Plato and Aristotle

Plato - holding the Timaeus - Pointing up as a sign of his metaphysical belief in the higher world of the forms, shown with the face of Leonardo.

Aristotle - holding his Ethics with hand palm down, reflecting a more grounded approach to the problem of universals.

I wanted to remind people of something quite profound as we look at Raphael's picture above. That it would be in such a position as that of the signatores relation, had been more of hindrance to me. Here, any document with which was to be signed, as representing the whole Catholic Church.

I would have liked to have seen the better message be, that this room would sign all faiths, all religions, to something built into each of us. It is something that we will take from pondering such a picture. It will become part of us.

PLato saids,"Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle saids "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth" To Remember: Eskesthai

I wanted to create this post as it has been sitting on my mind right from the every beginning and inception of this Blog. While my discription had been drawn from historical reference, the stage(Arch), from this beginning, is a interesting one.



Without the ability to have teachers hold one's hand all the way through the process to knowledge development, it was necessary that confidence be built into any who would adventure to such learning and research. So I developed a early a conceptual framework that would draw attention to "insight developement" through states of "correlation of cognition," as signs evident in, the natural world around us.

These were important features of model consumptions, and the "simplestic idealizations" behind their developement. If you saw this from working the model, then what value any prediction, and if you had saw insightually into the workings?

Right and Left
I came across this thinking in my adventures, where such distinctions held in the opening at the top of this page, might had arisen from left and right brain people? Would have been attributed to characteristics of the very minds who involved themself in the ways with which they might approach science today? Brain matter is encase, are our minds too?

There seems to be something special about positions historically identified to current day researchers? This came to me while I was doing early research on Plato and Aristotle themself. Underneath this picture, painted in the center, Plato and Aristotle stand. Look at what had been taken for further inspection below. What does it's link imply?


Plato:

Look to the right of Raphael's painting lower right hand corner. Look at the link this picture is connected too?

What was even more provoking, was the way in which I could see this arche identified in oppositions of scientists, who would lead us into the explorations of what and how we have come to where we are today.

Can you see yourself in the figures of fathered archetypes, embedded within our consciousness, to have known, that such an evolution was part and parcel of the scientific process in the developement of your very own minds?

"I would like to be like Feynman," yells Lubos, dememaning all philosophical adventures, while Anon screams, "no, I am Feynman." I would say you both have your place in all this. We just didn't recognize where it would come from, so we emmulated our teachers, and the teachers before them? Oh dear Aristotle, how are you?

Feynman and Gellman
For instance let us say that Feynman's thnking was more like Artistoles, while Gellman's Plato's

What was distinctive about either was that one, Gellman saw eternal and immutable patterns inhernet in the phenomena of the material world, while, Aristotle saw these as myth? Feynmen worshiped nature itself.

While discarding the myth, as philosphical pandering, are you a Feynmen who sees what is underlying, as a possible abstraction? If so, you would have been in good company with Robert Laughlin and the issues of condense matter physicist, and the relevance of building blocks of nature as, irrelevant? Oui! NOn?

Not by inception of strings that had implied itself as a discriptor of the very underlying feature of all that exists? How could we have seen that such a expression and revolt would have taken such thinking to further the basis of the standard model, to incorporate the graviton? To have conceptually incorporated the "Bulk."

You needed Plato?:)

History of the Universe and the Standard Model

Who would of thought the history of the universe could have ever been contained in this one moment? While it had been translated to 13.7 billions years, what is the value of recognizing this vast history, to what is contained in that one specific moment held in context of the collisions, we have in the colliders? What takes place between high energy particles, and what this process helps us to understand, as we see neutrino effects, talked about in ICECUBE.



So while we ponder this momenet in time, some things became apparnet as one reads words retro spect, that help to clarify what had been going on in my mind, while never really undertanding that what had been transpiring in my thinking, had been more or less, described from another perspectve as well.

