Why No New Einstein

To them, I said,
the truth would be literally nothing
but the shadows of the images..

-Plato, The Republic (Book VII)

The inference of dimensional attributes scares many good minds away from the matters at hand?:)

Lubos Motl:

The only truly open questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics are those that also require us to understand dynamics of quantum gravity properly.

I think Gerard t' Hooft would like to change the way we see quantum mechanics? Non!

The Holographical Principle

I must add a very important note. It is still hard for me to believe that Lee Smolin wrote something that could imply that *he* was the author of the conjecture. Lee Smolin has nothing to do with the discovery of the holographic principle and I hope that he always refers to the real authors properly-and it was just you who did not read carefully enough. The holographic conjecture, based on the Bekenstein's bounds and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole,has been first proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and discussed in more detail by Lenny Susskind:

But my point is, that if we are lead to the understanding of gravity as GR does, then why would we not entertain the idea, that there are forces of gravity stronger, and areas, that are weaker?

Of course, to Plato this story was just meant to symbolize mankind's struggle to reach enlightenment and understanding through reasoning and open-mindedness. We are all initially prisoners and the tangible world is our cave. Just as some prisoners may escape out into the sun, so may some people amass knowledge and ascend into the light of true reality.

What is equally interesting is the literal interpretation of Plato's tale: The idea that reality could be represented completely as `shadows' on the walls

How will the photon respond in such shadows?

Why would we not extend this vision from GR understanding well, that such resistance by Einstein, required deeper thinkers to respond to the theory that they had put forth in Solvay?


by Jacob D. Bekenstein
TWO UNIVERSES of different dimension and obeying disparate physical laws are rendered completely equivalent by the holographic principle. Theorists have demonstrated this principle mathematically for a specific type of five-dimensional spacetime ("anti–de Sitter") and its four-dimensional boundary. In effect, the 5-D universe is recorded like a hologram on the 4-D surface at its periphery. Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case. Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle.

It is thus, it challenged the views, of even the most determined thinkers, professional or not, once the paradox of thought experiment was introduced? Set the targets for research and developement and the initiatives of the younger generation to excell where the limtations had been drawn.

So in the one sense such a strong stance by Einstein was the incentive for a generation to prove its ability and prowness to overcome the limitations set by Einstein.

Do I believe he understood this?

Most assuredly so, for such conversation and thought experiments would have never been inrtroduced in such a forum, as to the require greater participation of thinkers to succeed. Some even to their death, still felt Eisntein's challenge, and we have a wonderful area of developement that has moved our visions to wonderful interactive feature of "gluonic perceptions."

I believe also that Lee Smolin, from his current work, is to instill and gather strong leaders to focus in a direction that Lubos has spotted, as a signature of Lee Smolin ways. To discern the quality and direction, before gravitonic abilities are ever encountered.

So yes such attempts are interesting, in that we see Glast detrmination as viable pathways to solving the understanding of the world around us and even going to great lengths, to move these consderation down to the level we might seee in such energetic features where such gravities might have exemplied a measured interactive feature like those of the Calorimetric design.

So the challenge was given to both sides of the camps to give us a way inwhich to see how such a challenge could measure progress? Is it not here, that such a stance holds each other accountable?

Lee Smolins ways expermentally are driven, even as the world of Strings are driven to bring perspective to the engagement, of the "way in which we see?" Careful challeneges to the interpretation, that such ideas are held within the scope of the Calorimentric view and all the while, the challenge has been a puzzle to that "missing energy" going someplace?

Where is this if such a boundary has been understood and the puzzle offered for introspection, that each other wants the other to understand it's limitations?

So now we have the place in which such a challenge should make itself known and we have the likes of Cern's delivery on microstate blackhole production, to have found it's associative feature in how we see interactive features can happen all around us without cern? >John Ellis is careful to draw these distinctions for us.

Do we have Proof of this Missing Energy? If the answer is yes, then the issue has not been resolved?

Three Sphere

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

— Nikolai Lobachevsky

Bernhard Riemann once claimed: "The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean." His prophesy was realized later with Einstein's general theory of relativity. It is futile to expect one "correct geometry" as is evident in the dispute as to whether elliptical, Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry is the "best" model for our universe. Henri Poincaré, in Science and Hypothesis (New York: Dover, 1952, pp. 49-50) expressed it this way.

A sphere is, roughly speaking, a ball-shaped object. In mathematics, a sphere comprises only the surface of the ball, and is therefore hollow. In non-mathematical usage a sphere is often considered to be solid (which mathematicians call ball).

