Michael Atiyah and the Geometry

Michael Atiyah:

At this point in the development, although geometry provided a common framework for all the forces, there was still no way to complete the unification by combining quantum theory and general relativity. Since quantum theory deals with the very small and general relativity with the very large, many physicists feel that, for all practical purposes, there is no need to attempt such an ultimate unification. Others however disagree, arguing that physicists should
never give up on this ultimate search, and for these the hunt for this final unification is the ‘holy grail’.

I think it is hard sometimes to keep a global view about all the things that are included in this process, yet at some level, such geometries would have to be explained in relation, between the very small, and the every large.

So how would you take this advancement of all that Michael has talked about and included it in a real world picture? I am trying to answer this but am having difficulties. The words in support of the geometries had to be included in that global perspective.

plato Says:

January 10th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Your censorship of legitmate questions is not a very good practise.

If one had developed in that bulk perspective one would have gained in results, the question would have revealled this but you are are to quick with the button, protecting your point of view.

Has nothing to do with keeping the thread on track.

You'll notice which one he kept?:)

This was posted on Peter Woit's comment section that is censored continously serves no one but those who have drawn the line and any relation to the valuations attributed to bulk perspective. While I have been moving to this feature held in context of experimental basis developed in LHC and RHIC features, what pray tell has the extra dimesional scenario given to us, as we move beyond the idealization that Dirac gave to us for viewing in his equative understandings? Where is this beginning?

It was much more then this and the viewing with which I have become so intrigued that runs through the vein of all our discussions. This is the commonality as I am discovering, that has to have some basis, so that if you talk about "topology" how would this be comparative to our viewings of the universe and the events within it?

Do you see comparative functions as we relay our veiws of the microstate world and how such developements could have lead us all through GR to have come face to face with strangelets?

The bulk perspective is being exemplified, whether you are a Peter Woit or not, who wants to limit these views by casting doubt on any roads that lead beyond GR to the understanding of the inclusion of the microstate valutions from a geometrical consistancy. That comes from, the beginning and end.

If I keep the universe in perspective, am I holding the global perspective and including all that we have learnt. I certainly hope so.

We have to have explanation of the dark matter/energy scenarios do we not?

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations?

While it is never easy for me to follow these things, it is nice that such leads would have been moved forward by others, to help in that regard. At the same time will we have been lead to the interesting feature of what ends and begins in new universe interpretations?

I always hope so from the understanding of what had become cyclical in the detrmination of this universe, considering, that we like to proceed only from the big bang?

I guess when one saids that the quark Gluon plasma is the blackhole, how shall we treat the deviation of symmetry breaking? But as the place in which deviation to negative attributes, would have taken Gr down to the understanding of hyperbolic tendencies?

We added the quantum nature to compactifies statements about how we think the nature of reality is bent extremely? We look for such information in the reality around us and if such mircostate balckhole are dissapative, and very fast, what is left for us to view in the daylight of our reasoning, that we did not understand that nightime follows. The sun has enormous powers in our cosmic realizations?

Where now, Dirac entered the picture?

There are strange things happening with the superfluids? By looking at these, one's intuitive alarms are ringing, because it seems to be counter-intuitive? What do I mean by this?

So lets look back at them and wonder, what feature of the suppersymmetrical universe would have ever had this form to new universe that "the potential" would have been the bubble that formed from quark gluon plasma states, to have said, hey, maybe Dirac's sea of virtual particles has some realistic vitality here in rising from Mothers womb?

You have to understand I am prone to layman misunderstandings so such growth factors have been the attempts to follow the logic of experimentation. What are we left with as we gazed at the reality around us? The experiment mentions that strange quarks are created.

Accretion disks and models of the universe

While such feature would have been the example of geometrical principles throughout its stages of universal developement, the overview would have been a interesting comparison of what emerged in the first few seconds, would have had some comparative models for viewing.

