Observables of Quantum Gravity

Scientists should be bold. They are expected to think out of the box, and to pursue their ideas until these either trickle down into a new stream, or dry out in the sand. Of course, not everybody can be a genuine “seer”: the progress of science requires few seers and many good soldiers who do the lower-level, dirty work. Even soldiers, however, are expected to put their own creativity in the process now and then -and that is why doing science is appealing even to us mortals.

To Be Bold

One possible way the Higgs boson might be produced at the Large Hadron Collider.


"Observables of Quantum Gravity," is a strange title to me, since we are looking at perspectives that are, how would one say, limited?

Where is such a focus located that we make talk of observables? Can such an abstraction be made then and used here, that we may call it, "mathematics of abstraction" and can arise from a "foundational basis" other then all the standard model distributed in particle attributes?

Observables of Quantum Gravity at the LHC
Sabine Hossenfelder

Perimeter Institute, Ontario, Canada

The search for a satisfying theory that unifies general relativity with quantum field theory is one of the major tasks for physicists in the 21st century. Within the last decade, the phenomenology of quantum gravity and string theory has been examined from various points of view, providing new perspectives and testable predictions. I will give a short introduction into these effective models which allow to extend the standard model and include the expected effects of the underlying fundamental theory. I will talk about models with extra dimensions, models with a minimal length scale and those with a deformation of Lorentz-invariance. The focus is on observable consequences, such as graviton and black hole production, black hole decays, and modifications of standard-model cross-sections.

So while we have created the conditions for an experimental framework, is this what is happening in nature? We are simulating the cosmos in it's interactions, so how is it that we can bring the cosmos down to earth? How is it that we can bring the cosmos down to the level of mind in it's abstractions that we do not just call it a flight of fancy, but of one that arises in mind based on the very foundations on the formation of this universe?

Fathers of Confederation

Robert Harris's painting of the Fathers of Confederation. The scene is an amalgamation of the Charlottetown and Quebec City conference sites and attendees.

Colonial organization

All the colonies which would become involved in Canadian Confederation in 1867 were initially part of New France and were ruled by France. The British Empire’s first acquisition in what would become Canada was Acadia, acquired by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht (though the Acadian population retained loyalty to New France, and was eventually expelled by the British in the 1755 Great Upheaval). The British renamed Acadia Nova Scotia. The rest of New France was acquired by the British Empire by the Treaty of Paris (1763), which ended the Seven Years' War. Most of New France became the Province of Quebec, while present-day New Brunswick was annexed to Nova Scotia. In 1769, present-day Prince Edward Island, which had been a part of Acadia, was renamed “St John’s Island” and organized as a separate colony (it was renamed PEI in 1798 in honour of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn).

In the wake of the American Revolution, approximately 50,000 United Empire Loyalists fled to British North America. The Loyalists were unwelcome in Nova Scotia, so the British created the separate colony of New Brunswick for them in 1784. Most of the Loyalists settled in the Province of Quebec, which in 1791 was separated into a predominantly-English Upper Canada and a predominantly-French Lower Canada by the Constitutional Act of 1791.
Canadian Territory at Confederation.

Following the Rebellions of 1837, Lord Durham in his famous Report on the Affairs of British North America, recommended that Upper Canada and Lower Canada should be joined to form the Province of Canada and that the new province should have responsible government. As a result of Durham’s report, the British Parliament passed the Act of Union 1840, and the Province of Canada was formed in 1841. The new province was divided into two parts: Canada West (the former Upper Canada) and Canada East (the former Lower Canada). Ministerial responsibility was finally granted by Governor General Lord Elgin in 1848, first to Nova Scotia and then to Canada. In the following years, the British would extend responsible government to Prince Edward Island (1851), New Brunswick (1854), and Newfoundland (1855).

The remainder of modern-day Canada was made up of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory (both of which were controlled by the Hudson's Bay Company and ceded to Canada in 1870) and the Arctic Islands, which were under direct British control and became part of Canada in 1880. The area which constitutes modern-day British Columbia was the separate Colony of British Columbia (formed in 1858, in an area where the Crown had previously granted a monopoly to the Hudson's Bay Company), with the Colony of Vancouver Island (formed 1849) constituting a separate crown colony until its absorption by the Colony of British Columbia in 1866.

