The Singing Bowl

One harmonious possibility is that string enthusiasts and loop quantum gravity aficionados are actually constructing the same theory, but from vastly different starting points-Page 490, Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene

What would such gravitons in the bulk concentration mean, to those whose value might have seen sound expressed, as low and rumbling, while energy would have been freer to implement the expression of higher pitched notes?



Some might have never gotten the greater significance, or the relation to the Kernel of Truth, but hidden behind all the facades of humanities thoughts about sound, it was with the understdanding of Joseph Weber's work, that I too, became intrigued with the cylinder bars and sound.

In the late 1950s, Weber became intrigued by the relationship between gravitational theory and laboratory experiments. His book, General Relativity and Gravitational Radiation, was published in 1961, and his paper describing how to build a gravitational wave detector first appeared in 1969. Weber's first detector consisted of a freely suspended aluminium cylinder weighing a few tonnes. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Weber announced that he had recorded simultaneous oscillations in detectors 1000 km apart, waves he believed originated from an astrophysical event. Many physicists were sceptical about the results, but these early experiments initiated research into gravitational waves that is still ongoing. Current gravitational wave experiments, such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) and Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), are descendants of Weber's original work.

Now what does sound mean in this case? How far shall we go back with Kip Thorne, or John Wheeler? Would a good scientist know that the roots of these thoughts about string theory began long before the mathematical struggles became known in current day thoughts. That the roots began in relativity, and what relativity means geometrically as a gravitational force in consideration?

It required a graduation in thinking. Views in the abstract spaces that were less then understood, that without understanding how such thoughts lead from the classical world, would now move perspectve to it's strengths and weakeness as part of a larger view established from the standard model and beyond. It had to include all the fundamental forces and ultimately it's carriers?

The activity in string theory and quantum gravity is aimed at developing a quantum theory that incorporates the physics of gravity and is valid down to the smallest length scales, where conventional quantum field theory can no longer be applied. There has been rapid progress in this area in recent years, in part due to work of Princeton faculty and students, and it continues to be a fertile source of research problems.

Would These good scientists might have forgotten maybe, or because of the failure of Joesph Webers experiments, the very ideas of LIGO today, would not support the greater depth of seeing? In ways such structures would ring with the gravitational expansion and contraction, and allocated sound value in analogy? What use?

Might I have missed the nature of the bubble in geometric views, as we looked at the sonofusion idea manifested in the way that "time and the bubble's membrane," elastic in it's measure, might have symbolized a larger global view of all the things that it would contained within it. Even, it's magnetic field?



So some were better equiped to see spheres whithin spheres, and all bubble membranes as some topological derivation of Sklars's quandry of what line is a 5 or 1, in relation to the torus. How diffiuclt to undertand that then, inner bubble/line might have encapsulated the expression of Maxwell and all the equations, as being defined within the context of General Relativity and it's completion, as th eenvelope on the outer sphere called earth in space. Some might never have resolved such thinking to sucha bumpy world but it does indeed happen. Not only there, but in how such energies would have made themselves known as we turned this inside out, like some Klein bottled?



I know I have much to learn in the geometrical perspective, but I am trying.

Recognition of a Sphere that is Not so Round

Gravity is the force that pulls two masses together.

Since the earth has varied features such as mountains, valleys, and underground caverns, the mass is not evenly distributed around the globe. The "lumps" observed in the Earth's gravitational field result from an uneven distribution of mass inside the Earth. The GRACE mission will give us a global map of Earth's gravity and how it changes as the mass distribution shifts. The two satellites will provide scientists from all over the world with an efficient and cost-effective way to map the Earth's gravity field.

The primary goal of the GRACE mission is to map the Earth's gravity field more accurately than has ever been done before. You might ask, how will GRACE do this? Two identical spacecraft will fly about 200 kilometers apart. As the two GRACE satellites orbit the Earth they are pulled by areas of higher or lower gravity and will move in relation to each other. The satellites are located by GPS and the distance between them is measured by microwave signals. The two satellites do not just carry science instruments, they become the science instrument. When mass moves from place to place within the Earth's atmosphere, ocean, land or frozen surface (the "cryosphere"), the gravity field changes.

So while I was quite aware of what the earth contained in it's views as a planet on which we live, it was not without some understanding that such mass considerations woul have also included the "view of bubbles"? AS rings around this planet.

