Black Holes: The Other Side of Infinity?

There’s a place from which nothing escapes, not even light, where time and space literally come to end. It’s at this point, inside this fantastic riddle, that black holes exert their sway over the cosmos … and our imaginations.

The Fate of our Planet?

Clifford at cosmic variance addresses a fundamental question about the need(?) to populate other planets, versus exploring?

Clifford:

And it would be nice if we did the exploration primarily out of curiosity and wonder, and not out of fear for our future

But of course, as with any thread there is a diversion of thought, so I answer this, while still trying to understand what he meant by the timescale?

A Blackhole ate my Planet?


It's almost worth following the trail of "Risk Assessment" here. Some might remember James Blodgett?

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."

Of course, refering to "cosmic particle collisions",then to have the "issues of strangelets" explained away as well. I mean every journey is fraught with the anxieties of fear. Fear of the unknownas one progresses along the roads to new worlds?



See:

RHIC Animations and Multimedia

Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

We report results of the first strangelet search at RHIC. The measurement was done using a triggered data-set that sampled 61 million top 4% most central (head-on) Au+Au collisions at $\sNN= 200 $GeV in the very forward rapidity region at the STAR detector. Upper limits at a level of a few $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-7}$ per central Au+Au collision are set for strangelets with mass ${}^{>}_{\sim}30$ GeV/$c^{2}$.

So where do we stand with the fate of our planet?

See:

Strangelets Do Not Exist?

Plato's doctrine of recollection

Plato's doctrine of recollection, however, addresses such criticism by saying that souls are born with the concepts of the forms, and just have to be reminded of those concepts from back before birth, when the souls were in close contact with the forms in the Platonic heaven. Plato is thus known as one of the very first rationalists, believing as he did that humans are born with a fund of a priori knowledge, to which they have access through a process of reason or intellection — a process that critics find to be rather mysterious

Harmonics will Color Your World?

If you are a active participator of the very world around you, how is it, the makeup of high energy particle creations could not have included the standard model make up "harmonically described" does it not also apply to our "very thinking and conscious mind?" :)

The Landscape “avant la lettre” by A.N. Schellekens

The lowest harmonics correspond to the particles of the Standard Model, plus perhaps a few new particles. The higher harmonics correspond to an infinite series of particles that we can never observe, unless we can build a Planck Energy accelerator

So of course the very basis of the thinking was drawn in my mind to the very subject enlisted by the minds of our predeccessors, to wonder, how this associative function could have ever been at the basis of how we may look at the World?

Lee Smolin:

In case it is not obvious, let me emphasize that harmonic oscillators are not relevent here, and can play no role in a background independent quantum theory, precisely because the division of a field into harmonic modes requires a fixed background metric. Thus, the physics of the problem REQUIRES an alternative quantization

Of course it is never easy for me to understand what is going on while we have the issues of the background, versus, the non background, and this brings up the ole debates about positions and adoptives stances scientists have taken in regards to the "duality" of science's "quantum gravity" issues?



Do I have a complete grasp of it. Absolutely not, while it forces me back to the issues, as to what is the basis of this "difference of opinion?"

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE


Leonnard Susskind and Lee Smolin

While this is a conversation written by physicists for physicists, it should nonetheless be of interest for Edge readers as it's in the context of previous Edge features with the authors, it's instructive as to how science is done, and it's a debate that clarifies, not detracts.

So by historically looking back, this is a reminder, about the ways in which science people are still looking at things, while holding their positions of thought today?

SEan's meeting at PI, is a very interesting one becuase what it does is take the teacher and student scenario, and manifests the circumstance of clarification as to positions, while providing for a intuitive surge to present itself in the minds of it's participnats.

So this debate then was held and it's relationship rememebered within this blog as to the basis of determination, about how we see the universe and all that is in it.

Lee Smolin:

The aim of this paper is to explain carefully the arguments behind the assertion that the correct quantum theory of gravity must be background independent. We begin by recounting how the debate over whether quantum gravity must be background independent is a continuation of a long-standing argument in the history of physics and philosophy over whether space and time are relational or absolute. This leads to a careful statement of what physicists mean when we speak of background independence. Given this we can characterize the precise sense in which general relativity is a background independent theory. The leading background independent approaches to quantum gravity are then discussed, including causal set models, loop quantum gravity and dynamical triangulations and their main achievements are summarized along with the problems that remain open. Some first attempts to cast string/M theory into a background independent formulation are also mentioned.