I talked about "correlation of cognition," becuase it is important that we understnd intuitive development. That we build confidence in ourselves, as we move through the informtaion and see that what we had been learning, had taken us to another level of comprehension, as if, having digested the model in question, whatever that may be.

Fig. 1. In quantum chromodynamics, a confining flux tube forms between distant static charges. This leads to quark confinement - the potential energy between (in this case) a quark and an antiquark increases linearly with the distance between them.

The Four Fundamental Forces

Electromagnetism causes like-charged objects to repel each other and oppositely charged objects to attract each other. The electromagnetic force binds negative electrons to the positive nuclei in atoms and underlies the interactions between atoms. Its force carrier particle is a photon.

The strong force binds quarks together. While the electromagnetic force works to repel the positively charged protons in the nucleus of an atom, the strong force is stronger and overrides these effects. The particle that carries the strong force is called a gluon, so-named because it so tightly "glues" quarks together into larger particles like protons and neutrons. The strong force is also responsible for binding protons and neutrons together in the nucleus.

Gravity is the phenomenon by which massive bodies, such as planets and stars, are attracted to one another. The warps and curves in the fabric of space and time are a result of how these massive objects influence one another through gravity. Any object with mass exerts a gravitational pull on any other object with mass. You don't fly off Earth's surface because Earth has a gravitational pull on you. Gravity is thought to be carried by the graviton, though so far no one has found evidence for its existence.

The weak force is responsible for different types of particle decays, including a process called beta decay. This can occur when an atom's nucleus contains too many protons or too many neutrons -- a neutron that turns into a proton undergoes beta minus decay; a proton that changes into a neutron experiences beta plus decay. This weak force is mediated by the electri- cally charged W- and W+ force carrier particles and the neutral Z0 force carrier particle.

Reductionistic Views

Part of this discription is important from the understanding, that how we see, and talk about things that we do in let's say Q<-->Q measure and distance, have some relation to what we are talking about and discribing in collision states. So this entry here helps to this degree, to maintain some cohesion and understanding, while differences in model and experimental conceptions are explored.


Cosmic Rays

Conservatively the idealization, is the progression from the understanding of Unifying forces, and progression to conceptual understanding found and revealled in the world of natural processes. Who would have ever thought that platonic forms could have been capture in the mind of a Gellman, while a Feynman help to introduce us to the interactions?

Fig. 1. The four forces (or interactions) of Nature, their force carrying particles and the phenomena or particles affected by them. The three interactions that govern the microcosmos are all much stronger than gravity and have been unified through the Standard Model

.

This is what I like to do. Summations while they be ill time to a better comprehension demanded, I found this a wonderfiul idealization in moving intuitively perception to a clearer understanding, as I looked at ICECUBE. All that I am encountering through exploration of principles embued in experimental observations, according to what "new" physics might be revealled.

While the experimental situation has been set up( who determine what experiments would be challenged?) All the worker bees ready to do their parts. How well had they understood this process, to potentially reveal a better insight into what will come next?

There had to be evidence of your theoretical positions in nature.

Would you be so hesitant to just sit and wait, while the opportunity exists for you to unite these experimental procedures? Into a pciture of a complete scenario, as you understood it in nature. How energy of the particle collisons within our environ and the resulting particle dissipation, revealled as the neutrino base experiment given to signs as what?

So what is this unifying concept, that we could see the strong force, to the weak being explained, while we had paid attention and witness to many things going on with earth, as an observatory, in it's completeness?

At this moment then the division and valuation of experimental cross sectioning of fundamental forces( experiments respectively), would have been placement of "all aspects of the unifying forces" as it's measure. That we could have correlated across the map, all aspects united in some unique translation, as LIGO, or Pierre Auger, or Collider experiments, along with Ice CUbe, paints a extremely interesting picture for us.

What "new math" will be borne in the minds with "new concepts and models" to bring analogy into context as natures way?

See:

Mathematical Enlightenment

Resonance Curve

Some might inference a very spherical world, but when you take "this view below" the world becomes very bumpy indeed. This was only possible by a revision in thinking and science of measure. Perspective was changed. The "biological genetic result" are lead by the mind, and not the other way around?:) Evolution of the brain structure makes me think this. Evolution of Emotive IQ, makes me think this.