The way in which they can work to help push perspective inside/out? Is this wrong? Can no undertanding that leads to electrognagnetsm and gravity joined in the fifth dimensional perspective, lead to the dynamcial understanding of nature in accordance with the spacetime fabric and it's orientations?



Why then lagrange coordinates, and how we see the "hole in space" as satelittes that might choose the most easiest route to travel and least fuel to burn? What say the equillibrium status, had not been reached in the blackhle interior, as a anomlie of perception, in regards to the formation of the superfluid through such collidial events?

A Professors Fate, or Encouragement to Continue?

In regards to #72, as a layman, I continue to wonder.

A VIEW OF MATHEMATICS by Alain CONNES

Most mathematicians adopt a pragmatic attitude and see themselves as the explorers of this mathematical world" whose existence they don't have any wish to question, and whose structure they uncover by a mixture of intuition, not so foreign from poetical desire", and of a great deal of rationality requiring intense periods of concentration.

Each generation builds a mental picture" of their own understanding of this world and constructs more and more penetrating mental tools to explore previously hidden aspects of that reality.

ftp://ftp.alainconnes.org/maths.pdf

No one can be faulted can they for developing pespective? :) No mathematician, for solving age ole problems in regards too, let's say, "Riemann Hypothesis."

What say this view or that view, without siging the death of one professor, or the death of another, as a hand sweeping gesture. As to the "illegitamacy of math models" and their relation to the physics world, lead by science?

Who(the community of scientists) shall decide, or one man?

Not so by evidence of failure? Experimental proposals continued, justification sought by tabletop experiments, or a less then concern, of energy missing from total calculation of imput energy? Within context of the standard model wrapped, and the comlete rotation within, as the signs of the time in one graviattional consideration of it's strength, or it's weakeness? Each "cosmological event" held to this perspective?

So resulting energy calculated in particle showers, leaving amount of energy missing, points too "new physics(increased dimension perspective)?" I mean that is a generalized statement, that might have been asked while the general "state of being" had been reached, in any collidial design? How would this method of travel have been encourgae fromthe event itself in colidial view to one that had traverded through superfluid characteristics and anomalies of such design?

Sustenance of any predictable future in energy production would have asked then, how such perpetuity could be been sustained? Where is that missing energy? How is inflation motivated, if held to the current state of the universe as some cosmological constant method? So the resulting missing energy had been seen in relation to manifested possibilties as strange matter or result cerenkov radational design, of the blue daylight of our world, from the many microbial blackhole events?

The center of our UNiverse and the Arrow of time

About ISCAP Mission

At the energy scales characteristic of the universe's earliest moments, one can no longer approximate matter and energy using an ideal gas formulation; instead, one must use quantum field theory, and at the highest of energies, one must invoke a theory of quantum gravity, such as string theory. Cosmology is thus the pre-eminent arena in which our theories of the ultra-small will flex their muscles as we trace their role in the evolution of the universe.

There had to be some guiding princpal in regards to the schematics of "circles with points," the radius of the universe, and it's relation?



What leads the mind to consider such a thing as a center, and it's possibilties forward and backward in time? When each gravitational collapse could have initiated the same thing over and over again, by the very presence of the blackhole collapse, and the creation of strange matte,r as the darkmmatter of this universe?

A way in which to percieve the comsological constant?

Seeing Into the Heart of the Milky Way

The very heart of the Milky Way is obscured by a thick wall of dust that optical telescopes can't peer through. But astronomers have used the dust-penetrating infrared capabilities of the 6.5 metre Magellan telescope in Chile to look past the wall, and map stars never seen before. Astronomers found thousands of stars jammed into an area only 6 light-years across. The purpose of these observations was to uncover stars which could be orbiting and feeding white dwarfs, neutron stars, or even black holes. These special binary objects are thought to be more common in the crowded centre of the Milky Way.

I mean sure, things are going to bother the thinking we might have, as to where the universe actually began? What indications would reveal this to us?

I am a layman at heart who is questioning the basis of what might have become entropically designed in what we have of the universe today. I also know that at another time such circumstances can be meet by the same process that we encounter in the very formation of how this universe became what it is.