John A. Macdonald became the first prime minister of Canada.


The shear number of people in the United States at approx. 200 million,can be an reminder of what "we", in the approx. same land mass of Canada can be compared to the United States. Our paltry 36 million "being overshadowed" might be better understood from that perspective.

Happy Canada Day

Coastal Highway Views

Just before entering Malibu along the coastal highway of California.

Mathematical Structure of the Universe

Although Aristotle in general had a more empirical and experimental attitude than Plato, modern science did not come into its own until Plato's Pythagorean confidence in the mathematical nature of the world returned with Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. For instance, Aristotle, relying on a theory of opposites that is now only of historical interest, rejected Plato's attempt to match the Platonic Solids with the elements -- while Plato's expectations are realized in mineralogy and crystallography, where the Platonic Solids occur naturally.Plato and Aristotle, Up and Down-Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.

Discover Magazine-06.16.2008-Photography by Erika Larsen-Article-"Is the Universe Actually Made of Math? Unconventional cosmologist Max Tegmark says mathematical formulas create reality."

It makes no difference at this point, which mathematics you choose to delve into the new model perceptions, because if one were to see how a projective geometry was built on previous platforms, then how is it we can see the universe in ways that the WMAP shows unless the mathematics could show that there was more to it then an artists picture displayed? You had to know the depth of the artists skill.

It does not mean that you are devoid of the possibilities of venturing where the philosophies of mathematics or science can venture. It is understanding that by taking yourself to a certain position in mind, an indecomposable one, one that is self evident, then it is understood that the deductive/inductive efforts bring you to a peak realization, contained in the "Aristotelean Arche."

This position is the question that one assumes in life, that having exhausted all efforts, and having seen all the information, one is to move their previous stalled position into a "third revolution" of a kind you might say?:)

See:Backreaction: Discover Interview with Tegmark

Also see:Theoretical Excellence

Wildlife at Home

Yes you may of noticed the date is wrong again on the camera. Every time we take the batteries out for charging, we loose that date. It dawned on me at this moment and wondered if there is another internal battery that retains the time, maybe, dead too? I'll have to look.

Anyway this fellow has been sticking around the last couple of days.

When we first looked at this lot about a year an done month ago today, I noticed a lot of markings that looked like claw marks, were in fact bull moose who rub their racks on the trees and leave these marks.




You'll also notice my work table I set up to do the final work on the outside of the house. I was installing a product called Nailite We did a board and batten around the rest of the house. I am really quite pleased tackling this job for the first time.

I just finished about two days ago, and have been working like heck to finish the jobs around here, while preparing for a trip into the states. My wife, myself with three of our older grandchildren are going for a trip to Disney Land.

We had our youngest granddaughter yesterday(she's sure a sweety) for the night, as my youngest son and his wife are due for twins which will be here not to long after we get back from our trip. She needs the bed rest and she is huge, and my boy is getting run ragged. So we have been extremely busy getting things in order.

The pillars in front of the house will be done when I get back and the backdrop to the front door will have a colonial look which we are trying to keep to a cottage look.



The aggregate walkways around the house were done at the end of May. We are please with how this has turned out. Unfortunately, the snow came before we had a chance to pour them last November, after having readied the forms, and compacted the crush.

Who said it?

At this point in the development, although geometry provided a common framework for all the forces, there was still no way to complete the unification by combining quantum theory and general relativity. Since quantum theory deals with the very small and general relativity with the very large, many physicists feel that, for all practical purposes, there is no need to attempt such an ultimate unification. Others however disagree, arguing that physicists should never give up on this ultimate search, and for these the hunt for this final unification is the ‘holy grail’. Michael Atiyah

"No Royal Road to Geometry?"

Click on the Picture

Are you an observant person? Look at the above picture. Why ask such a question as to, "No Royal Road to Geometry?" This presupposes that a logic is formulated that leads not only one by the "phenomenological values" but by the very principal of logic itself.

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)

I don't think I could of made it any easier for one, but to reveal the answer in the quote. Now you must remember how the logic is introduced here, and what came before Euclid. The postulates are self evident in his analysis but, little did he know that there would be a "Royal Road indeed" to geometry that was much more complex and beautiful then the dry implication logic would reveal of itself.

