Epic Voyage-The LHC Journey

Couldn't help noticing Lubos's recent article on his blog Frame of Reference, called, "Epic Vessel." Now of course, if presented new opportunities to express ourselves. why does it have to be the way Lubos speaks, about vision being the sea of ignorance, and being limited only by our education?

There is enough information out there now to tell us what preconcieved notions had postulated the means to verification, where now the man on the street may ask, what use this information?

Is it wrong to "think ahead" gaining insight from all that has gone on before us, as we now wait patiently, as so many scientists wait to see, what new lands are discovered.

Susskind, who also appeared in the media with his Strange But True description of the Planck temperature on Thursday, compares the current situation in physics to the late 15th century in which the Atlantic sea of ignorance - analogous to those 15 orders of magnitude of ignorance at the energy scale - became irresistable for curious adventurers.

As soon as I seen this reference to Susskind, and the tile of the post by Lubos I was immediately reminded of John Ellis's article in Symmetry. Now, we have to pay for the article linked by Lubos, so hopefully we will find a way to see what words had been written by Susskind, by the inferences of others.

Times Higher Education Supplement (subscription required) called, Hold fire! This epic vessel has only just set sail...

Of course I recogize Lubos's poinst about the persecution of string/M theory, whilst the brave make their way, ahead of others as they build for the future some comprehensive understanding and means to investigate the New Reality?

The Worldwide particle physics commuity is about to set sail on a voyage into a new world of discovery. The large Hadron Collider, a multi-billion-dollar that begins operations in Europe in 2007, will take us into new relams of energy, space time, and symmetry.

Entering new territory like Christopher Columbus, we have good reasons to think that these new realms conatin"new physics"-a world beuond the Old World of Fundamental particles and forces. Like Columbus, we have expectations about where our journey made lead us. And like Columbus, we do not know how far away the New World may lie, an dour preconceptions may well be completely wrong.

Now why this is of some interest is because of the way the thoughts are held to "maiden voyages", and in this sense, this voyage is a precursor to what we will find after a coniderable length of time, prepping for what the LHC is going to tell us.

Now, here is a SuperNova for Real

The Crab Nebula from VLT Credit: FORS Team, 8.2-meter VLT, ESO



Now the "ultimate proof" is to hold in our hands the matters defined by objects. This is the culmination of all dimensional perspectives, being "condensed to the moment" we hold the stardust samples in our hands. In that case, it may be of a meteorite/comet in passing?

Now we are going back to our computers for a moment here.

Now we know what can be done in terms of computer programming, and what simulations of events can do for us, but what happens, when we look out into space and watch events unfold as they do in our models?

Interaction with matter

In passing through matter, gamma radiation ionizes via three main processes: the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and pair production.

Photoelectric Effect: This describes the case in which a gamma photon interacts with and transfers its energy to an atomic electron, ejecting that electron from the atom. The kinetic energy of the resulting photoelectron is equal to the energy of the incident gamma photon minus the binding energy of the electron. The photoelectric effect is the dominant energy transfer mechanism for x-ray and gamma ray photons with energies below 50 keV (thousand electron volts), but it is much less important at higher energies.
Compton Scattering: This is an interaction in which an incident gamma photon loses enough energy to an atomic electron to cause its ejection, with the remainder of the original photon's energy being emitted as a new, lower energy gamma photon with an emission direction different from that of the incident gamma photon. The probability of Compton scatter decreases with increasing photon energy. Compton scattering is thought to be the principal absorption mechanism for gamma rays in the intermediate energy range 100 keV to 10 MeV (megaelectronvolts), an energy spectrum which includes most gamma radiation present in a nuclear explosion. Compton scattering is relatively independent of the atomic number of the absorbing material.
Pair Production: By interaction via the Coulomb force, in the vicinity of the nucleus, the energy of the incident photon is spontaneously converted into the mass of an electron-positron pair. A positron is the anti-matter equivalent of an electron; it has the same mass as an electron, but it has a positive charge equal in strength to the negative charge of an electron. Energy in excess of the equivalent rest mass of the two particles (1.02 MeV) appears as the kinetic energy of the pair and the recoil nucleus. The positron has a very short lifetime (about 10-8 seconds). At the end of its range, it combines with a free electron. The entire mass of these two particles is then converted into two gamma photons of 0.51 MeV energy each.

I wanted to include this information about Gamma Rays first so you understand what happens in space, as we get this information. I want to show you that there is faster ways that we recognize these events, and this includes, recognition of what the spacetime fabric tells us from one place in the universe, to another.