More precisely, a sphere is the set of points in 3-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is a positive real number called the radius of the sphere. The fixed point is called the center or centre, and is not part of the sphere itself. The special case of r = 1 is called a unit sphere.

Spheres can be generalized to higher dimensions. For any natural number n, an n-sphere is the set of points in (n+1)-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is, as before, a positive real number. Here, the choice of number reflects the dimension of the sphere as a manifold.

a 0-sphere is a pair of points

a 1-sphere is a circle

a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere

a 3-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space


Spheres for n ¡Ý 3 are sometimes called hyperspheres. The n-sphere of unit radius centred at the origin is denoted Sn and is often referred to as "the" n-sphere. The notation Sn is also often used to denote any set with a given structure (topological space, topological manifold, smooth manifold, etc.) identical (homeomorphic, diffeomorphic, etc.) to the structure of Sn above.

An n-sphere is an example of a compact n-manifold.

In mathematics, a 3-sphere is a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere. A regular sphere, or 2-sphere, consists of all points equidistant from a single point in ordinary 3-dimensional Euclidean space, R3. A 3-sphere consists of all points equidistant from a single point in R4. Whereas a 2-sphere is a smooth 2-dimensional surface, a 3-sphere is an object with three dimensions, also known as 3-manifold.

In an entirely analogous manner one can define higher-dimensional spheres called hyperspheres or n-spheres. Such objects are n-dimensional manifolds.

Some people refer to a 3-sphere as a glome from the Latin word glomus meaning ball.

Poincare Conjecture

If we stretch a rubber band around the surface of an apple, then we can shrink it down to a point by moving it slowly, without tearing it and without allowing it to leave the surface. On the other hand, if we imagine that the same rubber band has somehow been stretched in the appropriate direction around a doughnut, then there is no way of shrinking it to a point without breaking either the rubber band or the doughnut. We say the surface of the apple is "simply connected," but that the surface of the doughnut is not...

In mathematics, the Poincaré conjecture is a conjecture about the characterisation of the three-dimensional sphere amongst 3-manifolds. It is widely considered to be the most important unsolved problem in topology.

The Poincaré conjecture is one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems for which the Clay Mathematics Institute is offering a $1,000,000 prize for a correct solution. As of 2004 it is becoming accepted that a proof offered by Grigori Perelman in 2002 may have disposed of this question, after nearly a century. Perelman's work is still under review.

Artists such as M. C. Escher have become fascinated with the Poincaré model of hyperbolic geometry and he composed a series of "Circle Limit" illustrations of a hyperbolic universe. In Figure 17.a he uses the backbones of the flying fish as "straight lines", being segments of circles orthogonal to his fundamental circle. In Figure 17.b he does the same with angels and devils. Besides artists and astronomers, many scholars have been shaken by non-Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry had been so universally accepted as an eternal and absolute truth that scholars believed they could also find absolute standards in human behavior, in law, ethics, government and economics. The discovery of non-Euclidean geometry shocked them into understanding their error in expecting to determine the "perfect state" by reasoning alone.

Deterministic Chaos Theory and the Cosmos

This gallery was inspired by a lecture of Dr. Julien Sprott and his work.To learn how these are created, check out my Strange Attractor Tutorial. Click on the images to enlarge them.

It was important for me to reveal how I am seeing the cosmo. How the superhighway has been spoken too, in regards to the Langrange points.These points are lead to and from unstable orbits. Points, where gravity balances out between bodies, like the earth and the moon. These are not to be considered stable equilibrium points.

Here we speak of the interactions of the Sun-Earth Lagrange point dynamics with the Earth-Moon Lagrange point dynamics. We motivate the discussion using Jupiter comet orbits as examples. By studying the natural dynamics of the Solar System, we enhance current and future space mission design."

So what would these winding paths around this point look like? You had to be able to see this work on a cosmological scale and in seeing this used in practise we have now gained in deterministc systems where previously we did not recognize the multiplicty of rotations within regions afffected, between gravitational points called L1 and L2.

The Roots of Chaos Theory

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”

Now I came to the image below in a most unusual way. Now when one sees the image as a butterfly, it is not hard to see how it might have some deterministic quality to it, that Edward might thought it significant for presenting to the masses on issues of climate change?

Edward Norton Lorenz is an American mathematician and meteorologist, and a contributor to the chaos theory and inventor of the strange attractor notion. He coined the term butterfly effect.

Now as I awoke after looking at this superhighway that is used inthe Genesis project I could not have helped identifying the strange attractor, somehwere in this interactive phase spoken about in the points of unequilibrium, and as possible changes in the patwern from one orbit to another. Not only did I see this in Lorenz's image, but in another one as well. so I'll place this one later at the end.