Mark's recent meeting at the AAAs and new material promoted, might have asked us how shall we view such cosmological events that seem strange to us? Similar to what is being discussed here?

So how would such gravitonic concentration be collected at the center of the earth, if we understood, that gravity waves would pass through all things, and yet such accretion disks create more then the solid definitive answers about such singularites adopted. Then the "pea" that uncomfortably leaves an impression on the fabric of spacetime?

So what logic is forming about such geometrical features, that such collapses are included?

Of course I need to understand more here.

Quark Gluon Plasma II: Strangelets

You have to follow the logic developement, which is confusing, because in one respect "Risk assessment" does not think of cosmic collisions as interesting comparisons to microstate production, yet as I travelled through the information held in context of Pierre Auger experiments, Jaffe's statement from 1999 makes for some interetsing discussion below.

Is it true or not?

In recent years the main focus of fear has been the giant machines used by particle physicists. Could the violent collisions inside such a machine create something nasty? "Every time a new machine has been built at CERN," says physicist Alvaro de Rujula, "the question has been posed and faced."

There does not appear to be suppression of particles with a high transverse momentum in Deuteron+Gold collisions: In order to confirm the observation of suppression, a control experiment was run by PHENIX in the Spring of 2003. Here, a collision was studied in which a medium such as the Quark-Gluon Plasma is not expected to be formed. The collisions studied were small deuteron nuclei colliding with Gold nuclei. In this case, more, rather than fewer, particles are seen with a high transverse momentum. This observation confirms that the suppression seen in Gold+Gold collisions is most likely due to the influence of a new state of matter being produced, such as a Quark-Gluon Plasma.

There are more protons than pions at high transverse momentum: PHENIX can identify different types of particles, including lighter pions and heavier protons and kaons. PHENIX finds that there are more protons than pions at high transverse momentum. This may indicate that the physical processes that produce these particles are occurring differently in heavy ion collisions. Also, there are almost as many anti-protons as protons, which is another indication that conditions are favorable for the production of a Quark-Gluon Plasma.

A large number of produced particles are observed: PHENIX finds that there are additional particles produced in collisions of Gold ions than what would be expected from measurements of simpler collisions of protons. This fact hints that conditions may be favorable for the production of a Quark-Gluon Plasma. Also, more particles are produced when the ions collide head on.

A large total amount of transverse energy production is observed: PHENIX can measure the amount of energy that comes out sideways, or transverse, to the direction the ions were originally travelling. Like the number of produced particles, the total transverse energy is largest when the ions collide head on. From this measurement, PHENIX estimates that the density of energy in the center of the collision is about 30 times that of a normal nucleus. This fact also hints that conditions may be favorable for Quark-Gluon Plasma production.

The source of produced particles is large and short-lived: Borrowing a technique from astronomy that has been applied to measure the radius of individuals stars, the size of the source volume where the particles are produced has been measured by PHENIX. The transverse size of the source appears to be much larger than the original size of the Gold nuclei, and lives for a very short time. The short life is contrary to what is expected from a Quark-Gluon Plasma and remains a mystery to be solved.

An electron signal above background is observed: PHENIX is unique at RHIC in that it can identify individual electrons coming from the collision, many of which are the result of decays of heavier particles within the collision. PHENIX measures a number of electrons that is above the expected background. The excess electrons are likely coming from decays of special particles with heavy charm quarks in them. Further study of these charmed particles will help us better understand if a Quark-Gluon Plasma has been formed.

Non-random fluctuations are observed, but they are likely due to the presence of jets: During a phase transition, it is typical to see fluctuations in some properties of the system. PHENIX has measured fluctuations in the charge and average transverse momentum of each collision. Thus far, PHENIX reports no large charge fluctuations that might be seen if there is a phase transition from a Quark-Gluon Plasma. PHENIX reports that there are excess fluctuations in transverse momentum, but they appear due to the presence of particles from jets. The behavior of the fluctuations is consistent with the jet suppression phenomenon mentioned previously.