Does it look the same? Check out, "Going SuperNova 3Dgif by Quasar9"

Now, take a look at this below.

Four hundred years ago, sky watchers, including the famous astronomer Johannes Kepler, were startled by the sudden appearance of a "new star" in the western sky, rivaling the brilliance of the nearby planets. Now, astronomers using NASA's three Great Observatories are unraveling the mysteries of the expanding remains of Kepler's supernova, the last such object seen to explode in our Milky Way galaxy

What can we learn about our modelling capabilties, and what can we learn about the events in space that need to be further "mapped?" How shall we do this?

Gamma ray indicators prepared us for something that was happening. Now with this "advance notice" we look back, and watch it unfold?

A new image taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope provides a detailed look at the tattered remains of a supernova explosion known as Cassiopeia A (Cas A). It is the youngest known remnant from a supernova explosion in the Milky Way. The new Hubble image shows the complex and intricate structure of the star's shattered fragments. The image is a composite made from 18 separate images taken in December 2004 using Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS).

If advance indication are possible besides gamma ray detection, then what form would this take? Could we map the events as we learn of what happen in LIGO or LIsa operations, and how the "speed of light" is effected in a vacuum?

Now this comes to the second part, and question of indications of information released to the "bulk perspective" as the event unfolds as this SuperNova is.

Bulk:

Note that in the type IIA and type IIB string theories closed strings are allowed to move everywhere throughout the ten-dimensional space-time (called the bulk), while open strings have their ends attached to D-branes, which are membranes of lower dimensionality (their dimension is odd - 1,3,5,7 or 9 - in type IIA and even - 0,2,4,6 or 8 - in type IIB, including the time direction).

Now advancement in model assumption pushes perspective where it did not exist before.

You had to understand the nature of "GR" in pushing perspective, in the way this post is unfolding. Gamma ray indicators, are events that are "tied to the brane" and in this sense, information is held to the brane. The "fermion principle" and identifcation of Type IIA and IIB is necessary, as part of the move to M theory?

Thus when we look at Gamma rays they are not "separate from the event" while the bulk perspective, allows geoemtrics to invade the "new world" beyond the confines of non-euclidean geometries.

As I pointed out, the succession of Maxwell and all the eqautions (let there be light) are still dveloped from the center outwards, and in this perspective gravitational waves wrap the event. Thus the "outer most covering" is a much higher vision and dynamical nature, then what we assume as "ripples in space."

Bulk perspectve is a necessary revision/addition to how we think and include gravitational waves, by incorporating the "gravitonic perception" as a force carrier and extension of the Standard model.

While it has been thought by me to include the "Tachyon question", as a faster then light entity, the thought is still of some puzzlement that this information precedes the gamma ray detection, and hence, serves to elucidate the understanding of our perceptions of the early events as they unfold, as a more "sounding" reason to how we look at these early events?

If those whose views have been entertaining spacetravel, as I have exemplified in previous post, then it was of some importance that model enhancement would serve to help the future of spacetravel in all it's outcomes, as we now engaged, as ISCAP is engaging.

See:

Einstein@Home

LIGO:

A Constant that Isn't Constant?

Now I am wrting this because some are persistent about the speed of light.

I have looked at this and tried to accompany this thinking with actual work that has been put out there, and that has developed along these lines.

I will give a list of links and thiking that I had archived for looking at this issue and explain as best I can what one must look for.

Since the 1930s physicists have discussed whether the constants that appear in the equations for the fundamental laws of physics--such as the speed of light in vacuum and the electron charge--are actually constant. If they have changed over time, nature may have worked in different ways at different times, even if the equations themselves have remained fixed. Modern theories that attempt to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces leave room for such a time-dependence. But it's not easy to look for the effect. If the speed of light were slowly decreasing, for example, we might never know it, because our measuring apparatus might be shrinking at the same time.

John Webb, of the University of New South Wales in Australia, and his colleagues, focused on the fine structure constant, which goes by the Greek letter alpha, because it has no units and is independent of any measurement system. Its current value of roughly 1/137 could not have been very different in the past, as that would have spelled trouble for our very existence. A variation in alpha by more than a factor of ten would imply that carbon atoms could not be stable, and organic life could not have arisen.