This of course, in regards to biological thinking, runs in contradiction to everything that has been built up? What neurological pathways is built in thinking when your thinking "fires" neuronic pathways that never existed before?

While these pathways are already established, in our unthinking coordinated body movement these had been relegated to such a product of the species, after much travelling and exercising the mind's connection. Then w let it go, like we let many things go after repeatingly reliving the experience and assuming such idealizations. All thinking becomes biased then, yet we can meet the memory, and current daily incursions comparatively lived, by changing the way we see. By the way we meet situations. We had to open up our memory and track the evoluton of reaction.

That these migh tbe seen on anotherlevel, would have not been so far remved from the work being done on how gravity is thought about.



It's an ole way of thinking(GR perspective) and how measurement above, and at the earth, helps one see? That this process had been taken to very precise mesurements gravitationally considered?

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.

I mean when you take your thinking and transfer it to what happens within context of the gravitational field, then you soon learn the value of the photon within that environ.

The "spectrum" had been modified to a way of thinking, and is representative. But in order to do that, you had to move the thinking from GR to abstract valuations. You might not have seen this before, if you had not moved to a fifth dimensional understanding. "Spacetime wording" then becomes self explanatory, about it's every nature. "Spacetime" then becomes the "fabric of the cosmos."

Oscillatory Universe(21 Febuary 2006 Wiki)

The oscillatory universe is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.

More on Dual Nature of Blackhole

In some theories, microscopic black holes may be produced in particle collisions that occur when very-high-energy cosmic rays hit particles in our atmosphere. These mini-black-holes would decay into ordinary particles in a tiny fraction of a second and would be very difficult to observe in our atmosphere.

The ATLAS Experiment offers the exciting possibility to study them in the lab (if they exist). The simulated collision event shown is viewed along the beampipe. The event is one in which a mini-black-hole was produced in the collision of two protons (not shown). The mini-black-hole decayed immediately into many particles. The colors of the tracks show different types of particles emerging from the collision (at the center).

The RHIC fireball as a dual black hole

We argue that the fireball observed at RHIC is (the analog of) a dual black hole. In previous works, we have argued that the large $s$ behaviour of the total QCD cross section is due to production of dual black holes, and that in the QCD effective field theory it corresponds to a nonlinear soliton of the pion field. Now we argue that the RHIC fireball is this soliton. We calculate the soliton (black hole) temperature, and get $T=4a /\pi$, with $a$ a nonperturbative constant. For $a=1$, we get $175.76 MeV$, compared to the experimental value of the fireball ``freeze-out'' of about $176 MeV$. The observed $\eta/ s$ for the fireball is close to the dual value of $1/4\pi$. The ``Color Glass Condensate'' (CGC) state at the core of the fireball is the pion field soliton, dual to the interior of the black hole. The main interaction between particles in the CGC is a Coulomb potential, due to short range pion exchange, dual to gravitational interaction inside the black hole, deconfining quarks and gluons. Thus RHIC is in a certain sense a string theory testing machine, analyzing the formation and decay of dual black holes, and giving information about the black hole interior.

The case for mini black holes

Geodesics in Kerr space-time, as predicted by the theory of general relativity. Small black holes produced, for example at colliders, are expected to be spinning. Image: Numerical simulation by Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Albert Einstein Institute (AEI); visualization by W Benger, Zuse Institute, Berlin/AEI

Approaches of the Gauss-Bonnet type, which include quadratic terms in scalar curvature in the Lagrangian, are good candidates for a description beyond general relativity as they can be supported both by theoretical arguments (heterotic strings in particular) and by phenomenological arguments (Taylor expansion in curvature). In such a case, the coupling constant of the Gauss-Bonnet term, namely the quantum character of the gravitational theory used (and the link with the underlying string theory) can also be reconstructed and the LHC would become a very valuable tool for studying speculative gravitation models.