The particles are flowing - a lot: PHENIX can measure how much the particles flow around in the collision. PHENIX observes a significant particle flow effect, which is expected when heavy ions collide. However, those high transverse momentum particles surprise again, and show a flow effect that is not yet understood and may be more evidence for the existence of a Quark-Gluon Plasma.


The collisions are strange: PHENIX can identify particles that contain strange quarks, which are interesting since strange quarks are not present in the original nuclei so they all must be produced. It is expected that a Quark-Gluon Plasma will produce a large amount of strange quarks. In particular, PHENIX has measured lambda particles. There are more lambda particles seen than expected.

I don't have to remind you of why I have taken this route to understand what is taking place as such proton proton collisions reveal some interesting perspectives.

Quark stars signal unstable universeBy William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

In orbit around Earth, a satellite called the Chandra X-ray Observatory surveys the universe for sources of X-rays, which come from hot, active places. Such places include neutron stars, the still energetic corpses of burnt out stars once more massive than the Sun. When such stars use up their hydrogen fuel they explode into bright supernova, then their cores collapse into an extremely heavy ball of neutrons enveloped in a thin atmosphere containing iron and other debris from the explosion. In the core of the dying star, extreme pressure breaks atoms down into protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and electrons combine into neutrons, and the remaining material is so heavy that one tablespoon of it weighs about four trillion pounds.

But they noticed something very odd?

A Black Hole Ate My Planet

In 1995, Paul Dixon, a psychologist at the University of Hawaii, picketed Fermilab in Illinois because he feared that its Tevatron collider might trigger a quantum vacuum collapse. Then again in 1998, on a late night talk radio show, he warned that the collider could "blow the Universe to smithereens".

But particle physicists have this covered. In 1983, Martin Rees of Cambridge University and Piet Hut of the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, pointed out that cosmic rays (high-energy charged particles such as protons) have been smashing into things in our cosmos for aeons. Many of these collisions release energies hundreds of millions of times higher than anything RHIC can muster--and yet no disastrous vacuum collapse has occurred. The Universe is still here.

This argument also squashes any fears about black holes or strange matter. If it were possible for an accelerator to create such a doomsday object, a cosmic ray would have done so long ago. "We are very grateful for cosmic rays," says Jaffe.

Circle of Trust

"Particle physics is the unbelievable in pursuit of the unimaginable. To pinpoint the smallest fragments of the universe you have to build the biggest machine in the world. To recreate the first millionths of a second of creation you have to focus energy on an awesome scale."

The Guardian

If one understod this observation held to the nature of the very small, one might see how such observations as Brian Greenes could place a six foot tall human being in a piece of the beginning.

Of course I am outside of the "circle of trust" :) here in terms of debating the essence of what scenario's might have an influence on the "safety of humanities concerns" while a whole vast network of scientist and all the like, work in the society around LHC.

There are 1800 physicists (Including 400 students) participating from more than 150 universities and laboratories in 34 countries.

It would be a career suicide for someone within these years established, to say such a thing counter to what had taken from 1955 to what it has become what it is today.

Here Peter Woit might be happy to know that experimental processes have instigated a whole history of developement that is ongoing through trial runs and the sort, for those who will track these histories from the beginning of collision process.

So "Risk assessment," although we had been presented with this outfit in concert from the developing perspective of questions dated to 2003, are asking in light of concerns, how it can be of detriment to having some influence on society?

So gaining ground from a informative stance on where society is today with it's scientists leading the way is important. Do they have "watch dog process" that determines these factors in advance of any proposals that would initiate scientific concerns and risks attachments sanctioned that the process is okay?

I personally do not think it has to be a behind the scene process, in terms of how the watch dogs in society might have revealled their concerns. Were then, given demonstrable arguments as to why there are no needs to worry.

This process in itself might be telling in terms of how scientists and the experiments that are put forward, are responded too, before the actually implementation.

I don't know how this works and it might be interesting from a societal point of view?