It's done for a reason and all the geometries had to be leading in this progressive view to demonstrate that a "projective geometry" is the final destination, although, still evolving?

Eventually it was discovered that the parallel postulate is logically independent of the other postulates, and you get a perfectly consistent system even if you assume that parallel postulate is false. This means that it is possible to assign meanings to the terms "point" and "line" in such a way that they satisfy the first four postulates but not the parallel postulate. These are called non-Euclidean geometries. Projective geometry is not really a typical non-Euclidean geometry, but it can still be treated as such.

In this axiomatic approach, projective geometry means any collection of things called "points" and things called "lines" that obey the same first four basic properties that points and lines in a familiar flat plane do, but which, instead of the parallel postulate, satisfy the following opposite property instead:

The projective axiom: Any two lines intersect (in exactly one point).

If you are "ever the artist" it is good to know in which direction you will use the sun, in order to demonstrate the shadowing that will go on into your picture. While you might of thought there was everything to know about Plato's cave and it's implication I am telling you indeed that the logic is a formative apparatus concealed in the geometries that are used to explain such questions about, "the shape of space."

The Material World

There are two reasons that having mapped E8 is so important. The practical one is that E8 has major applications: mathematical analysis of the most recent versions of string theory and supergravity theories all keep revealing structure based on E8. E8 seems to be part of the structure of our universe.

The other reason is just that the complete mapping of E8 is the largest mathematical structure ever mapped out in full detail by human beings. It takes 60 gigabytes to store the map of E8. If you were to write it out on paper in 6-point print (that's really small print), you'd need a piece of paper bigger than the island of Manhattan. This thing is huge.

Polytopes and allotrope are examples to me of "shapes in their formative compulsions" that while very very small in their continuing expression, "below planck length" in our analysis of the world, has an "formative structure" in the case of the allotrope in the material world. The polytopes, as an abstract structure of math thinking about the world. As if in nature's other ways.



This illustration depicts eight of the allotropes (different molecular configurations) that pure carbon can take:

a) Diamond
b) Graphite
c) Lonsdaleite
d) Buckminsterfullerene (C60)
e) C540
f) C70
g) Amorphous carbon
h) single-walled carbon nanotube

Review of experiments

Graphite exhibits elastic behaviour and even improves its mechanical strength up to the temperature of about 2500 K. Measured changes in ultrasonic velocity in graphite after high temperature creep shows marked plasticity at temperatures above 2200 K [16]. From the standpoint of thermodynamics, melting is a phase transition of the first kind, with an abrupt enthalpy change constituting the heat of melting. Therefore, any experimental proof of melting is associated with direct recording of the temperature dependence of enthalpy in the neighbourhood of a melting point. Pulsed heating of carbon materials was studied experimentally by transient electrical resistance and arc discharge techniques, in millisecond and microsecond time regime (see, e.g., [17, 18]), and by pulsed laser heating, in microsecond, nanosecond and picosecond time regime (see, e.g., [11, 19, 20]). Both kind of experiments recorded significant changes in the material properties (density, electrical and thermal conductivity, reflectivity, etc. ) within the range 4000-5000 K, interpreted as a phase change to a liquid state. The results of graphite irradiation by lasers suggest [11] that there is at least a small range of temperatures for which liquid carbon can exist at pressure as low as 0.01 GPa. The phase boundaries between graphite and liquid were investigated experimentally and defined fairly well.

Sean Carroll:But if you peer closely, you will see that the bottom one is the lopsided one — the overall contrast (representing temperature fluctuations) is a bit higher on the left than on the right, while in the untilted image at the top they are (statistically) equal. (The lower image exaggerates the claimed effect in the real universe by a factor of two, just to make it easier to see by eye.)

See The Lopsided Universe-.

#36.Plato on Jun 12th, 2008 at 10:17 am

Lawrence,

Thanks again.

“I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered.”Harold Scott Macdonald (H. S. M.) Coxeter

Moving to polytopes or allotrope seem to have values in science? Buckminister Fuller and Richard Smalley in terms of allotrope.