So I'll deal first with the Fine Struture Constant and what I have got here. Stories in the news reflect at a fundamenatl level what is going onin the society of scientists? Whether a journalistic flavour is good or not, the basis of these myths propogated, if they are ever relegated to the "weird" or something not quite right, then one questions whether such journalistic behavior is very good?

But like myths, we look past the haze and fog to try and discern why such impulse and flavour was ever drawn to the topic at hand, and what is really going on in the society of scientists.


Change's in the Fine Structure Constant?

The world's most precise atomic clocks are now made from "atomic fountains". A gas of atoms within a vacuum chamber is trapped by a set of intersecting laser beams and cooled to a temperature close to absolute zero. The ball of atoms is then tossed vertically into the air by changing the frequency of the lasers and it passes through a microwave cavity on its way up and also on its way down as it falls under gravity. The whole process is then repeated.

Part of this attraction for me, was what was called "resonance curve."

So let's move on here.

As Van Den Broeck concludes: "

The first warp drive is still a long way off but maybe it has now become slightly less improbable.

"

An idea for achieving faster-than-light travel suggested by the Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994.1 It starts from the notion, implicit in Einstein's general theory of relativity, that matter causes the surface of spacetime around it to curve. Alcubierre was interested in the possibility of whether Star Trek's fictional "warp drive" could ever be realized. This led him to search for a valid mathematical description of the gravitational field that would allow a kind of spacetime warp to serve as a means of superluminal propulsion...

But there was a problem for me as I looked at this. I mean, if something is to attain the "speed of light" what happens to the ship? Of course along the way you meet people and learn things, and they extend the thinking.

Does it change what we know?

The ESAA group was founded with the ever present human nature of exploration in mind. The ultimate goal of the group is to physically explore the outer most human reaches, with an emphasis on intellectual exploration to achieve such goals. ESAA was founded by Fernando Loup, Edward Halerewicz, and David Waite to begin investigations into plausible methods to probe the outer reaches of known science. Fernado Loup a mathematician by trade was interested in exploring mathematical possibilities which may allow for superluminal travel. Edward Halerewicz a beginning physics student was primarily interested in popularizing advanced physical theories to encourage "outside the box thinking." David Waite a seasoned physics student was also interested in exploring the limits of known science and kept radical proposals grounded in real world physics. These three thinkers came together and discussed a recent theory within general relativity which would allow for serious superluiminal discussions.

Here is more on the Group which is now called "Stardrive.

Don't tell Lubos, because he does not accept his Martian ancestry. :)Am I a Et Alien?

"


Background on ESAA-Now Stardrive

Paul Karl Hoiland - Feb 10, 2004 7:20 am

In 1994 a Mexican mathematician, Miguel Alcubierre, discovered solutions to Einstein's equations which allow warps in the space-time metric to travel faster than the speed of light. But the proposal Dr. Alcubierre made was unrealistic on three basic grounds:

1.) It required a huge amount of negative energy. 2.) It displayed no casual connection of the ship with the field itself. 3.) The exotic energy states involved violated certain quantum energy conditions like the AWEC.

The ESAA group was founded with the ever present human nature of exploration in mind. The ultimate goal of the group is to physically explore the outer most human reaches, with an emphasis on intellectual exploration to achieve such goals.

ESAA was founded by Fernando Loup, Edward Halerewicz, and David Waite to begin investigations into plausible methods to probe the outer reaches of known science. Fernado Loup a mathematician by trade was interested in exploring mathematical possibilities which may allow for superluminal travel. Edward Halerewicz a beginning physics student was primarily interested in popularizing advanced physical theories to encourage "outside the box thinking." David Waite a seasoned physics student was also interested in exploring the limits of known science and kept radical proposals grounded in real world physics. These three thinkers came together and discussed a recent theory within general relativity which would allow for serious superluiminal discussions.

These discussions were opened in December 2000 to all that were interested within a yahoo discussion forum called the "Alcubierre Warp Drive" Club, named for the proposed superluimnal theory. The active members of the yahoo club then christened a name for themselves which became ESAA. The name ESAA was created by a club supporter named Simon Jenks, which is a Greek acronym for E Somino Ad Astra, or "From a Dream to the Stars." ESAA is an open and diverse group of individuals who are interested in seeking out nature's secrets to make some of mankind's most profound dreams come true.

The ESAA group consist of physicists, mathematicians, engineers, students, and layman whose members are spread throughout the globe. All members have an equal say on group developments and collectedly the group has worked on three separate modifications to "Warp Drive" theories alone. In more recent times Dr. Paul Hoiland has become a valuable member of the ESAA group. Bringing much needed experience and wisdom to the group as well as creating the Journal of Advanced Theoretical Propulsion, based on the ESAA philosophy.