See it must be hard to pinpoint such a beginning point, because you might have needed some motivation and direction inflation would have signalled, to let us know the measures we have today, were much different as we looked to the center of the universe?

So such a center would have had to to have some basis for how such motivation would insighted inflation to become what it is? Also, such an arrow would have ran in one direction, so how could such rejuvenation process ever have signal cyclical natures to have the universe in the position it is with a temperature, as such and such an age of 13.7 billions years old?

Spontaneous Inflation and the Origin of the Arrow of Time Sean M. Carroll and Jennifer Chen

The role of initial conditions in cosmology is unique within the physical sciences. We only have a single observable universe, rather than the ability to change boundary conditions and run experiments multiple times. A complete theory of cosmology therefore involves not only a set of dynamical laws, but a specification of the particular initial conditions giving rise to the universe we see.

One could certainly argue that the origin of our initial conditions is not an answerable scientific question. Given the state of our universe at the present time, and a complete set of dynamical laws describing its evolution, we can in principle solve for the entire history, including whatever the initial state was. Ultimately, we are stuck with the boundary conditions we have. Similarly, however, we are stuck with the laws of physics that we have, but this constraint doesn’t stop us from searching for deep principles underlying their nature. It therefore seems sensible to treat our initial conditions in the same way, and try to understand why we have these conditions rather than some others.

One had to hold in mind the energy/matter relation

For a view that had been materializing and issues raised in my mind, while very far from complete, I started to wonder about the initial conditions of the universe then. If we were consistent in the way we implored the undertanding of the standard model in the inception of this universe, how and what process would geometrically have taken it from the classical defintion of the macro universe, down to the quantum geometric one?

No equillibrium states? How is that possible in context of the views that I am showing in consideration of the lagrange points. The pathway travelled would hav eseemed to have found the easiest route, while, such inflative consideration would also have found a point on which such superfluid strangeness that would come into play?



This is a troubling issue in my mind, becuase there are other events within context of the universe as we know it today, that would have been taken down to the original conditions. These should hve been consistent with where the center of the universe began in like mindedness, as to it's origination.

So thinking of a center in the overall perspective did not seem to unlikely for me?

Well there are better minds out there as I ponder the ideas that I do. This universe then would seem to have "holes" that would have arisen from the very functionability of macrostate blackhole production, that would have continued to fuel the inflation of this universe?

So in the sense I seen in this blog the ideas and questions then arise around how we see blackhole production fuel the inflation to entropic design. That we have the particle shower to not only consider, but also the state of the universe in it's beginnings, as well as such constituents formed, as the galaxies, stars and planets.

The Z Machine

There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not some day be applied to phenomena of the real world.— Nikolai Lobachevsky

Sandia’s Z machine exceeds two billion degrees Kelvin

Z’s energies in these experiments raised several questions.

First, the radiated x-ray output was as much as four times the expected kinetic energy input.

Ordinarily, in non-nuclear reactions, output energies are less — not greater — than the total input energies. More energy had to be getting in to balance the books, but from where could it come?

Lubos Motl

Janice Granhardt has pointed out a press release that is two days old and arguably much more serious and potentially far-reaching than the news about "sonofusion" we described yesterday.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/03/two-billion-kelvins-at-z-machine.html

I reference current article information that I had been working through here and here for obvious reasons. I would like to expand on this.

I am writng this article because of the references Lubos Motl offered on his blog about the need for, "energy production." The whole context of any model has to have understood that the current situation in gravitational perspective will have it's two extremes (weak and strong) held in thought, and ending within this context? A cyclical process maybe like thinking about Steinhardt maybe? :)

I know the idea of free energy machines is a quacks realm, if, the imput energy and output energy is not held in consideration. That a greater output must be sustained. How?

Klein's Ordering of Geometries

A theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.


So on what conditions, could you map the process consistently and geometrics, to have been all inclusive?

While one may discuss these alternatives, it might require that we see this process at work on a cosmological scale, and having reduced it to the quantum realm, the questions about the geometries, becomes held under the auspice of "new physics,". That we might ask, "what new geometries?"

The natural process then would have to acknowledge the need for many microstate blackholes to have further the context of the standard model and it's extension?

Is this not a fair statement? Even though we may talk about one event, the recogition is that, this happens many times in regards to high energy articles in a collidial region. This had been answered in Risk assessment, as to why the process developed naturally, in the production of microstate blackholes, we might have created in LHC.