I was looking at Sylvestor surfaces and the Clebsch diagram. Cayley too. These configurations to me were about “surfaces,” and if we were to allot a progression to the “projective geometries” here in relation to higher dimensional thinking, “as the polytope[E8]“(where Coxeter[I meant to apologize for misspelling earlier] drew us to abstraction to the see “higher dimensional relations” toward Plato’s light.)

As the furthest extent of the Conjecture , how shall we place the dynamics of Sylvestor surfaces and B Fields in relation to the timeline of these geometries? Historically this would seem in order, but under the advancement of thinking in theoretics does it serve a purpose? Going beyond “planck length” what is a person to do?

Thanks for the clarifications on Lagrange points. This is how I see the WMAP.

Diagram of the Lagrange Point gravitational forces associated with the Sun-Earth system. WMAP orbits around L2, which is about 1.5 million km from the Earth. Lagrange Points are positions in space where the gravitational forces of a two body system like the Sun and the Earth produce enhanced regions of attraction and repulsion. The forces at L2 tend to keep WMAP aligned on the Sun-Earth axis, but requires course correction to keep the spacecraft from moving toward or away from the Earth.

Such concentration in the view of Sean’s group of the total WMAP while finding such a concentration would be revealing would it not of this geometrical instance in relation to gravitational gathering or views of the bulk tendency? Another example to show this fascinating elevation to non-euclidean, gravitational lensing, could be seen in this same light.

Such mapping would be important to the context of “seeing in the whole universe.”

See:No Royal Road to Geometry
Allotropes and the Ray of Creation
Pasquale Del Pezzo and E8 Origination?
Projective Geometries

SuperFluids

MIT physicists create new form of matter by Lori Valigra, Special to MIT News Office June 22, 2005

A superfluid gas can flow without resistance. It can be clearly distinguished from a normal gas when it is rotated. A normal gas rotates like an ordinary object, but a superfluid can only rotate when it forms vortices similar to mini-tornadoes. This gives a rotating superfluid the appearance of Swiss cheese, where the holes are the cores of the mini-tornadoes. "When we saw the first picture of the vortices appear on the computer screen, it was simply breathtaking," said graduate student Martin Zwierlein in recalling the evening of April 13, when the team first saw the superfluid gas. For almost a year, the team had been working on making magnetic fields and laser beams very round so the gas could be set in rotation. "It was like sanding the bumps off of a wheel to make it perfectly round," Zwierlein explained.

"In superfluids, as well as in superconductors, particles move in lockstep. They form one big quantum-mechanical wave," explained Ketterle. Such a movement allows superconductors to carry electrical currents without resistance.

The MIT team was able to view these superfluid vortices at extremely cold temperatures, when the fermionic gas was cooled to about 50 billionths of one kelvin, very close to absolute zero (-273 degrees C or -459 degrees F). "It may sound strange to call superfluidity at 50 nanokelvin high-temperature superfluidity, but what matters is the temperature normalized by the density of the particles," Ketterle said. "We have now achieved by far the highest temperature ever." Scaled up to the density of electrons in a metal, the superfluid transition temperature in atomic gases would be higher than room temperature.

Now it is important that giving the circumstance with which I hold these views "to be the decomposable limits" on the collision process itself, the, "value of the decay" in initiating such a phase, it was important to me to explain how I thought new physics is to be established around our current value thinking in relation to the universe.

This picture shows a classical vortex (Hurricane Isabel in summer 2003, NASA image ISS007E14887).

So while we had done our research on the values of what a scientist means in regards to an image search on Google, I thought what better way but to introduce my efforts, as well to listing the essence of my understanding, by showing posts, that coincided with the prospective that I was and am establishing as a value in context of the acceleration of this universe.

It is to establish how this universe can contain an "relativistic interpretation" about the "beginning and end" contained in this universe and was of some interest to me, as I charted the course and terms related to the searches for the microscopic blackhole holes and what it can ensue in it's decay.