ESAA History on the Warp Drive

The online discussion forum the Alcubierre Warp Drive, began as a novel experiment, where members would answer questions that interested parties had for the new science. The early discussions within the Alcubierre Warp Drive began with philosophical debates, random brain storming, and slowly evolved to include mathematical discussions. It was during this new phase where Waite joined the club discussion, and we carefully began discussing the ramifications of his proposed warp drive. Unfortunately as soon as the mathematics became the bulk of the discussion, most of the philosophical debates were lost, but at this point Fernando Loup and Edward Halerewicz began to describe the possible consequences of Waite's space-time. During the discussion of Waite's idea the club was very grateful to receive advice and guidance from the very busy but gracious Dr. Alcubierre. And it was at this point that simply entertaining the idea of a new warp drive became a much more formal process, and a new theory of its own right began to form.

The three early founders put together a paper which tried to levitate some of the problems with the "Alcubierre Warp Drive," (gr-qc/0009013) specifically reducing the amount of negative energy required within the theory. The paper was posted at the LANL ArXiv and was entitled "Reduced Total Energy Requirements for a Modified Alcubierre Warp Drive Space-time" (gr-qc/0107097). The paper also was not accepted for publication in established journals do to the inexperience of the authors in writing for academia. Also the paper was later found to have a few problems, e.g. the lapse function used to lower the energy requirements distorted time within the "warp bubble."

Since the energy problem was dealt in more creative ways such as varying the warp bubbles parameters as suggested by Chris Van Den Broeck (gr-qc/9905084), the ESAA group decided to attack another problem. One of the problems raised with the Alcubierre Warp Drive was that its superluminal nature would be impossible to control. If this were the case then using Warp Drives for superluminal travel would be out of the question, new members joined the ESAA group and decided to construct another paper.

The group wanted to know how superluminal motion would affect null geodesics and how this might be used as a clue to have control with a superluminal warp drive. The second paper put fourth by ESAA was entitled "A Causally Connected Superluminal Warp Drive Space-time (gr-qc/0202021), which proposed varying null geodesics to counter the superluminal problem. With this work several esteemed physicists gave there opinion on the paper, they largely argued against it because horizons will always form with superluminal motion. However ESAA argued against this reasoning as the horizons are still present they are simply moved by a dual light cone interpretation for space-time, the horizons just occur at another place. Expert opinion on this matter was that even if that held up, we couldn't show that a dual light cone interpretation is possible.

From this point ESAA has had some heated arguments, which gained some enemies and made a few friends. It was however mutually agreed that such a paper would never be accepted in an existing journal and so no additional publication was pursed on this paper.

The next paper proposed by the ESAA group was a paper to explore how Warp Drive space-time affect the geodesics of photons. From Alcubierre's original paper it is not to difficult to realize how the geodesics of photons become affected as was shown by Clarke, et. al (gr-qc/9907019). However a Portuguese researcher named Jose Natario showed that energy of the photons distorted by a warp drive would be lethal if traveling near the speed of light (gr-qc/0110086). This proved to be troubling as the popular press picked up on it as being the "Warp Drives are impossible," so ESAA decided to show how Warp Drives could still be possible with these "lethal" photons. It was found that a properly chosen dynamic space-time in several layers could act to slow the dynamic nature of the photons.

This solution ESAA proposed was entitled "On the Problems of Hazardous Matter and Radiation at Faster than Light Speeds in the Warp Drive Space-time" (gr-qc/0207109). However some of the excited authors mistook the slowing dynamics for velocity, when in reality it is the energy that is reduced, so the photons are non lethal.

Further inspection by ESAA and others have shown the lethal photons are fictitious as they exist with a Cauchy Surface, the photons energy doesn't change in the "warp bubble." There's just a frequency shift caused by the Cauchy region, since there is little interest in Warp Drives do the "toy" Alcubierre model ESAA has been slow in correcting this error. For these reasons this paper has not been considered for further publication, but again have shown that warp drives are mathematically feasible. However the ESAA solution dubbed a "shield" from its science fiction counter part does indicate the possibility of a dual light cone region as suggested by the second work which might warrant further investigation.

There were questions then too about the "specific design of the ship" and the group wondered. What designs did they come up with?