Might I use Peter Woits steadfastness to present thoughts about string theory as an example of why such atttudes would be allowed predominance and encouragement, to present the argements for, and against, as to somethings viability? We know now that the commitment is well documentated in what already exists, so I don't think it to likely at this point one could stop the process.

I would be extremely happy to know that extra diensional work, has no bearing on what is being produced, while we get a clear picture of our universe?

Information about LHC :So You Want to Play Games?

LHC - THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER

So of course such contributions to involvement the general public in a style response screen saver thought bend towards the increase of computation abilities to digest?

In January of 2004, Ben Segal and François Grey of the IT Department were asked to plan an outreach event for CERN’s 50th anniversary that would allow people around the world to get an impression of the computational challenges facing the LHC. Ben and François got in touch with Dave Anderson, the Director of SETI@home, who was just beginning to test the new BOINC platform his team had developed. At the same time, a couple of Danish students got in touch with François, eager to find an exciting project for their Masters thesis. This was the beginning of LHC@home. Christian Søttrup and Jakob Pedersen worked furiously all spring and summer to get SixTrack and BOINC to function together. You can read their thesis , which describes the opportunities for combining public resource computing, such as LHC@home, with Grid computing like the LHC Computing Grid.

The LHC is a synchrotron. A synchrotron accelerates particles by having them travel around and around in a vacuum tube. The LHC will have two such tubes placed side by side so that the same kind of particles - protons - can be accelerated in opposite directions and then smashed into each other.

As one read previously throughout this thread and leading through Pierre Auger experiments and related links, I had come to the conclusion that the evidence for microstate blackhole hole procduction was happening all around us, from cosmic interactions. IN the risk assessment.org, this saids it is not of a concern or comparable?


A critical look at risk assessments for global catastrophesAdrian Kent

Speculative suggestions are occasionally made about ways in which new physics experiments could hypothetically bring about a catastrophe leading to the end of life on Earth. Some of these hypothetical catastrophes, including the “killer strangelet” scenario considered in this paper, would also lead to the destruction of the planet and wider catastrophic consequences. In any case, the proposed catastrophe mechanisms generally rely on speculation about hypothetical phenomena for which there is no evidence, but which at first sight do not contradict the known laws of physics. Sometimes, such pessimistic hypotheses can be countered by arguments which show that the existence of the catastrophe mechanism is highly improbable, either because closer analysis shows that the proposed mechanism does in fact contradict well established physical principles, or because its existence would imply effects which we should almost certainly have observed but have not.

Far be it that my visionary skills kick in, and from reading, I see such microstate as passing though all things around us, and yet, if such a gathering was to take such features and increase, what saids that such valuations might never have been collected at the core? What would be the trigger mechanism that would instigate gravitational collapse, has been a geometrical puzzle for me, as I move through this cyclical valuation of what began, and ends from such universes?

IN Viscosity State Production is ?

Thus, a black hole can be created with such energy packed into the corresponding length scale. These mini black hole will evaporate in 10-88 seconds, losing most of its mass by Hawking radiation. It is estimated that the final burst should radiate a large number of particles in all directions with very high energies. The decay products include all the particle species in nature. The LHC could provide the first evidence for Hawking radiation from such signatures of the black holes. Figure 04a depicts the simulated decay of a black hole inside a particle detector. From the center of the accelerator pipe (black circle) emerge particles (spokes) registered by layers of detectors (concentric colored rings). The sequence from birth to death of a mini black hole with an initial mass of 10 Tev is shown schematically in Figure 04b. It is created by the collision of two energetic particles (a). The scenario suggests that it will emit gravitational and electromagnetic waves as it settles

It's always good to have some idea of the process. So what is the liquid drop?

So there are some things that make the production process a interesting one, and froma layman perspective talk about intuitions taken a leap here. So I made ealier comparsions here because of th enature of the superfluids involved heeree and how developing perspective around them provide for enviromenta cosniderations dealing i the substance of such collisions.