Photo credit: Andre Schirotzek (MIT)

A condensate of Fermion pairs (red) is trapped in the waist of a focussed Laser beam (pink). Two additional Laser beams (green) rotate around the edges to stir the condensate. Current-carrying coils (blue) generate the magnetic field used for axial confinement and to tune the interaction strength by means of a Feshbach resonance. After releasing the atomic cloud from the electromagnetic trap, the cloud expands ballistically and inverts its aspect ratio. Resonant absorption imaging yields a density profile of the atomic cloud containing vortices.

It was important that such an analogy serve to express that "what has always been" can move from one universe to another, by the interpretation of the false vacuum to the true and, by introducing this element in consideration of the lengths such a collision process can be taken too.

This has always been of some issue to me about what can take our universe to a "zero point entropy consideration" while understanding that the larger context showing representational for this universe, holds an interesting view, that while large can be taken onto the environs that collisions processes may hold for further introspective views.

Now I have been watching the interpretations of Inductive and Deductive valuations over at Bee's held in conversation of theBackreaction: The Block Universe and I am not totally satisfied that either party has really explained what "infinite regress means" while looking to the "decomposable element" with which I hold mathematics as a necessary understanding, while we look to explain the very principals and nature of this universe, and it's accelerations currently established.

Photo credit: Andre Schirotzek (MIT) Vortices in Gases: Shown is a Vortex pattern in bosonic Sodium atoms (green cartoon) in a magnetic trap, Vortices in tightly bound Lithium molecules (red-blue cartoon) and a vortex lattice in loosely bound Fermion pairs created on the "BCS-side" of a Feshbach resonance.

Just having established a link with backreactions block universe posting with this article, I see Phil has explained nicely what the process is to me, and how "infinite regress and decomposable element" are held in the same breathe. I have to give by example my understanding so that one sees this is not a "vacant thought process" with which I work.

While one might think I belittle the process it is wholly by my environmental scanning and integrating view that I was able to deduce in regards to the "Plane of Simultaneity" an of "much greater depth" then what is assumed there at Backreaction.

This statement of "much greater depth," must be seen in relation to what Tom Levenson in his first introductory article on Cosmic Variance, is revealing by, "Inverse Square law" introduction.

Tom Levenson:....what would make current physical ideas as powerful and as intelligibly strange as Newton was able to make his story of a comet travelling from and to distances with out limit?

Shadows, are the contention with which "cave views are enlisted" and remain, "in the the box thinkers." You had to know by my reply, that this depth was beyond the 3+1 view held , and pushing further, is the scope and intention of being lead by science, whether one thinks so or not by my representations.

That, "in the box thinking" has never left the backreaction interpretations. Phenomenological order, must be introduced, in order to establish current scientific experiments with the actual hypothetical processes, where, such a hypothesis will take you too, leading from, "infinite regress and decomposable limits of definition." at the peak of this Aristotlean Arche. What is Self-Evident.

Savas Dimopoulos:At close encounter the particles can exchange gravitons via the two extra dimensions, which changes the force law at very short distances. Instead of the “Newtonian inverse square law” you’ll have an inverse fourth power law. This signature is being looked for in the ongoing experiments.

See:Newton's inverse-square (1/r2) law

This is a inductive/deductive stance that a person assumes in moving through science, as I understood it.

It is important that this process be established and identified as I reveal the thinking about the current state of the universe and how LHC experimental development, are giving new light, to Galactic communications. Microscopic Blackhole decay.

Also too,

The standard model of particle physics is a self-contained picture of fundamental particles and their interactions. Physicists, on a journey from solid matter to quarks and gluons, via atoms and nuclear matter, may have reached the foundation level of fields and particles. But have we reached bedrock, or is there something deeper? Savas Dimopoulos

Such a question sets the pace for understanding the limits with which we have contained ourselves in regard to General Relativity, and yet, to think that such a result of General Relativity could have ever been embedded as a "beginning and end" in the explanation of the universe, is introduced by time reversals and such?

The Plane of Simultaneity

This blog entry was constructed to reply to the conversation that is going on in the issue of the "Block Universe."


See:

Penrose and Quanglement

Entanglement and the New Physics

In the past, teleportation has only been possible with particles of light Image: Rainer Blatt


It's useless sometimes to just lay there while these thoughts accumulate in one's mind, as one weaves together the picture that is forming, and whence it come from this unification process, and after a time, one then thinks about the abilities of mind to gather and consolidate.