The relational/absolute debate has implications also for other issues such as unification and how the parameters of the standard models of physics and cosmology are to be explained. The recent issues concerning the string theory landscape are reviewed and it is argued that they can only be resolved within the context of a background independent formulation. Finally, we review some recent proposals to make quantum theory more relational.

So if someone saids that space is empty, I have a really hard time with it.

See:

Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

Science Mathmatically Endowed?

Approaches to the Quantum Theory of Gravity by the PI Institute

Two methods evolved in the theory of elementary particles to describe such quantized flux tubes. The one, called the loop method, studies them using the basic laws of electricity and magnetism, combined with quantum theory. The second, called string theory, postulates that the quantized flux tubes may be treated as fundamental in their own right, and the laws of electricity and magnetism derived from them.

Many theorists believe that these two points of view are actually equivalent—just different ways of studying the same thing from different points of view. The idea that they are the same is called duality, which here, as in other areas, signals that the same object is being studied with different ideas and methods.

Sometimes this is taken to another level of actual "feuding," yet it is understood, that they are all working towards the same end?


http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~strings/superstrings/extradim.htm

One might called it discretism(to experimentally justify-Glast induced) while the other a "continuity of sorts" when it comes to "energy valuations" analogistically based on some "KK tower of tree like" reasoning? :) Unfortunately, I lost the owner of this quote below.

The jump from conventional field theories of point-like objects to a theory of one-dimensional objects has striking implications. The vibration spectrum of the string contains a massless spin-2 particle: the graviton. Its long wavelength interactions are described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Thus General Relativity may be viewed as a prediction of string theory!

Encapsulate all things "gravitationally enhanced" while extending the framework of the standard model? I did not say, or others did not say, that we should discard all science thinking?

The History of the Tree Rings



Oh that fellow is not me either.

I wanted to added some "time" to the idea of things holding the history of, whether it be "energy valuations" held in regards to the particle creations, but also to the idea of earth's history embedded in some "form of expression" here on earth?

Why it's hard "macroscopically," not to look at the "ancient tree rings" and wonder about the history embedded? What are all those forces involved at that "specific ring time" doing?


Thales of Miletus

Aristotle: Commenced his investigation on the Wisdom of the philosphers. "Thales says that it is water" it is the nature of the arche, the originating principle."

With "time variance recognition" in terms of the "relativity of thought," what said the "measures of Grace" are not suitable to what the history of time may have spoken to us in our undertanding of what "the climate" is doing today? But it is more then that.

The Thalean excursion into the "primary principle" needed a science basis from which to work?:) What was "first Principle" and how did such a thing come into existance? We had to know what the "building blocks of matter" may be wrap in process? And of course the ancient thought of water going through it's phases, comes to mind.

Distilliation, as a recognition of the energy, as well as the recognition of what phases the state of water is in?

While it may be the search for the "emotive forces and inspirative surges" into the exploration of the human condition, it is well considered, that such distilliations is a delving into our makeup(realms of thought).

An "intensity" of thought, that allows the seed bed to "bubble forth" into the recognition of what may arise from a simplier time? The "origins of time," as if brought forth "entropically designed" aspects of reality?



The idea of circles just made sense to me, and how we interpret it. Now again, I must remind you of the layman status I have, and must be forgiven for the attempt to understand where we are currently going with science that is mathmatical endow, but has it's basis "in" the science of?

I shall not forget:)

Quantum Gravity and String Theory

Of course the very title of this entry is a "direct link" as well. I mean, I watch scientists in their debates. How they treat one another, and the most profound contributions are opening the floor to dialogue as the seed bed, for other things to emerge.

Again this just seems to be the way of it. So the thinking already assumes certain things, having accumulated in model comprehension, to the degree, that such statements provide for, the "ideas" to manifest amongst them.