Other promising avenues are also being investigated for new physics. Firstly, the black holes formed may be excellent intermediate states for highlighting new particles. When the collision energy is higher than the Planck scale ED, the cross-section for the creation of black holes is quite large (~500 pbarn) and has no suppression factor. Moreover, when the temperature of the black hole is higher than the mass of a particle, the particle must be emitted during evaporation in proportion to its number of internal degrees of freedom. There is thus a definite potential for the search for the Higgs or for supersymmetric particles in the evaporation products of black holes, possibly with cross-sections much greater than for the direct processes. Finally, taking account of a D-dimensional cosmological constant also modifies the evaporation law. If the constant is sufficiently high - which is possible without contradicting the low value measured in our brane - the temperature and the coupling coefficients with the entities emitted could be the signature of this particular structure of space-time. It would be quite neat and certainly surprising that a measurement of the cosmological constant in the bulk should come from the LHC!

Microscopic black holes are thus a paradigm for convergence. At the intersection of astrophysics and particle physics, cosmology and field theory, quantum mechanics and general relativity, they open up new fields of investigation and could constitute an invaluable pathway towards the joint study of gravitation and high-energy physics. Their possible absence already provides much information about the early universe; their detection would constitute a major advance. The potential existence of extra dimensions opens up new avenues for the production of black holes in colliders, which would become, de facto, even more fascinating tools for penetrating the mysteries of the fundamental structure of nature

Public Service Announcement: Black Holes @ RHIC by John Steinberg

Unfortunately, all of this is overstated. At RHIC we don’t make a “real” black hole, in the sense envisioned by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Rather, Nastase’s point of view is that RHIC collisions can be described by a “dual” black hole. But what does “dual” mean in this context? It’s not “two-ness” in any sense, but rather indicates that one can write down a theory which describes the collision as a black hole, but in a completely different world than that we see around us. To make his model work, he (and many other researchers who are exploring this direction) make a calculation of a black hole in 10 dimensions in order to describe difficult (but gravitationally benign) aspects of the strong interaction in 4 dimensions.

No Black Holes Today, Thanks

As George Musser remarked to me in an email,

Egads, what a mispresented story. Nastase says they might be *dual* to black holes -- a relation of interest in string theory, but hardly the same thing as an honest-to-god black hole.

Exactly. The point of Nastase's paper is not that the RHIC fireball may be a black hole but that it might be described by the same math used for black holes. Such duality is vital in modern physics, because some problems are easier to formulate and solve within one mathematical framework rather than another, although both are applicable.

Now, if you want to know about the real prospects for making microscopic black holes by colliding particles in an accelerator, watch for the May issue of Scientific American, which will, by happy coincidence, have a feature on that very subject.

See:

Microstate Blackhole Production

Some Distant Bounding Surface

Dual Nature From Microstate Blackhole Creation?

When a neutrino collides with a water molecule deep in Antarctica’s ice, the particle it produces radiates a blue light called Cerenkov radiation, which IceCube will detect (Steve Yunck/NSF)

Plato:

So, only from a high energy consideration "viscosity" (D brane examples), can hold microstate perspective, on blackholes superfluid state? To "provide evidence for" distortions in neutrino creations?

Credit: NSF
“

The neutrinos accelerated in the cosmos to energies unattainable on Earth can detect the ‘footprint’ of new physics,” said Goldberg. “The ‘body’ responsible for the footprint can then emerge through complementary experiments at the new generation of human-made colliders. On all fronts, it is an exciting era in high-energy physics.

”

Tabula rasa: The Glass Room

For a person like me, I would want to define the origination and source of all possibilites. While it might have been a philosophical journey of John Locke, or further rendition by Stephen Pinker. I have a perspective on this, that I think would seem a little strange.

I mean really, if, each of us is born into this world with such a blank slate, then how is an idea incorporated into such a design of our blank slate. Especially, if there had not been some influence predisposed, to draw ideas into the appropriate environment for consideration?