This did not discount, the understanding of what "extra dimensions meant" when we were understanding the "new physics." Reference here, neutrino or strangelets. It was just part and parcel of a greater understanding that John Ellis had pointed us too, is our recognition of the poor man's accelerator.

See:

The Unity of Mathematics

Looking for the Kernel of Truth

Wikimedia Commons

How developmental perspective is created and endures, for those of us who are not to well informed as to the nature of specific information on the internet. How can it grow? How can we stay better informed?

Kernel (Mar 09 2006 Wikipedia)

In computer science the kernel is the core of an operating system. It is a piece of software responsible for providing secure access to the machine's hardware and to various processes (computer programs in a state of execution).

It' like looking for a needle in the haystack? So part of the knowledge gain is to understand the history and developement of what is currently embedded within our everyday world, that we might know that the very blog information center might have been based on one held by Microsoft technology or one held as another form, in the Open Space. Google's Bloggery, or WordPress?

One might never had known the history about what you had taken for granted? But since these counter opportunities can push one another, as we might push people to explain themself, or refute other people's science, such a trend has competitiveness arising, to bring out the best of both worlds? Not to reinforce the stagnacy of progressiveness, that I might see in the software developing attitude of the internet, as well, as being lead by science. Any domnination over the markey place reduces the viability of expression and probabilties inherent in recognition of the source.

Linux (Mar 09 2006 Wikipedia)

Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel. It is one of the most prominent examples of free software and of open-source development; unlike proprietary operating systems such as Windows, all of its underlying source code is available to the public for anyone to freely use, modify, improve, and redistribute.

If you look hard enough on the internet you will find it? What do I mean by the kernel. Those who are computer savy might know? Well I'll try and explain as best as I can to show the divergence in thinking, that the control of the internet might fall under.

Two things come to mind when I think about the internet, and one of these has to do with structuralism defined in software usage. The way in which the kernel can be passsed on, even admidst the "faultering of good blogs" held in light of what the good scientists might see in such a developement.

The second thing was draw attention too, is the "creativity factor" that would operate in the realm of such structures? That the limit placed on access to the kernel of truth might have, if access was limited or censored, as to the choice of Click/space, where a better mind would see and know not to engage. "Knowledge gained" would discrimminate as to where these factors would not be in agreement with the current idea of those things lead by science.

Any counter to ths idea, would then be based on what is currently known according to the idea of those of us lead by science, not some speculation as to the ultimate theory you might have, but a question of what nature might have implied, maybe?

Now before I go on I want to tell you another story that may trigger some understanding as to why I might be reisstant to structuralism fallen into the hands of those who would cohort society into the way that they would want sociey to believe. Control it the way they want them to see.

Nelson Bunker Hunt

The son of Texas oil billionare H. L. Hunt, who was believed to be the richest man in the world at the time of his death, Nelson Bunker Hunt also entered the oil business. His explorations led to a partnership with British Petroleum and the discovery of the Sarir Field in Libya in 1961. In December of 1972, the government of Muammar al-Qaddafi moved against Hunt and demanded a 50-percent participation in its operations. When Hunt refused, the property was nationalized by the government in 1973. That same year, the members of the Hunt family, possibly the richest family in America at the time, decided to buy precious metals as a hedge against inflation. The Hunts bought silver in enormous quantity.

Now gaining control of markets and conglomerization is the vast attempt to control, and I would not not like to see such things happen. So a counter viewpoint is always struck, depending on the position we assume? Jacque Distler is working to control Spambot and I give indications here and here. I think one does not realize how insignficant this idea of "trackback is" that I would say that those with the better minds would enlisted a comprehensive view directly related, and only those with the knowledge will be able to refute. Thus it never changes the kernel of truth, once you had recognized "it's source."

Looking to find the "motivations" in developers is sometimes like this, that we soon learn to see through the "Blog presentation" before us. That we can see through the information, through the personality, to see what science is being offered. If I was to compare Lubos Motl's site in relation to Peter Woit's site, what information currently in science is being extended and lead by science?

Because it held string/M/D Brane theory related information does not make it less palatable to reason. Only that such a string attached, makes the issues of science more or less tangilble is one wondering?