Doctor Paul Karl Hoiland - Jan 27, 2004 4:26 pm

Fernando's general idea was to use certain effects to escape off the brane. But while his proposed testing of such with high energy particles could open the door to testing out aspect of the RS model in general, he basically discovered that it does not allow matter to escape the brane. I'm not sure who exactly pointed this out to him since he tended to exit our group again. During his time in our group I had discovered what he was looking at was a brane lensing effect. In studying such I discovered it modifies gravity and the path of particles on and off the brane.

In the case of the extra dimension the length or volume is determined by the bulk cosmological constant(1) on both a local and global level. Gravity becomes higher dimensional at scales where

1/r ¨ 1/r^1+N.

But little has ever been mentioned of its modification of the on the brane Minkowski metric as well as the AdS one. Generally, what Fernando had noticed is that if you adjust the local Israel condition you can change the "warp factor" and that regular positive matter can adjust this. Its almost a pity he withdrew that third paper from GRG. With a bit of modification he had a perfect way to alter gravity in any local region which would have been a great test bed for certain Brane Models in general even if it did not support his hyperdrive idea.

I think after looking at this idea one could achieve what to a remote observer was faster travel times even though you never exceed C in the local frame. It literally was the original ST style warp drive. You could travel through a Universe that is smaller with no violations of the laws of physics in either the local or remote region.

Dr. Paul seems to have removed his links from one location to the next? Well, there are other names that can be followed up, if one thought to pursue this further.

So what was Dr. Paul refering too?

See:

It is shown that our 3 + 1 Brane Einstein Universe is a trapped shell in a Higher Dimensional spacetime (Bulk). It is also shown that the Israel Condition acts like a pressure to trap matter in Einstein's Universe, and that if we overcome this pressure, we can make a particle leave Einstein's Universe and enter the Bulk. The conditions that allow the entrance to the Bulk permit its use to send signals or particles faster than the speed of the light, when “seen” from the Brane due to Brane Lensing. However, in the Bulk the particles remain subluminal. Our model differs from all the standard Braneworlds models, because all matter is trapped in this 3 + 1 Einstein Shell, independently of what the Standard Model might impose. What we propose is a new Braneworld Model using some of the features of the Chung-Freese Model, plus a way to overcome the pressure from the Israel Condition. Our model will remotely resemble the Davoudias Hewett, Rizzo modifications made to Randall-Sundrum Model that allow fermions (not only gravitons) to enter the Bulk, although we must outline that we are proposing a different idea.

Non-Orientation of Space-Time Proves M-Theories Compacted or Embedded Regions

Gamma Ray Detection and Early Universe?

How have our views been changed with regards to the "Window on the Universe?" High energy photons engaged with gluonic perceptions perhaps?

MAGIC is an imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescope or IACT that has started measuring since the commissioning ended in late 2004. The project is funded primarily by the funding agencies BMFB (Germany), MPG (Germany), INFN (Italy), and CICYT (Spain).

The reductionistic views have helped our perceptions form with a deeper insight by undertanding Gamma Ray detection.

Map of gamma rays measured by MAGIC around the location of LS I +61 303 at two different points along the orbital cycle. Left: when the two stars are closest to one another (periastron passage). Right: a third of an orbit away from the periastron passage.

See:

Gamma Ray Detection

The Earth in Gamma Rays

Numerical Relativity and Math Transference

Part of the advantage of looking at computer animations is knowing that the basis of this vision that is being created, is based on computerized methods and codes, devised, to help us see what Einstein's equations imply.

Now that's part of the effort isn't it, when we see the structure of math, may have also embued a Dirac, to see in ways that ony a good imagination may have that is tied to the abstractions of the math, and allows us to enter into "their portal" of the mind.

NASA scientists have reached a breakthrough in computer modeling that allows them to simulate what gravitational waves from merging black holes look like. The three-dimensional simulations, the largest astrophysical calculations ever performed on a NASA supercomputer, provide the foundation to explore the universe in an entirely new way.

According to Einstein's math, when two massive black holes merge, all of space jiggles like a bowl of Jell-O as gravitational waves race out from the collision at light speed.

Previous simulations had been plagued by computer crashes. The necessary equations, based on Einstein's theory of general relativity, were far too complex. But scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., have found a method to translate Einstein's math in a way that computers can understand.

Already having this basis of knowledge availiable, it was important to see what present day research has done for us, as we look at these images and allow them to take us into the deep space as we construct measures to the basis of what GR has done for us in a our assumptions of the events in the cosmo.