"Dialogos of eide," means, to discuss the ideas. So from where to do they come from? How is it they are transmitted in the minds of scientists. Conclusions drawn, set as the bait for things to enter?

In post #19 I am of course responding to Elliot's question about the observables, what is taken as science, and what Sean is referring to as science from the participants contributions.

I think from what I read their is a common bond and understanding, as to what each represents in the way they think about things. This is fine and no one is argue the validation process as to what expeirmentain does,a s they take this for granted from each other? They are scientists.


Quantum gravity and cosmology at the PI Institute

Finally, the extension of quantum theory to cosmology raises new questions concerning the meaning and interpretation of quantum theory. This is because the conventional uses of quantum theory presume that the observer is outside the system studied. But the universe contains everything, including all its possible observers. This means that quantum theory must be extended (or re-invented) to allow observers to be part of the system they are observing. This is presently a lively area of research, to which scientists at PI have contributed important ideas and results.

Of course I will lead by Plato's example and have these thoughts in mind as to substance, and not care as to the issue of substance, just that such ideas exist for us all to consider in context of groups that gather creatively to propel mind forward in our apprehensions about life.

High Energy Particle Creations: PLacing the Universe into Perspective?

"String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap."

While it is a microstatic view of what began from the early universe, such model creations as to the viability of the time line, seems really important to me. THis is a layman's view of course amongst the towers of well educative minds. So I thought I would add it.

Ah, it seems again, while thoughts are being held in mind, and some confusion on my part, the answers make themself known. It seems fate destines the mind's question, like an attractor of a kind? That all things come to those who wait?:)

AIRES Cosmic Ray Showers

The resource to the right index are really quite good, when it comes to Cosmus. I had forgotten why I had linked it, only to find how these particle creations are understood. Animations bountiful, to help the layman mind understand what is going on.

Make sure you let the animation load below. Also, the significance of high energy particle creation of secondaries, while dissipative states exist in plamatic considerations, what effect again is being sited here in the questions of mind tha we see some result on earth here?

The Pierre Auger Observatory in Malargue, Argentina, is a multinational collaboration of physicists trying to detect powerful cosmic rays from outer space. The energy of the particles here is above 1019eV, or over a million times more powerful than the most energetic particles in any human-made accelerator. No-one knows where these rays come from.

As you move through this information, it is really wonderful that such summations having gone over again and again, seem to solidfy what exactly is being sought and is currently understood.

It works that way sometime when you get a group of people together who have been through it all, and repeat all the current data they have for where exactly they are standing now. This thought of course is arisen from what Sean posted in regards to the PI institue in Canada and the group that got togehter there.

Jack, one of the comentors of course is asking why this stufff is being repeated over and over again, and the answer above is basically what is necessary to initiate new thought provoking situations, to what is already known?

That just seems to be the way of it.

See:

Pulsars and Cerenkov Radiation

How Particles Came to Be?

Scott Ellsworth Forbush:Opportune Times for Experimentation?

Forbush Decrease

Scott E. Forbush discovered the surprising inverse relationship between solar activity and cosmic rays

There is some confusion still on my part as I wanted to understand the relationship between high energy particle and the conditions for which particle collisions would provide for secondary particle creations.

See:

How Particles Came to be?

This thinking would help to establish further information that has been compelling to me about microstate blackhole creation, and what this may imply for the planet on which we live?

Has anyone given this any thought as they developed the views on Risk Assessment and try to explain away the possibilties with what happens everyday?



This thinking then help to stimulate not only secondary particle creations and what we see in our own creations in Atlas, but lays out for us, the sequence of events that are tied cosmologically to the very beginnings of this universe?




Why did we miss this? Are high energy particle collisions dissauded by Solar Max, or do they remain undeterred in their travel? Here some questions then that arise in terms of how we see the physics of the day in consideration of mass infuences(gravitational lensing, massless photon travel), as I am thinking of Kip thornes picture of travel here as well. Hmmm.....

Cosmic rays - are subatomic particles, which travel at nearly the speed of light through space and produce secondary cosmic ray particles in the atmosphere.

