Radius of the Universe

HUBBLE DIAGRAM AND ITS CONSTRAINTS ON COSMOLOGYBradley Schaefer

A Hubble Diagram is presented based on 172 distance measures involving 52 Gamma-Ray Bursts out to redshifts of 6.3. The observed shape of the Hubble Diagram is a measure of the expansion history of the Universe, which will include the effects of the 'Dark Energy' that dominates over matter. Gamma-Ray Bursts can be seen to high redshift, and this uniquely allows for tests as to whether the Dark Energy changes with time. If Einstein's Cosmological Constant is a good representation of cosmology, then the equation of state of the Dark Energy won't change in time over the age of the Universe. The observed Hubble Diagram can be compared with the shape predicted by various models, including the model where the Cosmological Constant is a constant. The result is that the Cosmological Constant is rejected at a moderate confidence level. That is, apparently, Dark Energy changes with time. As with all such results, a consensus final conclusion can only be reached after the result is duplicated by independent experiments. To this end, over the next two years, the satellites Swift and HETE will discover another ~50 bursts that can be placed on the Hubble Diagram and this will serve as an independent test of the claim. The result also highlights the Gamma-Ray Burst Hubble Diagram as a new front-line technique to measure Dark Energy and the high-redshift Universe.

As I relay in the earlier part of the thread containing responses to the Evolving Dark Enery of Sean Carroll's, certain insights that had been gained along the way raise the issue of how such a dark energy would have influenced, how we gain information from the luminousity of standard candles, and how we would gain from that information.

Lubos Motl:

The corresponding equation of state would give "w" (the pressure/energy_density ratio) smaller than "-1" (much like in models of phantom energy) which would violate the dominant energy condition - and potentially allow superluminal signals. This sounds highly suspicious. Gamma ray bursts had to be used for the analysis - and they are sufficiently poorly understood - and independent experimental astrophysical sources at Harvard also recommend you to ignore the news.

Of course we are going to want to know why Lubos.

This set the stage for me in wonder about gravitonic concentrations, and how these woudl have been indicators of the strengths and weakeness, which would influence this information gained. I guess, it is in understanding better how such information could be "skewed" that I am looking at the answers given as a further response by Brad is illucidated upon.

So what is "dark energy" in relation to what gravitonic considerations might have on how we see such expasnion process say to us, the unievrse is indeed expanding.



It is always interesting to me to see how the cosmological values contained in the universe could have ever held to "GR curvature indicators" and that such values if held in regard to Einsteins and Riemann's spherical relations, then how indeed could we have siad that the nature of the universe is

As mentioned earlier, the value of is a measurement for the density of the universe. The definition of is such that,




where is the critical density of the universe. A critical density is associated with an "Einstein de Sitter Universe" for which equals 1. It has the property that the curvature is zero, the universe is spatially flat. Light will travel in a straight line and the angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees (space is Euclidean). The other possibilities are an open universe ( ) in which space will expand forever, and a closed universe ( ) in which gravity will halt the expansion and force the universe to contract, eventually leading to a "big crunch". The consequence could possibly be an oscillating universe, which gives a kind of continuity to the model. Figure 2 illustrates the three cosmological models.


Figure 2: The three cosmological models of the universe: open (), closed ( ) and flat ( )

Part of my exercise is to see the underlying geoemtries that are evolving thriugh time as we keep our universe in perspective. Do we know where this center is? And if so can we see whwere such expansiotry calculations would have given some indication? Are we always looking to the furthest edge so that we can help understand this red shifting that is going on tohelp us determine this value of the open uinverse?



Well within context of all this, the move to a higher lensing implications is most puzzling becuase it will shape the nature and kinds of infomration that is needed in order to make these determinations about unibverse values. Thus being inclined to pass by such galaxies in the forming state, as influencing the viability of the information given to us. So to me "Luminousity" is very important here as to the ejection of infomration that may reach us, and information that will held in context of those galaxy formations. So it is as if we are giving, an image in mind of these holes geoemtrically induced, along side of matter formation from causes that would influence the very nature of the repsonses we get.

Critical density

Sean Carroll:

Last time we talked about dark energy and its equation-of-state parameter, w. This number tells you how quickly the dark energy density changes as the universe expands; if w=-1, the density is strictly constant, if w>-1, the density decreases, and if w<-1, the density actually increases with time. (In equations, if a is the scale factor describing the relative size of the universe as a function of time, then the density goes as a-3(1+w).) For comparison purposes, cosmological "matter" (slowly-moving massive particles) has w=0, and "radiation" (relativistic particles, including photons) has w=1/3

So if we are to look for this center how would we find the valuation of what began?