LHC cryogenic unit keeps its cool

The cryogenic system for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN reached a major milestone on 7 April by achieving operation of the unit at Point 8 at its nominal temperature of 1.8 K. The LHC and its superconducting magnets are designed to operate at this very low temperature, making the 27 km accelerator the coldest large-scale installation in the world. Although acceptance tests performed on the surface had already reached the required temperature in 2002, this is the first time that the nominal temperature has been achieved in situ.

Yet here we are thinking about Microstate blackhole production, and we have advanced the ideas somewhat into the reality of the situation. So here in this bottle neck, and I have not seen how this works in reality, so I am guessing here by using analogies to help push my perspective forward. Some of the unique characteristics of superfluids are helping to define the process somewhat?

The Blackhole as a Superfluid: It's Viscosity

Now you must understand that thinking of any first principle is hard to refrain from, especially, if one had thought like I do, that the geometrical tendencies are inherent in the way this is handled, and that it leads to other things? "The equations of relativity fail, and new laws emerge." saids George Musser. " A quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions - behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured."

That's important, is it not from a geometrical perspective, because from this Dirac's visionary quest might have said, that here lies the opportunity for such a notion to begin, hyperbolically, or spherically. One way, or the other??

Blackhole substances are perhaps the most-perfect fluids in existence because they have ultra-low viscosity.

No matter what you call it, though, that substance and others similar to it could be the most-perfect fluids in existence because they have ultra-low viscosity, or resistance to flow, said Dam Thanh Son, an associate physics professor in the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington.

Son and two colleagues used a string theory method called the gauge/gravity duality to determine that a black hole in 10 dimensions - or the holographic image of a black hole, a quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions - behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured.

Lubos Motl:

The quark picture is more ordinary and materialistic but the black hole picture with an extra dimension is actually more useful to understand some general laws, such as the bounds on viscosity.

The problem might have been missed, with what one might, or should have look at? Herein the condense matter specialist might have thought hey, a superfluid indeed, and we have created a blackhole of a kind? What is this Bound Viscosity?

Sungho Hong on December 6, 2003 :

There is an interesting proposal by Andreas Karch. With certain assumtions, he showed that the entropy bound implies the viscosity bound. Moreover, this relation seems true even beyond the assumptions that he made. An interesting point is that the tabletop experiments could test this. The viscosity of superfluid He4 misses the bound only by a factor of 10.

Thse ideas that begin to manifest, have been from venturing into ideas of expeirmentation. What had arisen from blackholes in our colliders?

Frozen Stars
Black holes may not be bottomless pits after all
By George Musser July 2003

Under the right conditions, a fluid can turn into a superfluid, governed by quantum mechanics even on macroscopic scales. Chapline, along with physicists Evan Hohlfeld, Robert B. Laughlin and David I. Santiago of Stanford University, has proposed that a similar process happens at event horizons. The equations of relativity fail, and new laws emerge. "If one thinks of spacetime as a superfluid, then it is very natural that in fact something physical does happen at the event horizon--that is, the classical event horizon is replaced by a quantum phase transition," Chapline says.

So you don't lose sleep, or the world is a nice place, la te da... because it is what it is?:) It's just a generalization, as any assumption of the data might have convinced one, either way? What is it's value?

One might have assume because of the time involved, that accumulation and gatherings, might have taken up residence at the center of the earth. So? Okay? :)

Blackhole Creations

Steve W

Your paper linked:

STUDY OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS EVENTS
DURING HEAVY-ION COLLISIONS AT THE LHC:
REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP

Cosmic Rays 2.21

Cosmic-ray processes reach the energies and energy densities that will be encountered at the LHC and, therefore, they may provide limits on possible disaster scenarios. Such limits have been discussed in Refs. [1] and [3] and much of the analysis applies also to the LHC. Recent results obtained with a detector adding time-of-flight information to an array large enough to reach energies at and above the knee [9], approaching the LHC-equivalent energy region, confirm with improved accuracy that heavy ions have started to dominate the spectrum. Although the precise chemical composition is not known, the average value of A corresponds to that of magnesium, with ions at least as heavy as iron forming a substantial part. We summarize briefly here the main conclusions, taking into account the recent data from RHIC.