But it is more then this for me, as I asked the question, on the basis of math? I have enough links here to show the diversity of experience created from mathematical structures to have one wonder how indeed is th efinite idealization of imagination as a endless resource? You can think about livers if you likeor look at the fractorialization of the beginning of anythng and wonder I am sure.

That has been the question of min in regards to a condense matter theorist who tells us about the bulding blocks of matter can be anything. Well, in this case we are using "computer codes" to simulate GR from a mathematical experience.

So you see now don't you?:)

Is Math Invented or Discovered?

The question here was one of some consideration, as I wondered, how anyone could have delved into the nature of things and come out with some mathematcial model? Taken us along with the predecessors of endowwment thinking(imagination). To develope new roads. They didn't have to be 6 0r 7 roads Lubos, just a assumation. Sort of like, taking stock of things.

So I may ask, "what are the schematics of nature" and the build up starts from some place. Way back, before the computer modeling and such. A means, by which we will give imagination the tools to carry on.

So the journey began way back and the way in which such models lead our perspectives is the "overlay" of what began here in the postulates and moved on into other worldy abstractions?

This first postulate says that given any two points such as A and B, there is a line AB which has them as endpoints. This is one of the constructions that may be done with a straightedge (the other being described in the next postulate).

Although it doesn't explicitly say so, there is a unique line between the two points. Since Euclid uses this postulate as if it includes the uniqueness as part of it, he really ought to have stated the uniqueness explicitly.

The last three books of the Elements cover solid geometry, and for those, the two points mentioned in the postulate may be any two points in space. Proposition XI.1 claims that if part of a line is contained in a plane, then the whole line is. In the books on plane geometry, it is implicitly assumed that the line AB joining A to B lies in the plane of discussion.

One would have to know that the history had been followed here to what it is today.

Where Non-euclidean geometry began, and who were the instigators of imaginitive spaces now that were to become very dynamic in the xyzt direction.

All those who have written histories bring to this point their account of the development of this science. Not long after these men came Euclid, who brought together the Elements, systematizing many of the theorems of Eudoxus, perfecting many of those of Theatetus, and putting in irrefutable demonstrable form propositions that had been rather loosely established by his predecessors. He lived in the time of Ptolemy the First, for Archimedes, who lived after the time of the first Ptolemy, mentions Euclid. It is also reported that Ptolemy once asked Euclid if there was not a shorter road to geometry that through the Elements, and Euclid replied that there was no royal road to geometry. He was therefore later than Plato's group but earlier than Eratosthenes and Archimedes, for these two men were contemporaries, as Eratosthenes somewhere says. Euclid belonged to the persuasion of Plato and was at home in this philosophy; and this is why he thought the goal of the Elements as a whole to be the construction of the so-called Platonic figures. (Proclus, ed. Friedlein, p. 68, tr. Morrow)

These picture above, belongs to a much larger picture housed in the Raphael rooms in Rome. This particular picture many are familiar with as I use part of it as my profile picture. It is called the "Room of the Segnatura."



The point is, that if you did not know of the "whole picture" you would have never recognized it's parts?

Beyond Spacetime?

As well as bringing the accelerator's counter-rotating beams together, LHC insertion magnets also have to separate them after collision. This is the job of dedicated separators, and the US Brookhaven Laboratory is developing superconducting magnets for this purpose. Brookhaven is drawing on its experience of building the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), which like the LHC is a superconducting machine. Consequently, these magnets will bear a close resemblance to RHIC's main dipoles. Following a prototyping phase, full-scale manufacture has started at Brookhaven and delivery of the first superconducting separator magnets to CERN is foreseen before the end of the year.

Now some people do not like "alternate views" when looking at Sean's picture. But if you look at it, then look at the picture below, what saneness, sameness, could have affected such thinking?

Lisa Randall:

"You think gravity is what you see. We're always just looking at the tail of things."

So we look for computerized versions to help enlighten. To "see" how the wave front actually embues circumstances and transfers gravitonic perception into other situations.



Was this possible without understanding the context of the pictures shared? What complexity and variable sallows us to construct such modellings in computers?



Okay so you know now that lisa Randall's picture was thrown inhere to hopefully help uyou see what I am saying about gravitonic consideration.

Anything beyond the spacetime we know, exists in dimensional perspectives, and the resulting "condensative feature" of this realization is "3d+1time." The gravitonic perception is "out there?" :)

Attributes of the Superfluids

Now it is with some understanding that the "greater energy needed" with which to impart our views on let's say "reductionism" has pointed us in the direction of the early universe.