By taking advantage of quantum phenomena such as entanglement, teleportation and superposition, a quantum computer could, in principle, outperform a classical computer in certain computational tasks. Entanglement allows particles to have a much closer relationship than is possible in classical physics. For example, two photons can be entangled such that if one is horizontally polarized, the other is always vertically polarized, and vice versa, no matter how far apart they are. In quantum teleportation, complete information about the quantum state of a particle is instantaneously transferred by the sender, who is usually called Alice, to a receiver called Bob. Quantum superposition, meanwhile, allows a particle to be in two or more quantum states at the same time

So let me begin first by saying that given this process we can connect this world line across the expanse of space, is, more or less the understanding that this is to be the means in which these new forms of communication in science are leading as we expound the future, and what it shall become in our present moments.



See: Central theme is the Sun You can "click" on picture as well, or, use mouse to hover over image, for additional reading

So you look at the sun, and what new ways can we can perceive and accumulating the data of what connects this "distance and time," one will be all the smarter when they realize that the results of experimental verifications are at present being given, and as such, what shall these examples serve, but to remind one that new experiences continue to bring new innovations to the forefront.

Lightcone Projection- see mathematical basis here for the introduction of what will become the basis of determinations, the "decomposable definition" of these new forms of communication.

The basis for these thoughts are the developing views based on the light cone. It was not my reasons alone in which such an idea was used to support an conjecture about, so, by these very reasons I thought it best to explain what such simultaneity can do as we hold these views about "distance and time" as we follow this world line across the expanse of the universe.

The grey ellipse is moving relativistic sphere, its oblate shape due to Lorentz contraction. Colored ellipse is visual image of the sphere. Background curves are a xy-coordinates grid which is rigidly linked to the sphere. It is shown only at one moment in time.See here for reference and animations.

Okay, so we have this event that happens in time. How are we to measure what the sun is suppose to be, if we did not have some information about the depth of perception that is needed in order to create this image for consumption?

Such comparative views are needed that are current, and, "in experimental stages" to help us discern what it means for "Galactic Communication" which we will employ as we measure the distance of this world line.:)

Such distances "can be elevated in my view," and such instantaneous recognitions are to be the associative values I place on how we can now see the "bulk perspective" and the graviton's condensation we can now assign to the cosmos?

As we know from Einstein’s theory of special relativity, nothing can travel faster than c, the velocity of light in a vacuum. The speed of the light that we see generally travels with a slower velocity c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium through which we view the light (in air at sea level, n is approximately 1.00029 whereas in water n is 1.33). Highly energetic, charged particles (which are only constrained to travel slower than c) tend to radiate photons when they pass through a medium and, consequently, can suddenly find themselves in the embarrassing position of actually travelling faster than the light they produce!

The result of this can be illustrated by considering a moving particle which emits pulses of light that expand like ripples on a pond, as shown in the Figure (right). By the time the particle is at the position indicated by the purple spot, the spherical shell of light emitted when the particle was in the blue position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open blue circle. Likewise, the light emitted when the particle was in the green position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open green circle, and so on. Notice that these ripples overlap with each other to form an enhanced cone of light indicated by the dotted lines. This is analogous to the idea that leads to a sonic boom when planes such as Concorde travel faster than the speed of sound in air

See:What is Cerenkov Radiation?

It is thusly, that such events in time produce information for us, that help us to look at the universe in new ways, and as such, information can be used to build new devices that penetrate beyond the confines we finds photons experience in their limitations.( please Phil take note of, in bold)

Presenting a New Theoretical Position

All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them.
Walt Disney

Here's the thing that I would caution such a quote, that any work can produce results, but, if we leave life unattended, the future is already written. The artist in you is very capable, and if you thought this aspect of yourself could msilead you, think twice, for the story telling can produce wonderful results and in such abstraction, it draws a conclusion for you.

What enters this room of the mind came from outside the box, and what constitutes this frame of reference is a room you will create. This creation is a subtle part of identification when you assess yourself and are given the warnings as to what shall become in the possibilities if not adjusted or taken care of. This pre-ordination does not imply you are without freewill, but on the contrary, are part and parcel of the greater wholeness defined in the universe. Defined within context of the understanding of ones own capability.