Science of (17 Febuary 2006 Wikpedia)

In computer science, tabula rasa refers to the development of autonomous agents which are provided with a mechanism to reason and plan toward their goal, but no "built-in" knowledge-base of their environment. They are thus truly a "blank slate".

In reality autonomous agents are provided with an initial data-set or knowledge-base, but this should not be immutable or it will hamper autonomy and heuristic ability. Even if the data-set is empty, it can usually be argued that there is an in-built bias in the reasoning and planning mechanisms. Either intentionally or unintentionally placed there by the human designer, it thus negates the true spirit of tabula rasa.

Generally people now recognise the fact that most of the brain is indeed preprogrammed and organised in order to process sensory input, motor control, emotions and natural responses. These preprogrammed parts of the brain then learn and refine their ability to perform their tasks. The only true clean slate in the brain is the neo-cortex. This part of the brain is involved in thought and decision making and is strongly linked with the amygdala. The amygdala is involved in responses such as fight or flight and emotions and like other parts of the brain is largely "pre-programmed", but has space to learn within its "programming". The amygdala is important in that it has a strong influence over the neo-cortex. There is much debate as to whether the amygdala prevents the neo-cortex from being defined as a clean slate.

Controversially the amygdala is different from person to person. However, it only affects emotions and not intelligence. Another controversial element is in the differing size of the neo-cortex.

So from a science perspective now that we might have located the physical intepretation, I am more concerned with how the creative abilities will have allowed such a D brane intersection interpretation, possible in such a glass room for consideration?

While you had yor balckboards and created the envirnonment( glass room), the room becomes somewhat different, if held to perspectve, where images and information would makes its way into this room, as well as, having tentacles that reach into other laptops discussed in the Future of the Notebook.

SPACE, THE FINAL FRONTIER

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Some of the older, and not so old, when they hear "this title" above, do they think of Startrek's exploits in space? As we were given "a view" of space travellers going from one end of the universe to another and as they encountered alien civilizations and such.

Well I don't want to take you to this extreme, and suffer "alien discrimmination" in the "new thinking" of society, so I will just move back a bit and begin with Hubble pictures, and what previews these give to us.


L.L. Orionis colliding with the Orion Nebula flow

The Hubble Space Telescope imaged this view in February 1995. The arcing, graceful structure is actually a bow shock about half a light-year across, created from the wind from the star L.L. Orionis colliding with the Orion Nebula flow. For more information on this image, see HubbleSite. Click on the image for a very large version. Credit: NASA, The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

This post is the result of what is held in mind in terms of the way we measure things in space and the perspectives we form around it. I am going to jump forward quite drastically and then backwards, and all over the place to gently try and gain perspective in mind, about how we are seeing these picutres Paul shared here and what was gained in terms of understanding the jet in the pictures that was shown in previously.

So we are given a picture of early history in terms of "the jet" and what is gained in the picture offered us, in how we see. Not only in space perspective and some of the things gathered around it in terms of that space, but ideas, related to how the sparkle of sunshine seems to catch your eye, as it appears quite blindingly to the eye as observation, is realized in a certain way.:)


A Classical Discription of the Quantum World?

Here I was introduced to models on the micro perspective views that held a relationship to cosmological design. This was a new way in which to see geometrical idealization, as I engaged early universe, with General Relativity, as it is played out on the cosmological canvas given to us in our pictureof the universe.

Do you think we can become tainted when our views are microsperspectively organized that the phrase "the Phoenix" is more then the mythical bird born out of mind, but also borne out of the beginnings of this universe? So these people who help us organize our thoughts held my attention.



Shall we be really critical of the way the eye then sees, and what observations of the universe has allowed us deeper inspection of those early events? These are to be considered, without holding a certain position, as we use model and assumptions gained from insight. Would we discard these models as they push our mnds beyond th ebundaries of the edge, while we understood now that the universe never arose from nothing. It couldn't. Accept it?:)

So in way, perspective had been pushed to inquire about what can be gained, if we progress these views in a very scientific way. It is the least we can do, if not, we are but assigned some ID'er classification, and suffer, the wrath of mythisms, that we had been purpetrating on a society, without understanding the repercussion?