You would have needed to see a time when critical density would have said to you that the infomration that is being propelled from the center, and here, critical density would have partaken of this value, because gravity would have been very strong? Strong enough that for any infomration to be propelled from that center, to have continued on to this day as a expansitory consideration. So that we may still hold it in considertaion as to exactly what this universe is doing now.

Once you have then held the unierse in a certain way you have to ask these question based on what you understood by implicating Lagrange points in your assesment of how the univere became the way it is. YOur lensing has created these holes for light to travel, and in those spaces, satelittes have found easier ways to have manueverd without expending a lot of energy.

We can still tap the greater reserviors of energy and radiation, to help these vehicles continue their journeys. But it is more then that, that we might have sent this vehicle to collect the stardust to help shape our perspective on what constituted that beginning of the universe, as we sent our probes out for further material in which to judge?

Wolfram's Ring Tone

What makes this a little bit, well more then a bit interesting is the evaluation you might try to assign reality of the unseen. IN Mendeelev's table, I like to think in a different way, and if one held the Riemann hypothesis up for grabs, what said that any elemental consideration would have been derived from some Probabilistic evaluated state, not to have formed into views with which all nature might have embued itself?

Lubos Motl:

If you're interested in the more precise isomorphisms between the cellular automata and the anthropic principle, there is a cute analogy invented by Nima that looks as follows: the negative cosmological constant is mapped to the automata that die out (big crunch) while the large positive cosmological constant is mapped to the trivial (solvable) automata - and the nontrivial automata that don't die out represent the anthropically allowed window for the cosmological constant. :-)

You need a background for this, about how such perceptions could have arisen from the very nature that all things, will continue to vibrate even in a empty space.The quantum harmonic oscillator would have something to say to this, and if held to the very nature of flat spacetime, where would this be stopped?

Wolfram's Theory of Everything


So such expansions to the entropically large valuation of all that is in materiality, had to come from some kind of "soup of thnking" that rests itself from all the myriad forms that could have been emitted? So our thnking is "colored" then from musical interludes analogistically based. But indeed, how did you get there and you have this strict regimentation to follow in the probabilitic valution that the Pascal triangle would have surmounted, when thinking of Wolfram's work.

Plato:

How do such things make there way into reality and these prime numbers as signatures of the atoms and ways in which they would relate themself to this elemental table for viewing, and something then shifts in my perception. I don't know why? :)

How can you not help but think in new ways, once your given perspective about the ways we have always done things. A Serpinski fractoriallization about the nature of the world in a myriad of ways, and the probabilistic valuation about events in the unseen. How could they ever be captured?

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

In accretion disks how would this counter intuitive recognition of the Jet have been incorporated into what could have been ejected as anti-matter creation? Doing the Bose Nova maybe?

Killer plasma ready to devour the Earth Reports by Robert Uhlig David Derbyshire and Roger Highfield
(Filed: 07/09/2001)

By colliding gold nuclei at huge energies, the RHIC is investigating "quark-gluon plasma", a state of matter in which the fundamental sub-nuclear particles, called quarks and gluons, become unstuck and swill around in a kind of particle soup that should have been around shortly after the Big Bang.

Dr Allanach warned that if experiments with the RHIC go wrong, it could produce a new hypothetical kind of particle called the killer strangelet.

In a catastrophic chain reaction, the killer strangelet would gobble up nuclei until it had eaten a million billion, when its weight would pull it towards the centre of the earth.

This isssue is important to me for a number of reasons. One of which is the Risk assesment, and how something could be gobbled up. These were ole concerns that began to appear around 2001, in the understanding of blackhole creation in the colliders.

Since then what has come about is the recognition of this new superfluid states that would help propel thinking as a measure of what could have began from a particle state collision that we have gone to enormous energies in which to concieve, as to what took place at the beginning of this universe.

By grasping the understanding of strangelets and the relationship gained in understanding what effects can be creaetd by producing collisions, the resulting product created in the form of Quark Gluon plasma as a superfluid, how would such creation see the use of this as a possibility recognizing "counter intuitive" thinking in the apprehension of what flat spacetime as a measure would have signalled there?

Earth punctured by tiny cosmic missilesBy Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 12/05/2002)

According to the scientists, both events are consistent with an impact with strangelets at cosmic speeds. In a report about to be submitted to the Seismological Society of America, the team of geologists and physicists concludes: "The only explanation for such events of which we are aware is passage through the earth of ton-sized strange-quark nuggets."

