneous (figure). The fluid circulates around quantized vortex lines. The vortex lines are shown as yellow in the figure, and the circulating flow around them is indicated by arrows. There is no vorticity outside of the lines because the velocity near each line is larger than further away. (In mathematical terms curl v = 0, where v(r) is the velocity field.)

Now you have to understand this is all struggle for me. I am trying understand circumstances where such valuations might have been presented as we traverse the subject of blackholes and such. Wormholes in the the space of produciton of a equilibrium between states of cold matter states and effects to superfluids inthos ecolliders What valuation can be drawn towards flat spacetime in these two extremes?

Can we drawn a relation in our perception taken down to such high energy valutions.

Under the auspices of gravitational collapse, if we are lead to circumstances where such a supefluid existed, then what form had we taken to lead our thinking. I have to be careful here. I identified Helium⁴ in the context of this opening subject, yet I would also draw my thought to production in the colliders?

I have to think on this some.



Plasmas and Bose condensates

A Bose-Einstein condensate (such as superfluid liquid helium) forms for reasons that only can be explained by quantum mechanics. Bose condensates form at low temperature

Plasmas tend to form at high temperature, since electrons then come off atoms leaving charged ions. High temperatures, more states are available to the atoms.

Our Own Quiet Spaces

Given that it is basically creationism with a new brand name not sure I need to.

Now while those who delve into the Kansas this and that, I don't want too, by association seem to be supporting or not, while those who struggle for their own identities, have them force it upon us and take the empowerment of our own choices from us.

I would rather do science(understand these models), yet I have the "freedom and choice" to work within my own quiet space? Because you are a leader in science do you think it right to impose your ideas upon us by the philosophies you had adopted and then go ahead and sanction us to abrand of ID?

It is tuff enough sometimes for those of us who want to delve into the subject of sciences, without agendas being swung at those less educated, and by those well educated, to describe aspects of and around the potentials of our efforts?

Knowing full well the requirements of science and it's methods, this has been well drilled into our heads endlessly, but not shamefully.

The time has come to severe this relationship from the work needed to do by us lay people to get to the "bottom of things." :) What the underlying basis is of reality without invoking God , but at best hoping to understand our involvement in the contiued expression of this reality? So, we are given options and models to work with.

Many of those head science came forward and made their statements about string/M as to "if proven or not", views of the "requirement of the background," that any responsible science leader could now say, "the health and welfare of their profession" is on track as long as the desired results in experimental process are perpetuated.

Please do not try and implement your philosphies on us(decieve us by ID association), and we will not tolerate yours from the uneducated and ill informed. That we will strive as you did for reason and truth to make itself known.

Alas, there is then room in our own "quiet spaces" about those things that do not fall under the requirements of science that if you choose your own personal belief in what is not and what is, that this can be cultivated in the way that you seem and deemed responsible by you?

Why this Universe?

Sea of Virtual Particles


http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook/0309074061/gifmid/19.gif

Who is to deny that such processes incorporated into our views of today would not have drawn the cosmologist and the deeper intracies of physics, to point to our nature and it's beginnings in our universe . To raise questions about how such families were to arise from that place and time, specified and leading from one science inclination to another?

The Universe is governed by cycles of matter and energy, an intricate series of physical processes in which the chemical elements are formed and destroyed, and passed back and forth between stars and diffuse clouds. It is illuminated with the soft glow of nascent and quiescent stars, fierce irradiation from the most massive stars, and intense flashes of powerful photons and other high energy particles from collapsed objects. Even as the Universe relentlessly expands, gravity pulls pockets of its dark matter and other constituents together, and the energy of their collapse and the resulting nucleosynthesis later work to fling them apart once again.

This all fell under the arrow of time, yet would it not recognize, that such exchanges between the cycles of energy and matter to take place in that process? That such exchanges would define the natures of galaxies in there beginnings and ends, as a geometrical consistancies born out of the beginnings of this universe? How so? Could such links be made to indicate, that this universe so unique, as to arise from the first inceptions as phase transitions? Some first principle?

Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century (2003)
Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA)

Two essential conceptual features of the Standard Model theory have fundamentally transformed the understanding of nature. Already in QED the idea arose that empty space may not be as simple a concept as it had seemed. The Standard Model weak interaction theory takes this idea a step further. In formulating that theory, it became evident that the equations did