Suffered under the point system of John Baez's crackpotism?:)

It is something that happens, as maturity and age of reason begins to manifest. We have questions about things we do not understand. We can still hold on to our dreams, our artistic inflections and sounds inhernet, with the creative side of us in bloom. We all struggle, yet there is truth to what the intuitive said developed in us, and the "correlation of cognition" as we progress through this science.



Cognition and purity of thought would be assigned the universal language of mathematics, yet the mathematical mind had been projected into the way it might seen nature, and discribed it for us.

Concept development, arises from it, and is interwoven into our views of reality. Our conversations of the day, the eyes that bring pictures forward. Current day 's progress of the insight as "pictured measure." Hubble in all it's glory. How so the universe, as it is today around us?

No it is a gradual thing that we understand as we look at this subject, that it is based on reasoning, that occupies research, and enlightenment, over time. That we would want "not" to mislead in any way. Clear Mind.

Having this in developing perspective, all one has to do is think of the "early universe" introduction we had gained in association, to know, that blackhole creation in colliders, high energy particles in cosmological collsions, and the concerns now developing, had developed from consequences. John Ellis, or Peter Steinberg introduced us to Pierre Auger and the experiments involved respectively.

So More on the Final Frontier

So I began with a term that seems quite relevant to perspective of the public as we were witness to space travel , that we now take that term and use it to push further perspective.



COSMOLOGY AS SEEN FROM VENICE - Lawrence M. Krauss (2001)

Probably the most important characteristic of the space in which we live is that it is expanding. The expansion rate, given by the Hubble Constant, sets the overall scale for most other observables in cosmology. Thus it is of vital importance to pin down its value if we hope to seriously constrain other cosmological parameters.

Big Bang:One Man's Change of Heart

Thanks Paul

One definitely needs some perspective around this and how such information is given. I refer here for consideration, about perspective, and how it can be exploited for further consideration on what is emitted, and what manifests in weak gravitational field measure, as neutrino effects(quantum gravity).

Microperspective and methods of examination, raise the issue fo cerenkov radiation and what it tells us about such interactive phases?

Here in refractive consideration, ICECUBE, paints a different picture of what began somewhere else in cosmological high energy collisions. "Neutrinos and strangelets" are part of the developing scenario with which the universe has consequences, if held to the initial conditons of our universe. You had to know where to look for these.

Plato:

"Nothing" in stated form was and always is "nothing" which would have not allowed any further discussion. "Zero" in our conversation is a much different kind of thinking. I understood that as well. "Zero" would have been the equivalent to "i" in the Dirac's matrices?

Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.

I wanted to add this post, and to centralize some references that were found that helped form my perspective on "nothing." What! I guess I'm done?:)

Seriously, this had to be confronted, and who better then from our layman perspectve, then the admission of a leaders in science, who can change theirs mind after some thinking?

Cosmological Constant SeeSaw in Quantum CosmologyMichael McGuigan

Lubos shares his perspective on linked section of titled paper above.

One interpretation of the coupling of Wheeler-DeWitt functions is that it originates from topology changing effects. Topology change seems to be inevitable in quantum gravity. To treat topology change properly is a very complicated calculation using today’s mathematical tools.

I wanted to add these links here for consideration, as well what link given by Paul for consideration in regards to Penrose, the figure of the man's change of heart that ighlight's this post. In Phase transitions the comments have been quite enlightening.

Before the Big Bang BBC News, with Stephen Sackur
Sir Roger Penrose has developed a new theory on what happened before the Big Bang.

These pages were created by Jack "Turtle" Wong, Spring 1999

First of all, how do we think the universe began?

The Big Bang theory.

Resolving the inadequacies of the big bang theory.

The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: Stephen Hawking's
ideas.

The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: Neil Turok's ideas.

The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: the result of merging
two interesting theories.

Is the search over?