Professor Eugene Herrin, a member of the team, said that two strangelets just one-tenth the breadth of a hair would account for the observations. "These things are extremely dense and travel at 40 times the speed of sound straight through the Earth - they'd hardly slow down as they went through."

Strangelets then come to mind as a possible scenario worth considering in a geometrical sense, as to what the beginning is, out of the length that we would go to track back from those same collisions processes. Our mappers would have to be very busy and detailed in their discriptions to help us see how such cosmic strangelets could have been recorded in current data.

In general, AMS is trying to study the sources of cosmic rays. These sources include ordinary things like stars and supernovae, as well as (perhaps!) exotica like quark stars, dark-matter annihilations, and galaxies made entirely of antimatter. Each astrophysical source emits a particular type of cosmic rays; the rays migrate through space in all directions; we detect the ones that pass near Earth. With careful theoretical modeling, we figure out how astrophysical objects leave their "fingerprints" in cosmic rays, and we figure out how to measure that fingerprint (or the absence of it!). Sometimes the fingerprint is the presence of a whole new type of particle (like an anti-helium or strangelet); sometimes, the fingerprint is an unusual feature in an energy spectrum (like a dark matter or microquasar signal). Click on the links above (or in the navigation bar to the left) to learn more about AMS's physics goals!

So we were given some perspective on this issue, from then and now, some review as to what takes place in these accretion disks, suddenly hold geometrical insight as to what unfolds in a complete process.

Jet production, from what the superfluid can do in it's characteristic natures, to have seen how this feature operates independant of the buckets rotations.

See earlier references. Counter intuitive realizations manifested in the properties of these superfluids.

Riemann Hypothesis: A Pure Love of Math

Mathematics Problem That Remains Elusive — And BeautifulBy Raymond Petersen

Dyson, one of the most highly-regarded scientists of his time, poignantly informed the young man that his findings into the distribution of prime numbers corresponded with the spacing and distribution of energy levels of a higher-ordered quantum state

Prime numbers are more than any assigned multitude of prime numbers.

Euclid Book IX Proposition 20

Mathematical ProblemsLecture delivered before the International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900 By Professor David Hilbert

8. Problems of prime numbers

Essential progress in the theory of the distribution of prime numbers has lately been made by Hadamard, de la Vallée-Poussin, Von Mangoldt and others. For the complete solution, however, of the problems set us by Riemann's paper "Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Grösse," it still remains to prove the correctness of an exceedingly important statement of Riemann, viz., that the zero points of the function (s) defined by the series

Clay Mathematics Institute

The Riemann hypothesis asserts that all interesting solutions of the equation

ζ(s) = 0

lie on a certain vertical straight line. This has been checked for the first 1,500,000,000 solutions. A proof that it is true for every interesting solution would shed light on many of the mysteries surrounding the distribution of prime numbers.

Over at Cosmic Variance, Clifford posted something in regards to this Hypothesis that I had been piece mealing over time trying to understand the implication of what is being offered here.

Prime Finding: Mathematicians mind the gapErica Klarreich

Goldston and Yildirim's novel idea was to examine the distribution not just of pairs of primes, but also of triples, quadruples, and larger groupings. Studying this wider question simplified the formulas estimating the spacing of primes, and to the team's surprise, the new result about smaller-than-average prime gaps fell out.

I learnt a lot by looking at the relationship of Gauss as the teacher of Riemann, and in this, itself is telling to a degree about the nature of how we move our thinking and our perception in a different way that we are not accustomed.

Primed to go

The algorithm at the centre of his method first checks whether the number in question is a perfect square, cube, or other power of a smaller number. If so, it is clearly not prime. If not, a sequence of tests using a type of mathematics called modular arithmetic is carried out. If certain conditions are satisfied, the number is definitely not prime. If they are not, then it is. Crucially, the time it takes to run the algorithm increases only slowly as the size of the number rises.

These tendencies are recognized in our consideration that were progressive, and Grossman's helping Einstein to think about the geometry taking place as you move to the consideration and the nature of GR and the curvatures that gravity implies.

On the Number of Prime Numbers less than a Given Quantity.Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie, November 1859. by Bernhard Riemann

I believe that I can best convey my thanks for the honour which the Academy has to some degree conferred on me, through my admission as one of its correspondents, if I speedily make use of the permission thereby received
to communicate an investigation into the accumulation of the prime numbers; a topic which perhaps seems not wholly unworthy of such a communication, given the interest which Gauss and Dirichlet have themselves shown in it over a lengthy period.