To me it pushes the envelope of progression and developement. What basis of it's theoretical constructive nature is understandable in the comments of Robert Laughlin about this structuralism. An implied correlation to soft ware developement maybe? I would like to thnk the source can contain many probabilites when whe such a source is reference.

So there is still the understanding of the Kernel of Truth, in perspective here that such attempts to control the internet, would have any position adopt software developement, to control, and say that such legal action taken, would be, to say that this software would not be the ultimate structure on all computers, but that other options might be implored too.

Okay you still with me so far?

The Cathedral and the Bizarre by Jeff Lewis

The problem there is that the 'capitalist trench' problem is just as real in OpenSource as it is in commerical product: once a group buys into a specific solution, the cost of changing grows with time. That's true even if the software is 'free' because the maintenance costs and time to convert to another solution are not

Is there not some poorman's truth to what is cost driven, that he might want to know that the possibilties and probabilites in an opensource, allow him to move, without being curtailed to the way those who gain control would allow you to think, and be creative on the internet.

A New Search Paradigm?

The collapsing star scenario that is one of the leading contenders as the cause of gamma-ray bursts. Dr. Stan Woosley of the University of California at Santa Cruz proposed the collapsar theory in 1993. This artist's concept of the collapsar model shows the center of a dying star collapsing minutes before the star implodes and emits a gamma-ray burst that is seen across the universe. Credit: NASA/Dana Berry

If one knew the process of such developements, it is equally important that such information would have been "beamed in a way" that some of us might have wondered, why such a sparkle had caught the eye? ON a snowy day at the olympics perhaps? Hey Paul?

Nima and Lubos speak of one Olympics while we had referred to it in another way. Are you not interested to see what years gone by, might have raised, from all those perspectives on the Bose Nova?



Advancement of internet capabilities are very important, that if one linked the picture to a source, the truth of "the source" becomes known. Much as trackbacks, of certain papers are held relevant. While the blogs linked, non creditialed or not because someone said, you are not a "active researcher", hey Peter?. You know why Christine's site is important in regards to "this topic" linked with the paper present?

That you are not included, does not reduce the importance that the paper plays in itself. Linked or not linked, how relevant I might be, had a perspective, or you had a perspective long before the ideas of the new Paradigm existed. It was in the ideas of measure that the universe culd have ever been held in the eye of microscopic processes. That we have realized that the same "collidial events" would enlist particle shower information in beta decay, from that geometrical collapse?

This view had to be part and parcel of the understanding of the way in which gravitational collapse would have released it's information? What geometry revealled by the nature of the collapse before the dyng star "boundry" closed to a very small point of consideration, held in regards to the superfluid created?

Ah, that's new isn't it?

A New Search Paradigm for Correlated Neutrino Emission from Discrete GRBs using Antarctic Cherenkov Telescopes in the Swift EraMichael Stamatikos for the IceCube Collaboration and David L. Band

Abstract. We describe the theoretical modeling and analysis techniques associated with a preliminary search for correlated neutrino emission from GRB980703a, which triggered the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE GRB trigger 6891), using archived data from the Antarctic Muon and Neutrino Detector Array (AMANDA-B10). Under the assumption of associated hadronic acceleration, the expected observed neutrino energy flux is directly derived, based upon confronting the fireball phenomenology with the discrete set of observed electromagnetic parameters of GRB980703a, gleaned from ground-based and satellite observations, for four models, corrected for oscillations. Models 1 and 2, based upon spectral analysis featuring a prompt photon energy fit to the Band function, utilize an observed spectroscopic redshift, for isotropic and anisotropic emission geometry, respectively. Model 3 is based upon averaged burst parameters, assuming isotropic emission. Model 4, based upon a Band fit, features an estimated redshift from the lag-luminosity relation with isotropic emission. Consistent with our AMANDA-II analysis of GRB030329, which resulted in a flux upper limit of ∼0.150GeV/cm2/s for model 1, we find differences in excess of an order of magnitude in the response of AMANDA-B10, among the variousmodels for GRB980703a. Implications for future searches in the era of Swift and IceCube are discussed

Very interesting picture below, and site linked on Picture.

It reminded me of Andrey Kravstov's computer images, and other information seen from early universe. Without some comprehension on the subject displayed in our universe from a earlier time, what purpose the view held of "a time" when everything was supersymmetrical? That what is held in the distance of microperspecive images of those created in the microstate blackhole creations, would not have enjoined cosmological happenings, by some analog nature, with that microperspective understanding?