Bibliography / Further Reading

See Also:

Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano

Ekpyroptic and cyclical models

Intersection of D Branes

I'm not going to try and kid you with "this stuff," as it is extremely beyond anything that any of us mere mortal can understand. So, if such a thought would be to simplify, then how would such thinking be attributed to such model building and make it easier for us lay people to comprehend where these people are working in terms of the way they do things.

What is important is that we can derive some method to this madness:) okay! rather this abstract thinking, to show some kind of similarity in lay people's current thought patterns for easy recognition.

I'll burn in hell, if I get this wrong, but surely from my "faulty trails (not Tower)" I can be forgiven, until a clearer picture is given to us, that I could revamp all that I said, and leave for you now, the trials and tibulation of a rogue what?:)

Now you have to think about what I am saying, if you understand indeed, that such a place exists in the picture below, which for us mortals to consider. Think for a minute about the blackhole and where I had been talking in relation to the collider, as well as, the cosmic collisions taking place, with higher energy particles in our own atmosphere.

Weak field manifestation has particle consideration evident, and we find these here on earth, as neutrinos. Do You see now?

Physicists Andrew Strominger and Cumrin Vafa, showed that this exact entropy formula can be derived microscopically (including the factor of 1/4) by counting the degeneracy of quantum states of configurations of strings and D-branes which correspond to black holes in string theory. This is compelling evidence that D-branes can provide a short distance weak coupling description of certain black holes! For example, the class of black holes studied by Strominger and Vafa are described by 5-branes, 1-branes and open strings traveling down the 1-brane all wrapped on a 5-dimensional torus, which gives an effective one dimensional object -- a black hole.

I thought this to be part of the trivial effort with which I had departed to the bulk perspective, without really undertanding how I had got there. Yet I do see in these ways and many things are encompassed within it(gravitonic concentration). I would say, like Clifford telling us about the proper way in which we should move within these mathematical environs, then I would say what a rogue scholar I make, becuase this seems be the bastard child I am whose school is by insight developement, and some of it, wrong of course. But I try.

Superstrings, black holes and gauge theories

D-branes are non-perturbative excitations of string theory on which open strings can end. Open strings have gauge fields, so the D-branes define a gauge theory. There is a class of black hole made of D-branes, and these have a quantum gauge theory description. The closed strings define a field theory of gravity.

PROSPECTS FROM STRINGS AND BRANESA.SEVRIN

Strings occur in two versions: closed and open strings. Roughly speaking, one has that closed strings carry the gravitational interaction and the open strings carry the gauge interactions. While closed strings can freely propagate in space, the modern point of view is that the end points of open strings are “stuck” on p-dimensional hypersurfaces, where p ∈ {1, 2, · · · , 9}. These hypersurfaces are known as Dp-branes. They are dynamical but they are extremely heavy in the perturbative regime of string theory (their tension or energy per unit of volume is inversely proportional to the string coupling constant): they are solitons. A D0-brane is a point-like object, a D1-brane a string-like object, a D2-brane a membrane, ... Just as a propagating point particle sweeps out a curve – the world-line – in space-time, a Dp-brane sweeps out a p + 1-dimensional volume – the world-volume – in the 10-dimensional space-time. The effective dynamics on the world-volume is then described by a p + 1-dimensional field theory.

D-branes represent a key theoretical tool in the understanding of strongly coupled superstring theory and M-theory. They have led to many striking discoveries, including the precise microphysics underlying the thermodynamic behaviour of certain black holes, and remarkable holographic dualities between large-N gauge theories and gravity. This book provides a self-contained introduction to the technology of D-branes, presenting the recent developments and ideas in a pedagogical manner. It is suitable for use as a textbook in graduate courses on modern string theory and theoretical particle physics, and will also be an indispensable reference for seasoned practitioners. The introductory material is developed by first starting with the main features of string theory needed to get rapidly to grips with D-branes, uncovering further aspects while actually working with D-branes. Many advanced applications are covered, with discussions of open problems which could form the basis for new avenues of research

The link below contains over 222 pages, so if you are on Dial-up, you have to think twice about clicking on it. Another of Cosmic Variance's very own.