Ulam's Spiral

Gauss saw this bright thinking, as a student gave his talk while he sat as a pround parent. What was he so proud of? I believe it is in the way that our vision had been changed from the confines of the natural world. Taking what we saw in all that it is.


Gaussian Primes

IMagine Einsteins youth and the meme's of compass instigated, that became modified in the request of science, as it progress's and propels the student along with the anomalies that one's perceptions had encountered.

Dynkin diagrams that if alloted to the way in which Baez talks about this, then how would such curvatures UV Gaussian coordinates or topologies, ever have been mapped from the 2d diagram to be viewed from these points drawn to a torus. Distances that would look so much different in how Gaussian coordinates are observed in relation to how these primes are aligned?

The Riemann Hypothesis in Song

Prime Obsession has an appendix containing the lyrics of Tom Apostol's song about the Riemann Hypothesis, with a full explanation of the lyrics. (Tom is Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Caltech.)

Now the piece mealing makes it hard for someone to see anything of significance if one only seen the minute part of the process, and in context of what math would mean to the underlying basis of reality. Pure thought, and pure math, which would not refute the way in which we dress up reality and hide this pure thought under the forms that we do.


Andrey Kravstov
If you held the view of supersymmetry at the beginning of Andrey's image, then how would you discern the lengths of lines held under these gravitational perspectives? While we are often treated to time clocks and such, Gaussian coordinates change the way we can see these lines. That's part of the change in perception.

If one would have seen the gravitational collapse in context of the temperature values increased as this collapse, degrees in the boundaries of the blackhole then what have we been taken back too, instead of the singularities that are talked about in the production of the Princess's Pea, now, we see the superfluids?

I would have to explain myself as I do that in terms of what has happened with how I see what Conformal theory and temperature valuation(Bekenstein Bound and the 5d recognition of what goes on the horizon) might have meant when looking at the blackhole horizon. How such quantum mechanical interpretations, would increase the "probabilities of things" happening in regards to those temperatures (entropic increase to expansive considerations), that we had contained the whole system, within these views, as it cooled.

So if we thought of each collision process and all the scattering that went on in how we look at this in the Calorimeters, how well the concepts are considered along side of the energy valuation and primes?

Boltzman, Pascal, and the basis of the ordering of the selection of these numbered systems and how they make themself known? While issuing from a such a pure state of 5d considerations what transpired to see pascal's triangle would/should include primes?

IN binomial series such expressions are raised and probabilty characteristics, that would define position and momentum, as we see correlations to particle ejection formed from such collisions?

One would have to know why this particular numbering system? What pattern is there?

             1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10
           11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20
           21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30
           31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40
           41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50
           51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60
           61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70
           71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80
           81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90
           91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99 100

.....and so on.

Primes to 500

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47,
53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127,
131, 137, 139,149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197,
199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277,
281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367,
373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443, 449,
457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, ...

Eratosthenes (275-194 B.C., Greece) devised a 'sieve' to discover prime numbers. A sieve is like a strainer that you drain spaghetti through when it is done cooking. The water drains out, leaving your spaghetti behind. Eratosthenes's sieve drains out composite numbers and leaves prime numbers behind.

How do such things make there way into reality and these prime numbers as signatures of the atoms and ways in which they would relate themself to this elemental table for viewing, and something then shifts in my perception. I don't know why?



If you turn probabilities above all the things held to entropic design, held in context of this universe, then such probabilities would have had to been recognized?



Does this bring us any closer to understanding of what issued from the mind of all probabilties, and in this, the idea of Bell's curve, or a bose condensate, or as a soliton form. In this situation, what said "this prime" to be associated to the probable outcome?

Ramanujan Modular Forms

Modular functions are used in the mathematical analysis of Riemann surfaces. Riemann surface theory is relevant to describing the behavior of strings as they move through space-time. When strings move they maintain a kind of symmetry called "conformal invariance"

Conformal invariance (also called "scale invariance") is related to the fact that points on the surface of a string's world sheet need not be evaluated in a particular order. As long as all points on the surface are taken into account in any consistent way, the physics should not change. Equations of how strings must behave when moving involve the Ramanujan function.

Plato:

Did one ever figure out the value of the pitch? So you see, the universe is a concert as well:) You remember Pascal's triangle? The probabilistic valuation assigned to the marble drop? Well I created another triangle, but it is a little different model, and does not use numbers for mathematic discretion as a emergent property of first principal. Although mine is distinctive of these characteristics the universe is being applied in sound relation.