Oh, I cry with you Peter, to be considered "Spambot," an IP, as some "register to comment statistic" only to have been thought less of, by some measure of what you might have been thought of? Don't let Jacque control who you are, by such structuralism, that you might not have "some creative realization" in all the work you have done, and knowledge gained.

Thus in that statement it is realized, that the developement of the internet will not stop good people from, venturing and learning what might raise them to better insight. That the progression, although wrong sometimes, might of bore fruit in knowledge gained along the way.

THis will not stop no matter how much structuralism by control of the internet would have been some idealized version of Jacque's view of the internet universe. He competes with the Stallman's view of growth and productivity, as we become students of the nature, of all that is being explained on this internet.

See:

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and IceCUBE

History of the SuperFluids:New Physics

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

Poincare Conjecture

Holographical Mapping onto the Blackhole Horizon

Blackhole Production and Sonoluminence

orbitals

It wasn't just the scientific ones either, that were shaped by such analogies to future perspectives. If one demanded change in society, what roads would have been taken that all the best things in people would have been exemplified? Maybe, role models, who enshrined the greatest humanistic and ethically valuated system, in regards to the rights and dignities, of it's democratic people?

Thomas Kuhn

However, the incommensurability thesis is not Kuhn's only positive philosophical thesis. Kuhn himself tells us that “The paradigm as shared example is the central element of what I now take to be the most novel and least understood aspect of [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]” (1970a, 187). Nonetheless, Kuhn failed to develop the paradigm concept in his later work beyond an early application of its semantic aspects to the explanation of incommensurability. The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.

There is no secret that I endeavor to see differently of all that we currently see now. This would have been under the auspice of scientific validation. Because we see science expressed in a different theoretcial light, do we discard the process for what Postdiction means?

Here in this Blog, it is by my attempting to understand the process that I have been lead to the experimental basis, of what Lubos and Nima offer for us reading about what we may find in the LHC collisions.

At this site you will find the new black boxes and calibration samples for the LHC Olympics! See:Instead of the Pea, What New Paradigm?

It is very complex indeed that such particle tracings would have been deducted from level of understanding that our view would have quickly changed too? Where had we been brought to now? :)

Gluonic plasma perception holds a interesting new plateau for consideration and D Brane considerations what role do they play? Ask Peter?

The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

I first read Thomas Kuhn's famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions1 a quarter-century ago, soon after the publication of the second edition. I had known Kuhn only slightly when we had been together on the faculty at Berkeley in the early 1960s, but I came to like and admire him later, when he came to MIT. His book I found exciting.

Evidently others felt the same. Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science. Soon after Kuhn's death in 1996, the sociologist Clifford Geertz remarked that Kuhn's book had "opened the door to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge" into the study of the sciences. Kuhn's ideas have been invoked again and again in the recent conflict over the relation of science and culture known as the science wars.

I often hear some scientists speak of the "denigration of true science" by the intrusion of philosophical perspective. Does science by it's nature not move it's perspective into the issues of morality and ethics, as well as the political process? :)

Have we seen (strange) quark matter?

Well the very idea that such a thing could exist, has been part of the evolving information I had been going through. To be lead to the understanding, of what new Physics would emerge fromm cosmological and collidial events. That there are indeed showers of particles with which such events will let us know cannot be ignored.

First Principle needed to recognize "the very state" that things would arise from. For Robert Laughlin, a condense matter theorist, it didn't mater what you called these building blocks, but any discrete measure had to be recognized it's energy value and tragectories would it not? Hence, the particle shower from a known state of existance, where "first principle" would emerged.

So, any attempt to ignore the possibility of what emerges, and the foundational perspective, put forth in theory, has to help the understandng of what happens when such events do happen, either, micro perspectively or cosmologically.

Any attempts to say that the standard model is not inclusive in this design, would be detrimental to the very statement any mathematican would say against, that simply erasing any connection, would have been futile to their creditbility?

Strange Quark Matter TheoryTamas S. Biro

Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be the theoretical summary talk of the Strange Quark Matter 2003 conference. When I was alerted by the e-mail we all got, “prepare your transparencies”, I took this home-work exercise seriously. I have prepared quite a few pages before this conference. What can one know in advance, before listening to the talks?.