So we say "QGP" and might say, "hey, is there such a way to measure such perspectives?" So I am using the graph, to point you in the right direction.



So we talk about where these beginnings are, and the "idea of blackholes" makes their way into our view because of th reductionistic standpoint we encountered in our philosophical ramblings to include now, "conditions" that were conducive to microstate blackhole creation.

The energy here is beyond the "collidial aspects" we encounter, yet, we have safely move our perceptions forward to the QGP? We have encounter certain results. You have to Quantum dynamically understand it, in a macro way? See we still talk about the universe, yet froma microscopic perception.

Let's move on here, as I have.

If you feel it too uncomfortable and the "expanse of space quantumly not stimulating" it's okay to hold on to the railings like I do, as I walked close to the "edge of the grand canyon."

So here we are.

I gave some ideas as to the "attributes of the superfluids" and the history in the opening paragraph, to help perspective deal with where that "extra energy has gone" and how? So you look for new physics "beyond" the current understanding of the standard model.

So, it was appropriate to include the graviton as a force carrier? Qui! NOn?

Dark Matter Discovery Announced by Nasa

Q relayed some information between B and Sean, so I thought I would follow up.

One thing that is forefront of my mind here, is lensing, and how photonic expression of the event is govern by the inclinations of gravity. Held to the event. Evidence of this event is then "scattered" throughout the universe?

So how shall we look "back to a time" and then not wonder how we have been held to illusions of what the photon is doing in this "gravitational field" while the events themself unfold?


(Credit: NASA/STScI/G. Bacon)

In the overview of the universe in expression, it is good to see the "new updated versions" of what is entailed in the universe in that flash. I say it is never without the complete view of the standard model and it's extensions, that all it's expressions in such a flash unfolding, would have these things inclusive?

So Gravitons as well.

So how shall we see such "condensation of results" lead from such gathering of gravitons as we look at the events unfolding in this example?

Maybe some more research for myself here, as to what dark matter is?

The hot gas in each cluster was slowed by a drag force, similar to air resistance, during the collision. In contrast, the dark matter was not slowed by the impact because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. Therefore, during the collision the dark matter clumps from the two clusters moved ahead of the hot gas, producing the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the image. If hot gas was the most massive component in the clusters, as proposed by alternative theories of gravity, such an effect would not be seen. Instead, this result shows that dark matter is required.

I haven't been following the results nor the conversation from the annoucement. But now that I have, what will come from reading it?

I'll take a look.

CXC: What's your interest in dark matter? Why is it important to understand the behavior of dark matter?

MM: The nature of dark matter is one of the most important topics in astronomy, so everybody is interested. Little is known about it -- all that the numerous searches for dark matter particles have done is ruling out various hypotheses, but they never got any "positive" results. So any new piece of evidence is valuable.

Gravitational Wave Detectors are Best Described as "Sounds."

Weber developed an experiment using a large suspended bar of aluminum, with a high resonant Q at a frequency of about 1 kH; the oscillation of the bar after it had been excited could be measured by a series of piezoelectric crystals mounted on it. The output of the system was put on a chart recorder like those used to record earthquakes. Weber studied the excursions of the pen to look for the occasional tone of a gravitational wave passing through the bar...

You have to go back to what was initiated to help put perspective on what the analogies do for us today?

Plato:

Density measure(comparative to other things) as sound, would be nice. Which leads me to the ideals of Webber and his aluminum bars.

So you have it firmly set in mind, where gravitational waves are set in the whole scheme of things? What values would you practise if Bulk perspectives were to allow you to see gravitational waves in it's two extremes?

Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space and time produced by cosmic violence, such as the the universe's big-bang creation and collisions of black holes. These waves carry information about the "dark side" of the universe that cannot be learned in any other way. The high-frequency gravitational-wave window onto the universe will be opened soon by LIGO (NSF's earth-based Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, which is now in operation and searching for waves). A lower-frequency window will be opened in ~2012 by LISA (the NASA/ESA Laser Interferometer Space Antenna). This lecture will describe LIGO, LISA, and what they may teach us about the universe and about warped spacetime

Where are gravitational waves very strong, and where they are very weak?

Well, do you think such "detachments are practised" when you look at the event? The "sound" is emitted at the "very beginning" and the sound is, "specific?"