Riemann's Hypothesis was always held in my opinion in context of a 5D consideration as sounds analogy) of billiards balls making that clicking sound as they collide, or, as how Wayne Hu might look at the universe in it's hill and valleys.

So looking at Heaven's ephemeral qualities, I could 't but help think of Ramanujan here, and the exercise of Hardy and the Taxi Cab.

What was the pattern incited here that would be transfered to how we see probabilistic outcome reduced, from 5D considerations and higher. It had to be reduced, but how?

Walkabout

Aborigines went walkabout in Australia for thousands of years before the first Europeans set foot on the world's oldest continent. They continue to walk, keeping alive the traditions that connect them to the landscape through stories called the Dreamtime. Today, "going bush" is a term heard from hip bars in Sydney's Rocks district to outback pubs.

While Clifford of Cosmic Variance used this refeence in his latest trip to Taiwan, and the subsequent stories and images he is giving us, I seem to be attached strongly to "the word" above. It's like when you go fishing, you have these rods, lines with a hook on it.

What value this hook? Well, to me the deeper imlication is the civilization I am referring too as the oldest people on earth(?)But I am atache to them more then in the usual way. Sound is a very provaocative thing when it resonates with ones being.



So I do not have much time before the power outage so I will expand later on here.

There is another way that you can startup walkabout on Windows. Once you have the screen sizes, and the stereo mode and your user name set and saved, you will be able to double-click on scene files and have them automatically launch walkabout with those defaults. The first time you double-click on a scene file (with a .wbt extension) you will need to choose the walkabout application (probably in C:/Program Files/ GeoWall Consortium/Walkabout/ as the program to execute when a .wbt file is double-clicked. After that all programs with the .wbt extension will launch walkabout.

But for now consider technologies and there applicable usuages and how you might use this terminology in how to travel through different terrains. IN this Case I was thinking of Clifford's stories but I also am thinking about other things. I'll show that, and also the ideas of his questions taking statistical infomration from his students to asess alot times student might use over preference for this class or that.

Ths is unique feature of integration wit students I am sure as well as what methods used in the ideas of the Future of the Notebook gatherings that he had. This technolgoy applications not just in Walabout feature heres but in how we might use gogle maps to fly across this terrains and take in the cities that we've draw down to for inspection.

Accretion Disks

"For everyone, as I think, must see that astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another."

Plato

Lubos Motl:

One of the potentially far-reaching consequences of Eva's and Gary's paper is that they seem to have found some stringy realization of the black hole final state by Horowitz and Maldacena.

You have to remeber the reason I am looking at this has to do with how collision processes within LHC and RHIC have demonstrated things happening with the creation of the strangelets.

Of course, I am thinking here of graviton production and where such things would accumulate, and if such a process was held in context of let's say scenarios given to the production of these gravitons held to the center of the earth, it would have been from moving to this 5D consideration, that such model building had overtaken what was limited to the collision process itself.

So one sees now in context of what was productions from the effect of microstate and blackhole construction in the cosmos and having joined these perspectives had to have taken some form.

So having a model in mind in terms of the Laval Nozzle explained here in previous thread such explanations would have move the conisderation on how such gatherings would have instituted in moving physics within the realm of the speculative and theoretical, to have actual models we have created by using LHC and RHIC as tools of graviton production scenarios.

Black holes often shoot out jets of material perpendicular to their accretion disks.

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.)

How would we see such production if superfluid consideration, if the jets were opened to new possibilties?

the graphic shows spiral shock waves in a three dimensional simulation of an accretion disk -- material swirling onto a compact central object that could represent a white dwarf star, neutron star, or black hole. Such accretion disks power bright x-ray sources within our own galaxy. They form in binary star systems which consist of a donor star (not shown above), supplying the accreting material, and a compact object whose strong gravity ultimately draws the material towards its surface.

I still need to do some homework here.

High Resolution 3D Hydrodynamic Simulations
of Accretion Disks in Close Binaries

Michael P. Owen
Theoretical Astrophysics Group
Department of Physics
North Carolina State University



So we look at the LHC model for comparison here in accretions disk energy formations, as we projectile these protons in either direction? Now if we were to lay over top of LHC the very idea of jet production in a macrosense, where would this jet in terms of it's collision process reveal itself if not towards the center of the earth or skyward to do what? Now you have to rmeber you are seeing in a different way that is based on assumption of bulk perspectves.

Have I some how bastardize this process from my ignorance as a layman?

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?