This is one of the sobering facts that we can contend with, when we realize not only are we dealing with things that are happening around us, but that we understand that dissipation is just a part of this process, as to find how we might see into these extra dimensions.

Horatiu is referring to a mathematical similarity between the physics of the real world, which govern RHIC collisions, and the physics that scientists use to describe a theoretical, “imaginary” black hole in a hypothetical world with a different number of space-time dimensions (more than the four dimensions — three space directions and time — that exist in our world). That is, the two situations require similar mathematical wrangling to analyze. This imaginary, mathematical black hole that Horatiu compares to the RHIC fireball is completely different from a black hole in the real universe; in particular, it cannot grow by gobbling up matter. In other words, and because the amount of matter created at RHIC is so tiny, RHIC does not, and cannot possibly, produce a true, star-swallowing black hole.

There is a summ total of the interactive processes taking place in nature around us and we are part of this scenario. We do control the energies demanded in experimental research, but this does not disavow the process from happening in nature with the inability for us to control those same energies.

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."

So rest easy.

Think about what we see in the daylight, and if such dissipated valuation can be assigned these microstates, then what say that we see the nature of things in ways that we had not before?

While it is speculative on my part from what I have understood is that such emissions would have found harmonical values to the way we describe what we see in reality? Yet, there are dimensions to this world that we have not considered?

Where have we run into our limitations? Imagine that such processes can be mirrored in our environment, as we strive to control the experiments we see Pierre Auger has continued along and developed as well.

High Energy Physics

The study of high energy physics, also known as particle physics, grew out of nuclear and cosmic ray physics in the 1950’s, and measured the properties and interactions of fundamental particles at the highest energies (millions of electron-volts) then available with a relatively new technology, particle accelerators. Today that technology has advanced so that forefront particle accelerators produce exquisitely controlled beams with energies of trillions of electron-volts and intense enough to melt metal. The science has advanced with the technology to study ever-higher energies and very rare phenomena that probe the smallest dimensions we can see and tell us about the very early history of our universe. While the science has revolutionized our understanding of how the universe works, elements of the technology have helped transform other fields of science, medicine, and even everyday life. The science and its impacts will be remembered as one of the highlights of the history of the late 20th century.

It was important to keep these two lines of investigation in perspective, as they diverged.

After doing some more research I am coming across statements that run contrary to what I might have proposed as not of sufficient consideration alongside fo LHC and Cosmic interactive feature in comparison. I find somet of thesse thngs a little troubling bt that is my own uncertainty about the effect.

Do Blackholes Radiate

The prediction that black holes radiate due to quantum effects is often considered one of the most secure in quantum field theory in curved space-time. Yet this prediction rests on two dubious assumptions: that ordinary physics may be applied to vacuum fluctuations at energy scales increasing exponentially without bound; and that quantum-gravitational effects may be neglected. Various suggestions have been put forward to address these issues: that they might be explained away by lessons from sonic black hole models; that the prediction is indeed successfully reproduced by quantum gravity; that the success of the link provided by the prediction between black holes and thermodynamics justifies the prediction.

This paper explains the nature of the difficulties, and reviews the proposals that have been put forward to deal with them. None of the proposals put forward can so far be considered to be really successful, and simple dimensional arguments show that quantum-gravitational effects might well alter the evaporation process outlined by Hawking. Thus a definitive theoretical treatment will require an understanding of quantum gravity in at least some regimes. Until then, no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes is likely to be made.
The possibility that non-radiating "mini" black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe. Attempts to place observational limits on the number of "mini" black holes (independent of the assumption that they radiate) would be most welcome.