First of all there is a general outline which a summary talk should follow. On the level of the basic theory one is supposed to conclude about the present status of the underlying theoretical concepts, one ought to emphasize important news, the novel aspects we are encountering, and finally it is useful to formulate in a possibly definite way, what our perspectives for further development are.

So given the research that I had been going through, what is this strangelet subject that was developed, and I will post links that support the development of the fear with which such a thing arose. Was answered, by cosmological and collidial production of microstate blackhole events. Might the story and television series of blackholes been interrupted by such a dialogue, or had I furthered the plot for public consumption? To continue the fear?

Would your scientist/mathematican friend tell you about such things and ways in which to expect information from experimental designs, as not leading into the desire of the essence of new physics?

What began this assumption, was the idea that microstate blackholes were something of a danger, if we were to created them. That was the nightmare. The reality is, that this theoretically written state, is quite useful in terms of what can emerge from the idea of new physics, and had to include the standard model.

To get to new physics you had to have the standard model as a basis, and to move from that point, any resulting shower and new information, like in ICECUBE, along with the historiy and research of neutrinos, points to what? Strangelets to what?

Peter Woit dissassociated himself from that possibility, and if strings was to underly this view, what says, such advancements had not adhered to the demands of theoretcial proposition, that it now sees itself, as part and parcel of the planning for what else will emerge? Sees itself immersed in tachyon demonstration as a sign of cerenkov radiation as that blue light?

So indeed I struggle with how such theorectical position might have told me what is going on, and this issue, is not to be ignored as long as it is remianing consistant with the developement from standard model presumptions.

Paul first, and then I had been wondering about this issue right back in the beginning as it came to our attention. Steinberg and clarifications on what the microstate balckhole is was important, as it demonstrates the basis of work being done taking the energies and collidial events, to a new level of reductionistic perception. The microstate blackhole is the basis as far as I can tell.

Now given the state of Quark Gluon Plasma, what happens when you see such things hhappeniing that you have to aassume a new theoretcial position like M theory that such D Brane assumptions talk abut the viscosity nature? What are the poperties that have emerged from the idea of the blackhole, as this new state of matter tells us something about superfluids and such?

Does Peter understand these new developments? Does his own theoretical position from model assumption he also used, have correlates to current day information and research? It had been my hope, that his position would have created the dialogue necessary. I have enjoyed the mathematical adventures he has shown has developed further my perspective as shown, in the very last link below.

In order to have the perspective and vision of the abstract world of the mathematics shown, you needed to know some things. They had to be couched in the history of all that we have learnt, and any modification in mathematical language, alters that perspective, if it relates to the very work you are doing on extending the standard model?

See:

Quark Gluon Plasma II

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

Strangelets in Cosmic Consideration

Cosmic Rays Collsions ad Strangelets Produced

Quark Stars

Accretion Disks

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and ICECUBE

All Particle of te Standard Model and Beyond

Hands on Cern

Hands-on-CERN (HoC) is an educational project at the scientific frontier of physics. It is aimed at teachers and high school students studying natural sciences.

The purpose of this project/course is to increase understanding of the most fundamental processes inside matter, and to explain modern research about particle collisions.

Links taken from this site:

CERN

Fermilab

SLAC

DESY

KEK

Delphi

Atlas

CMS

Alice

Hera

D0

All Particles of the Standard Model and Beyond

Polchinski Elected Member Of National Academy of Sciences

Polchinski's discovery of D-branes and their properties is, according to the Academy citation, "one of the most important insights in 30 years of work on string theory."

Can I tell a little story before I head into the essence of this posted thread below?

From one mechanic to another

I am not a mechanic by trade. Yet I had taken apart, and put back together motors which ran and ran well. Through a transition period, and without a place in which to do this work myself, I decided to give it to "a mechanic" to work on. Pay the price, which was well beyond my means at that time. With three children a wife, and barely making it, I asked for help financially. It was cold, and snow blowing.

After picking up my motor and installing it. Making sure everything was right, I went for a slow drive to seat my rings in newly honed out cylinders. Well, much to my dismay and lots of dollars, blue smoke clouded the world behind me.

Taking it back home, I called the mechanic, and told him what was happening. "It was something you must of done," he siad.