This has to be introduced in our assessment as to the nature of this universe.

JONATHAN SAUNDERS FOR TIMEEdward Witten:The World In A String-Time Magazine

Witten once called string theory "a bit of 21st century physics that somehow dropped into the 20th century." If so, Witten clearly has the 21st century mind to handle it.

There is no doubt, an historical significance to the topic under the heading of theoretics, and what calculable information retention would then lead you beyond the borders of reason, to know it is an attempt to go farther then we had ever gone before. How many combinations of the maths and you soon learn of the complexity of the situation.

But remember now, how "a thinking process" had been moved from the 21st Century.:)

The Decomposable limits of the Definition Conceptually Introduced.

While such reference to the subjective analysis of the current ministrations given by Sean Carroll on the article in the current Scientific Magazine, on the current state of the universe, it is with such presentation that I also included "the subjective side of my own nature," regardless of the warning about doing the physics first, and have one lead to such conclusions. It seems a difficult way in which to send the mind into the future, and while there, bring back the current state of the universe for a proper view of it's own continued existence.

Do you remember the theoretics of the 21 Century? So we now see that I include a facet of our mind that takes a leap, and while in it's most reflective state, while it rests, all that information manifests in a new possibility? From whence this come, and from which "directional face of the box" in it six dimensional rotational possibility, and we are indeed now looking from inside the box possibility? But how is it any new information can enter, if we had but closed all doors, to think like a "Close minded Wotian experience" will reveal of itself?:)Order of chapters, that exist as a fundamental indexed site for those who think in the box, and those who think outside of it?

Well you can now see where such introductions hold such a position for a mind like mine to consistently ever better the views for such abstraction that they be given to a new valley for consideration, that while there are such views of topos theory introduced, they now have become an aspect of the universe, not just the many possibilities, but one aspect for the consideration abstractly given such a state of existence. Who knew right?

Lee Smolin had all but said it was dead, and so too, even Witten himself convinced that such a landscape not worthy of such consideration? The work continues at least from my perspective, and now, some of the junior minds in this respect, and to those who had respect none given, know there is a little more to the story then what is the subjective journeys of a dreamer.

The false vacuum. The Hill. The Valley. Our Universe. Totally dissociatively words for the lay person to be introduced too, and together, sparked the neuron firing to include a "new thought process" about what exists beyond the 3+1 we'd given to our locations in time.

Are you an "in" or an "out of the box" kind of person?

See: Three Ring Circus: Dark EnergyUnfortunately this image is not very clear in terms of the writing inside the black boxes but if you are careful enough they can be quite illuminating, as we see this at work in our universe under the auspice of a "birth and death" in the existence of the universe now, that it indeed, "never dies." Veneziano was introduced to help you see this new introduction to thinking outside the box.

I would not like to categorize any scientist but unfortunately as I was reading it became apparent to me that there are two kinds of scientists.

Plato on Jul 25th, 2006 at 10:27 am

Clifford:

"Seriously his talk is all about the physics of certain type of spacetime singularites-such as the one that live’s in our universe’s past-and whether life can make sense of the idea of space and time coming into being after such a singularity, while not existing prior to that.

You know all roads lead too, out of the box thinking? Reductionist views? Why do them?

So having shown the connection to “what” exists prior, seems like a “controversial point made” and supports the in the box people(Sean Mark Risa, JoAnne)? :) No flights of fantasy, or “ammunition” for distorting reality?

Unless, you are willing to discuss apriore? May Gabriele Veneziano burn in H***?:) or come through “smelling” like roses?"

Of course I should more specific and this is a trait that ruins by assumption on my part, and seems cryptic, which is not my intention.

I am going to show the characteristics as I came to know them from another's perspective, yet, I will go back to 2005 and help to explain myself, and Sean's current article in Scientific Magazine, and what the Shape of space is doing while Sean gives his explanations on the box and his attempts to work outside of it.

Plato on Jul 25th, 2006 at 9:20 pm

Are you a SuperCosmologist? :)

You know what happens when you have to explain yourself?