We can't actually hear gravitational waves, even with the most sophisticated equipment, because the sounds they make are the wrong frequency for our ears to hear. This is similar in principle to the frequency of dog whistles that canines can hear, but are too high for humans. The sounds of gravitional waves are probably too low for us to actually hear. However, the signals that scientists hope to measure with LISA and other gravitational wave detectors are best described as "sounds." If we could hear them, here are some of the possible sounds of a gravitational wave generated by the movement of a small body inspiralling into a black hole.

When such "analogies" are held in mind, you learn to understand the history of gravitational wave research based on "experimental processes" that were adopted by some to push forward our perspective on the very nature and description "such sounds emitted" may refer too?



So I began to see the whole picture in relation to how we would assess the movement towards "reconstruction of information" that leads from recreating the event from statistical information gathered from our "computerized measures" extended out there, to views of the early universe?

How shall you construct information of "an event" that is unfolding? So scientifically indeed, "experimentalism" has to be taken to new heights with which to construct such views of the early universe.

If you understood the nature of curvature, and the dynamical nature you have imbued quantum views then why would you not accept the views that the quantum nature will impart to you the nature of gravity?

So by preparing oneself as to the ways in which the bulk is perceived, you now have this means with which to judge the events in the cosmos, not just as a after effect of what happened at the time but of the story unfolding from that time?

This doesn't excuse all that is left in the bulk for perspective, because you need to remember the very nature of all constructs have been left for you to look at, as you "rebuild these images" of what happened so long ago. Actually exist in the bulk right now as information?

So you understand Bekenstein Bound do you?

Okay, keep going then with these views as they unfold, and as I have demonstrated them as I "portrait the universe" in the way that I see. It is difficult to get across as a painter, the language barrier, if it does not a have a mutual agreement to interpretation, then it has to be done on a experimental basis.

We all know that, Peter Woit.

The analogy with condensed matter physics was thus introduced to see if the asymptotic properties of the Hawking phonons emitted by an acoustic black hole, namely stationarity and thermality, are sensitive to the high frequency physics which stems from the granular character of matter and which is governed by a non-linear dispersion relation. In 1995 Unruh showed that they are not sensitive in this respect, in spite of the fact that phonon propagation near the (acoustic) horizon drastically differs from that of photons. In 2000 the same analogy was used to establish the robustness of the spectrum of primordial density fluctuations in inflationary models. This analogy is currently stimulating research for experimenting Hawking radiation. Finally it could also be a useful guide for going beyond the semi-classical description of black hole evaporation.

Doors, Windows, and Shingles

Last Thursday the 17 of August, my son and I were able to get the windows and doors into the house. It's quite an accomplishement for me, as the height issue is a troubling one for me. So climbing the ladders was a good crash course on "facing the fears."



The roofers started on that date as well, and they will be finishing today.

The work by the electricians was not started as promised by the contractor, and there were no phone calls or attempts to let my son know why. So it's like your suppose to be somehwere and you just don't show up?

WEll, because of the trying times to find contractors in the trade these days, it's as if you have to suck that up and then see what do next. He is settling to do the work himself, as he finds these challenges as acceptable propositions to overcoming what was done before in the tibits here and there.

Like handling construction on this scale.

He's going to approach the subject head on and if the answers are not suitable, well the option is there. It 's a matter of reading the guidelines on the electrical trades and then having the inspectors come in to have.

That's been the process anyway so far.

Cyclic Universe Could Explain Cosmological Constant

Thanks Paul for pointing this article out here some time ago.

Physicists have proposed several theories to explain why Λ is so small. One of the most popular -- the "anthropic principle" -- states that Λ is randomly set and has very different values in different parts of the universe (figure 1). We happen to live in a rare region, or "bubble", where Λ has the value we observe. This value has allowed stars, planets and therefore life to develop. However, this theory is also unsatisfactory for many scientists because it would be better to be able to calculate Λ from first principles.

We understand where strings reside in terms of "microseconds" and the "arrow of time?"

Once we know that there is one de Sitter solution, it is easy to find many more of them by just changing the values of the fluxes. Sujay Ashok and Michael Douglas of Rutgers University have recently estimated the number of different solutions to be at least 10100, which indicates an extremely rich landscape with many mountains, valleys, oceans and even volcanoes. Each minimum-energy point represents a different universe, and the height of that point is the value of the cosmological constant for that universe. Viewing the solution this way, the probability that one of these universes has a cosmological constant that is as small as is indicated by current experiments is actually non-zero.

Hmmmm..... remember Higgins?