After following up and continuing this research, something very amazing made itself known that I had not considered although I seemed to be moving in that direction.

Consider indeed for a moment that the "superfluid" that had been created had indeed held the context of the blackhole and what is revealled in the aftermath, as a strange Quark(?). This had some interesting insights that are leading to other things that might have manifested had we see the relaton of the iron core and what could have gathered at it. You have to wonder and I will be moving in that direction.

Risk Evaluation Forum

References :

1.. Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC : Report of the LHC Safety Study Group. CERN 2003-001 28 February 2003.

2.. Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC :

LHC Safety Study Group. J.P. Blaizot, J. Iliopoulos, J. Madsen, GG. Ross, P. Sonderegger, H-J. Specht « No date for this study, available Internet May 2004 ».

3..E-mail exchange between Greg Landsberg and James Blodgett March 2003.

James Blodgett Internet Forum. http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

Avalaibable at : Risk Evaluation Forum PO BOX 2371 Albany, NY 12220 – 0371 USA

4.. Might a laboratory experiment destroy planet Earth F. Calogero 2000

Available in Forum. http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

5..A critical look at risk assessment for global catastrophes CERN-TH 2000-029 DAMTP-2000-105 Revised April 2003. hep-ph/0009204 Adrian Kent

6..Trous noirs Nrumiano http ://nruminiao.free.fr/fetoiles/int_noir2.html

7..Black holes at the large hadron collider Phys Rev Lett 87, 161602 (2001)

8.. Working paper: a cosmic ray/micro-black hole model James Blodgett

Available in Forum. http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

9.. High energy colliders as black hole factories: the end of short distance physics Steven B. Giddings, Scott Thomas. Phys Rev D65 (2002) 056010

10.. Discovering new physics in the decays of black holes. Greg Landsberg. Phys Rev. Lett.88, 181801 (2002)

11.. CERN to spew black holes Nature 02 October 2001

12.. Brookhaven national laboratory News 5 may 2004

New Machine Record for Heavy Ion Luminosity at RHIC

13.. Collider mini black holes: loss of protective considerations James Blodgett 2004

Available in Forum. http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

14.. Review of speculative disaster scenarios at RHIC September 28,1999

W.Busza, R.L. Jaffe, J.Sandweiss and F.Wilczek

15.. Spectre des rayons cosmiques de très haute énergie Source [GAI]

16.. Atlas de l’Astronomie Albin Michel 1983

17.. Stephen Hawking Physics Colloquiums - Gravitational Entropy (June '98).

18.. Trous noirs et distorsions du temps. Kip S. Thorne.

Flammarion 1997. ISBN 2-08-0811463-X

Original title : Black holes and times warps.1994 Norton. New York.

19.. “will relativistic heavy-ion colliders destroy our planet ?”.

A.Dar, A. De Rujula and U. Heinz,, August 1999, submitted to Nature

20.. L’Univers élégant. Brian Greene. Laffont september 2000. ISBN 2-221-09065-9

Original title The elegant Universe. ISBN 0-393-04688-5 Norton. New York.

21.. Science & Vie N°107 Juin 2002 “stars with quarks in our galaxy”

22..Science & Vie N°1029 Juin 2003 “ L’énergie du vide”

23.. La Recherche N°376 Juin 2004. « La force qui vient du vide »

24. La Recherche » ( 1990 ? ) about « La supersymétrie étendue » :

25. Ciel et Espace Avril 2003 page 43

26..Brane worlds and Extra Dimensions. Brian Gantz PHY 312. May 11, 2000

27.. James Blodgett Working paper (about cosmic rays)

James Blodgett Internet Forum. http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

Avalaibable at : Risk Evaluation Forum PO BOX 2371 Albany, NY 12220 – 0371 USA

28..Science & Vie N° 1042. Juillet 2004. « Centre de la Terre. »

29.. Power of ten. 10exp-16.htm Bruce Bryson 200-04

30..Greg Landsberg i chep 2002 Amsterdam Internet Key: Greg Landsberg

http://www.ichep02.nl/Transparencies/BSM/BSM-4/BSM-4-3.landsberg.pdf

31..Science & Vie N°1043 Août 2004 Théorie du Tout.