So, I called another mechanic. He compression tested the cylinders for me, and to my dismay and his, one of the cylinders was not up to par.

So what things did I learn?

That I could have "one mechanic go against another," for the shoddy work that was done? No, it doesn't work that way.

After tearing off the head, I had found they had broken the oil and compression rings, as they pushed the compressed rings and piston, back into the cylinder. They had cracked them while doing this. The cracked ring gouged the cylinder wall, as it went up and down on the crankshaft.

Were there things I might have done different now? Maybe pressure tested the cylinders before hand?

Anyway, on to the subject of this post.

After doing my research and investigations into how the standard model itself might have been displayed, I selected two events, that were very discriptive of what might have happened, when taken as a whole story of the science in progress.



These were censored by Peter Woit on his site and removed. These lead to questions that might have implicated "string theory" as part of the process of inquiry beyond the standard? See Icecube.

If one holds to the idea that they had assumed a counter position to currents trends, then would it not include the theoretical approach well understood, that it also attached, not just a geometrical association, but one described in the physics process as well?

As a layman, this was proving itself, as I looked at the diversity of the geometrical models choosen to represent that abstract world. See B Field and Hitchins. Genus Figures, and topology, on this site.

More and more, it had weighted heavily on my mind, that the consistancy through which selected comments were shown, were to hold validation processes as to anti-string theory. As tones of select comments, as very disconcerting to me, but through his awareness Peter did strived to referee.

The overall message, was not one with the care which Cosmic Variance had ascertained it's caution of String evangelistism, or Lubos Motl's declaration as well, that the underlying motivation, was more to provide a "general widesweping statement" that applied to the string model development as a whole.

IMpressional Minds
If as a student, having now moved toward my senior years, how could I have turned back the clock of time, that I might have stood beside any of these leaders of science?

That I had to accustom myself to the very level on which my opinion would not have mattered coming from layman status. So being on the bottom of the totem pole, I accept the resolve to which such treatment was dealt. It was a small price to pay.

So imagine then, what the overall message by Peter has done to those prospective entries into the world of, might now have said, why should we now enter, being the brunt of what good science men hate, would have us believe?

The Reductionistic Process
Is it incorrect to say that the events of the collision process are incapable of decribing all fawcetts of the standard model?



So by concentrating on the collision process itself, what factors would have said that no, the standard model does not fit the current processes in LHC? Does not fit the process in high energy collision process to earths atmospheric conditions, for evdience of? See Pierre Auger expeirments here. See John Bachall and the Ghost particle.



So by closely looking at the poor man's version, what process would lead one to believe that the standard model was inclusive in this interactive process as well?

Here's the post in full. It was in response to Jack Safartti's comments and the document in which he had wrote was in contradiction of what I had learnt of the "possible new physics?" THis is of course held within context of collider results and the micro perspective results, created the form of quark Gluon Plasma. A superfluid?

So both events involved, "microstate blackhole" recognitions.

Post removed from Peter Woits comment section

In regards to facing nightmares

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."

The link was added here now.

If one follows the logic development, Jack's position becomes a interesting one to question. As well, such thoughts about cosmic collisions, and the high energy particles cosmological events. Microstate blackhole processes are the poor man's experimental pallete. Just as valid the dissipative state created in the collider.

The resulting end product is what is being explore with ICECUBE. It is all consistent with the standard model. Right from, the start of the collision process, to the resulting shower created.

Jack has some explaining to do?

Update

(To help anonymous understand better I hope the student does not feel s/he has to learn string theory in order to be valid in existance. Also, the interactive shower from the collison process with high energy article is well understood and what comes from it.

He deletes yours too.! Oh look, what we have in common?:) What drivel have you drummmed up?)

Anyway. As I was saying.

This is not to slight Peter Woit in the slighest, but to move him to consider the enormity with which the process of string/M theory is involved in the standard model expression. As fundamental particles and the interactions thereof.

To reject the model on the basis of preference, is of course for any who choose to follow which road. But to say that such a process should not be followed would have been a erroneous statement, as well as influencing the general population by such ascertions of preference aghast and in reaction.

Of course I recognized it is his blog and his comment section. On the basis of his dislike for anyone, can do anything they like, within reason right?

See:

History of the Universe and the Standard model