It's Alive: Cosmic Ray Recordings

I was doing some visiting around to see what Jacque Distler was doing and of course some blog entries are more dear to the heart, when you have followed the history and found correlative statements that bring the subject home for consideration.

Jacque Distler:

Travis Stewart reports that the LHC’s ATLAS detector has seen cosmic ray events, an excellent sign that things are working as they should.

Seen it's value in other ways immediately. So of course speaking on cosmic rays this entry was inviting and of course leads from one thing to another. Finally then, leading you to the very source of the article in question. It is good that Travis Steward gave the updated source indications of his article, for further reading.

Atlas enews

A major milestone for the Inner Detector project has been accomplished in early May as cosmic rays going through both the barrel Semiconductor Tracker (SCT) and Transition Radiation Tracker (TRT) have been successfully recorded in the SR1 building on the ATLAS experimental site at CERN.

Insinuated Problems within Own Blog?

Well after doing some work here to figure out, "what was what," I realized I had spelt John Bachall's name wrong (It should be Bahcall) on the entry url search, which did not show up under that search function as Bachall. Da.



Gosh, I feel like a fool sometimes:)One of those things where the brain is indeed working faster then my fingers on the keys can type.

It does not mean Lubos Motl, that by spelling names wrong like Gellman(Gell-Mann) or Feynmen(Feynman)that one is any less on aptitude, or that if one reads Smolin, they are part of some "other class of people" that you relate.

We have to be nice to people, regardless of their religious leanings "atheistic or not? Or, it is possible, those of older age may call you a heathen? :)

Pierre Auger and John Ellis's work

So herein lies some more information for the lay person who wants to explore what Pierre Auger and others were doing, while John Bahcall was educating us in the ways of cosmic particle collision events.

See Also:

Why Higher Energies

The Blackhole as a Superfluid: It's Viscosity

Supersymmetry<->Simplistically<-> Entropically Designed?

So of course I am troubled by my inexperience, as well as, the interests of what could have been produced in the "new computers" of the future? So in some weird sense how would you wrap the dynamics of what lead to "Moore's law" and find that this consideration is now in trouble? While having wrapped the "potential chaoticness" in a systemic feature here as deterministic? Is this apporpriate?

In the presence of gravitational field (or, in general, of any potential field) the molecules of gas are acted upon by the gravitational forces. As a result the concentration of gas molecules is not the same at various points of the space and described by Boltzman distribution law:

What happens exponetially in recognizing the avenues first debated between what was a consequence of "two paths," One that would be more then likely "a bizzare" while some would have consider the other, the cathedral? Leftists should not be punished Lubos:)

So what is Chaos then?

The roots of chaos theory date back to about 1900, in the studies of Henri Poincaré on the problem of the motion of three objects in mutual gravitational attraction, the so-called three-body problem. Poincaré found that there can be orbits which are nonperiodic, and yet not forever increasing nor approaching a fixed point. Later studies, also on the topic of nonlinear differential equations, were carried out by G.D. Birkhoff, A.N. Kolmogorov, M.L. Cartwright, J.E. Littlewood, and Stephen Smale. Except for Smale, who was perhaps the first pure mathematician to study nonlinear dynamics, these studies were all directly inspired by physics: the three-body problem in the case of Birkhoff, turbulence and astronomical problems in the case of Kolmogorov, and radio engineering in the case of Cartwright and Littlewood. Although chaotic planetary motion had not been observed, experimentalists had encountered turbulence in fluid motion and nonperiodic oscillation in radio circuits without the benefit of a theory to explain what they were seeing.

13:30 Lecture
Edward Norton Lorenz
Laureate in Basic Sciences
“How Good Can Weather Forecasting Become ? – The Star of a Theory”

So this talk then is taken to "another level" and the distinctions of WeB 2.0 raised it's head, and of course, if you read the exponential growth highlghted in communities desemmination of all information, how could it be only Web 1.0 if held to Netscape design?



I mean definitely, if we were to consider "the Pascalian triangle" and the emergence of the numbered systems, what said the Riemann Hypothesis would not have emerged also? The "marble drop" as some inclusive designation of the development of curves in society, that were once raised from "an idea" drawn, from some place?