32.. Results of several Delphi groups and physicist questionnaires, James Blodgett, Risk Evaluation Forum, forthcoming.

33.. Science et vie N°1050 Mars 2005 « Matière en route vers son ultime continent »

34.. La recherche N°384 Mars 2005. pourquoi l’Univers accélère.

35.. Adam D. Helfer, "Do black holes radiate?", Rept.Prog.Phys. 66 (2003) pp. 943-1008

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042 Questions whether black holes radiate.

36.. V.A. Belinski, "On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole," Physics Letters A, Vol 209 Num 1 (1995) pp. 13-20. Asserts that Hawking radiation does not exist.

37.. La Recherche N° 382 Janvier 2005 l’antimatière questionne le Big Bang

38.. BBC New uk edition Thursday 17 March 2005 11 :30 GMT “Lab fireball may be black hole”

Update on Cosmic Strings

Hubble: cosmic string verdict by February

I just wanted to keep this for inspection, and relate Lubos's current statement in this regard, together, for refreshing look at this topic.

This is of course from 2005/July 11 of 2005, but it serves to have a look a what was being discussed in this way, that we can see how "the history" has unfolded into cosmological dissertations.

Update on cosmic strings
Joseph Polchinski
KITP, UCSB

Joseph Polchinski, KITP, UCSB: Update on cosmic strings

KK Tower

Like many people who devote their time to understanding the nature of the cosmo and the micro perspective of the world around us, these things have their own motivational packages which move to further rquired comprehensions. In that, one needs to further educateas to what they are talking about.

It's definitiely not easy, but I am trying, and devote a lot of time to this regardless of what schooling is required, it is not my intent to send people down the wrong paths, or, no paths at all, before I have investigated the terrain as best I can.

Mountains can give persepctive where sitting in the valleys circumspect what the greater can be?

KK Tower

What is it?



Kaluza-Klein theory(Wiki 4 Jan 2006)

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.

Kaluza-Klein theory is a model which unifies classical gravity and electromagnetism. It was discovered by the mathematician Theodor Kaluza that if general relativity is extended to a five-dimensional spacetime, the equations can be separated out into ordinary four-dimensional gravitation plus an extra set, which is equivalent to Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field, plus an extra scalar field known as the "dilaton". Oskar Klein proposed that the fourth spatial dimension is curled up with a very small radius, i.e. 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, in fact, also gives rise to quantization of charge, as waves directed along a finite axis can only occupy discrete frequencies.

Kaluza-Klein theory can be extended to cover the other fundamental forces - namely, the weak and strong nuclear forces - but a straightforward approach, if done using an odd dimensional manifold runs into difficulties involving chirality. The problem is that all neutrinos appear to be left-handed, meaning that they are spinning in the direction of the fingers of the left hand when they are moving in the direction of the thumb. All anti-neutrinos appear to be right-handed. Somehow particle reactions are asymmetric when it comes to spin and it is not straightforward to build this into a Kaluza-Klein theory since the extra dimensions of physical space are symmetric with respect to left-hand spinning and r-hand spinning particles.

So in order to get to the summation, views of hidden dimenisons had to be mathematically described for us, so a generalization here would suffice in the following diagram.



Now, not having the room to explain, and having linked previous information on extension of KK theory, I wondered about the following. If we understood well, the leading perspective that lead us through to the dynamical realizations, then the road Gauss and Reimann lead us to would help us to understand the visualization materializing by the calorimeter disciptions of each energy placement harmonically describing each particle's value? Even in a empty space, there seems to be something of a harmonical consideration?


If one understood well enough about the direction of discernation of early universe consideration and microstates, then such questions would have been of value in the ideas of topological considerations?