Well, it could be interpreted that maybe I didn’t understand it at all? Well that’s partially true, and I do know the trouble philosophers have?

Oh your not “obtuse” at all either Clifford.

SuperCosmologists Think Out of the Box Clifford at 1:13 a.m. August 3 2005

Clifford:

Physicist are attracted by the idea of showing that the types of 3+1 dimensional models and equations which regular cosmologists study actually have their origins “outside the box,” in the larger setting….

Better? :)

I just want to point out as well, that I bring two other words forward to be related, and these will be "cave" and "room."

See: What is Dark Matter/Energy?

Exactly what is 'Thinking Outside the Box'?

A reason I often hear for the need for innovation training is to get "our team to think outside the box."

This may come from the person at the top who feels that the quality of solutions or ideas is not great. This stems from frustration. It also comes from people working in teams who feel that the contribution of others is not helping find new and original solutions to the challenges they face.

If you have ever been in this situation, you will know how hard it is to deal with. Perhaps it is best to start with what this term actually means.

I don't know of an official definition for "out of the box" thinking, but here is my perspective starting with "in the box" thinking.

Inside The Box

Thinking inside the box means accepting the status quo. For example, Charles H. Duell, Director of the US Patent Office, said, "Everything that can be invented has been invented." That was in 1899: clearly he was in the box!

In-the-box thinkers find it difficult to recognize the quality of an idea. An idea is an idea. A solution is a solution. In fact, they can be quite pigheaded when it comes to valuing an idea. They rarely invest time to turn a mediocre solution into a great solution.

More importantly, in-the-box thinkers are skillful at killing ideas. They are masters of the creativity killer attitude such as "that'll never work" or "it's too risky." The best in-the-box thinkers are unaware that they drain the enthusiasm and passion of innovative thinkers while they kill their innovative ideas.

They also believe that every problem needs only one solution; therefore, finding more than one possible solution is a waste of time. They often say, "There is no time for creative solutions. We just need THE solution."

Even great creative people can become in-the-box thinkers when they stop trying. Apathy and indifference can turn an innovator into an in-the-box thinker.

In only one case is in-the-box thinking necessary. This comes from a cartoon: a man talks to his cat and points to the kitty litter box. He says, "Never ever think outside the box!"

Outside the Box
Thinking outside the box requires different attributes that include:

* Willingness to take new perspectives to day-to-day work.
* Openness to do different things and to do things differently.
* Focusing on the value of finding new ideas and acting on them.
* Striving to create value in new ways.
* Listening to others.
* Supporting and respecting others when they come up with new ideas.

Out-of-the box thinking requires an openness to new ways of seeing the world and a willingness to explore. Out-of-the box thinkers know that new ideas need nurturing and support. They also know that having an idea is good but acting on it is more important. Results are what count.

Stereotyping

Now as you can see, this aspect and characterization is not really fair, and it would be as if John Baez assigned crackpot status according to the degrees on which we can measure another human being and their worth? Or that Peter Woit's string versus Non string in the index, can be shown to be, "IN the box people" and "out of the box people."

But I am going to be more specific in that the room, box, or cave asks that you consider this POV :) from "outside the box." If you had thought Boltzman in this regard to the box, well, that's okay.

Supercosmologists, think "outside the box."

Now what exactly does this mean, and the frame of reference to a coordinate x'y'z' is unmistakable is it not? Now surely one begins to see the light, and what has contained in the thinking mind, to a cosmologist's view, that there is only a beginning, and an end, and nothing before, or after?

Well I am going to tell you that there are super cosmologists that do think outside the box. Beyond entropic valuations and arrow of time, and what pray tell could ever convince you that if the very idea of the future could be contained in the consciousness, what saids this cannot be expressed in the very universe?

So you see, I am at an advantage, whether this just a thought experiment, or something that can be added to Sean Carroll's view to the universe, it is with some regard that I should also enlighten those who understand that "the valley" and what is contained in the genus figure, are the mappings of these figures, as they come to represent the very universe that could be expressed, as we look to ask what the shape of space is, in the expression of any multiversity created as in those baby universes.

So you get the sense then, that the false vacuum is "self apparent" as one sees the mountains can turn into valleys, and the the valleys, are a result of a much higher principal.:)