D-Brane PrimerClifford V. Johnson

Following is a collection of lecture notes on D-branes, which may be used by the reader as preparation for applications to modern research applications such as: the AdS/CFT and other gauge theory/geometry correspondences, Matrix Theory and stringy non-commutative geometry, etc. In attempting to be reasonably self-contained, the notes start from classical point-particles and develop the subject logically (but selectively) through classical strings, quantisation, D-branes, supergravity, superstrings, string duality, including many detailed applications. Selected focus topics feature D-branes as probes of both spacetime and gauge geometry, highlighting the role of world-volume curvature and gauge couplings, with some non-Abelian cases. Other advanced topics which are discussed are the (presently) novel tools of research such as fractional branes, the enhancon mechanism, D(ielectric)-branes and the emergence of the fuzzy/non-commutative sphere.

Cosmic Variance's Very Own: Strangelets in 10 or 11

Cosmic Variance's very own.

Hewett, Lillie and Rizzo found that if so called micro-black holes, which are smaller than the nucleus of an atom, exist, they can be used to determine the number of extra dimensions. If scientists were to smash two high energy protons together they could theoretically make such a micro-black hole. Such a collision could happen at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which will become operational next year. Once created, the micro-black hole decays quickly and emits over a dozen different kinds of particles such as electrons, neutrinos and photons, which are easy to detect. Using the predicted decay properties of the black hole into neutrinos, Hewett, Lillie and Rizzo solved complex equations to determine if our universe has 10, 11, or more dimensions — perhaps too many dimensions to be explained by critical string theory.

So what is the experiment that is being produced?

Using the predicted decay properties of the black hole into neutrinos,

While I consider the state itself, the thoughts of ICECUBE come to mind. This previous ICECUBE post on this is extremely helpful.

What is also helpful is to remember what the collision process produces and how we can see this process in relation to cosmic collisions. Not just in the colliders themself. While we might of debated the strange matter below, I enlist the idea of the gravitonc considerations and maybe it is not altogether clear, it is with some satisfaction that such thinking of dimensional attributes are actually given parameters with which to work?

Strange Matter (12 Feb 2006)

Some theories suggest that strange matter, unlike neutronium, may be stable outside of the intense pressure that produced it; if this is so, then small substellar pieces of strange stars (sometimes called strangelets) may exist in space in a wide range of sizes all the way down to atomic scales. There is some concern that ordinary matter, upon contacting a strangelet, would be compressed into additional strange matter by its gravity; strangelets would therefore be able to "eat" any ordinary matter they came into contact with, such as planets or stars. This possibility is not considered likely, however.

Strangelets are thought to have a net positive charge, which is neutralized by the presence of degenerate electrons extending slightly beyond the edge of the strangelet, a kind of electron "atmosphere." If a normal matter atomic nucleus encounters a strangelet, it will approach until it begins penetrating this negatively charged atmosphere. At that point it will start to see the positive electrical potential and be repelled from the strangelet. Sufficiently energetic nuclei, or neutrons (which are unaffected by electrical charges), can reach the strangelet and be absorbed; the up/down/strange quark ratio would then readjust by beta decay.

See:
Phases of Matter for Reference

Exotic physics finds black holes could be most 'perfect,' low-viscosity fluid

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.

It is easy to see the difference in viscosity between a jar of honey or molasses at room temperature and a glass of water. The honey is much thicker and more viscous, and it pours very slowly compared with the water.

Using string theory as a measuring tool, Son and colleagues Pavlo Kovtun of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Andrei Starinets of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, have found that water is 400 times more viscous than black hole fluid having the same number of particles per cubic inch.

See:

Blackhole Creations

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

Microstate Blackhole Production

Quark Gluon PLasma II: Strangelets Produced

Accretion Disks

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

IN a Viscosity State Production is ?

What Are those Quantum Microstates