Edward Lorenz, an American meteorologist, discovered in the early 1960s, that a simplified computer model of the weather demonstrated extreme sensitivity to the initial measured state of the weather. He demonstrated visually that there was structure in his chaotic weather model, and, when plotted in three dimensions, fell onto a butterfly-shaped set of points. This is the trajectory of a system in chaotic motion, otherwise known as the "Butterfly Effect". A system in chaotic motion is completely unpredictable. Given the configuration of the system at any one point in time, it is impossible to predict with certainty how it will end up at a later point in time. However, the motion of the chaotic system is not completely random, as evidenced by the general pattern of the trajectory in this image.
Picture courtesy of: Scott Camazine / Photo Researchers, Inc.

It all starts to come togehter when it is undertsoo dthat visionistic qualites could have entered a new phase in human understanding where once this feature was unexpainable in a non deterministic way. Such a cosmlogical interactive system exist all through this cosmos now that we have undertsood the places where such capabilties are to exist? Thank you ISCAP for the "mantra of images" that have been displayed.



Time, seems to have brought them together for me, and what a strange way it has materialized. If Thales of Miletus was to have wondered about the basis of of the primary principal it would have been in Edward Lorenz's views that we had seen a system come together that was not fully understood before.

In the Time Variable Gravity measures of Grace it seems that the measure of the planet would have this basis to consider? While the mass features zeroed and changes according to the hills and valleys, would see this primary principal of some use?

Using Thales of Miletus primary principal, as a basis in the time variable measures of climate perspective, are we given a preview of what is not only happening in the cosmo, but is also happening in our deterministic approaches to weather predictions?

The theory of relativity predicts that, as it orbits the Sun, Mercury does not exactly retrace the same path each time, but rather swings around over time. We say therefore that the perihelion -- the point on its orbit when Mercury is closest to the Sun -- advances.

Given a appropriate response to the Daisey, Taylor was very helpful in explaining Mercuries orbital patterns, but now, this proces having moved to higher dimensional understanding recognizing the value of such images that the strange attractor brings to us? In a way, we have brought quantum mechanical processses together with relativity?

Genesis Spacecraft uses Tubes as Freeways

Without someview that would be consistent through out the cosmo, how would such points be of value? Did we not see this variation could exist when you travelled to another location, given higher dimensional comprehenisons? In order for this view to be scalable it had to have begun in some other way, that we could sufficely say that it was strong once and all pervasive, but now?

There are reasons for this story to be thought abou,t and here after seeing the greater challenge of gravitational consideration in terms of how we percieve Earth's relationship with the sun and moon. Now why did we not see the significance of gravitational considerations bring to us views of the cosmos before now? Consider space travel in light of these tubes?


LOOP-DE-LOOP. The Genesis spacecraft's superhighway path took it to the Earth-sun gravitational-equilibrium point L1, where it made five "halo" orbits before swinging around L2 and heading home.Ross

In the 18th century, European mathematicians Leonhard Euler and Joseph-Louis Lagrange discovered that in this rotating frame there are five gravitational sweet spots, now called Lagrange points. At these equilibrium points, the competing pulls on the third body balance each other, and the body remains motionless.

by Douglas L. Smith

A set of five of these balance points, called Lagrange or libration points, exist between every pair of massive bodies—the sun and its planets, the planets and their moons, and so on. Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736–1813) discovered the existence of the two points now known as L4 and L5, each of which is located in the orbital plane at the third vertex of an equilateral triangle with, say, Earth at one vertex and the moon at the other. So L4 is 60° in advance of the moon, and L5 60° behind it. Ideally, a spacecraft at L4 or L5 will remain there indefinitely because when it falls off the cusp, the Coriolis effect—which makes it hard for you to walk on a moving merry-go-round—will swirl it into a long-lived orbit around that point. Comet debris and other space junk tends to collect there, and Jupiter has accumulated an impressive set of asteroids that way.

Music in Plato's Academy

Academy was a suburb of Athens, named after the hero Academos or Ecademos. The site was continuously inhabited from the prehistoric period until the 6th century A.D. During the 6th century B.C., one of the three famous Gymnasiums of Athens was founded here. Moreover, it is recorded that Hippias, the son of Peisistratos, built a circuit wall, and Cimon planted the area with trees which were destroyed by Sulla in 86 B.C. In 387 B.C. Plato founded his philosophical school, which became very famous due to the Neoplatonists, and remained in use until A.D. 526, when it was finally closed down by emperor Justinian.

Can a different kind of thinking encase the brain's ability to "envision the abstract of space" to know that it's harmonic values can be seen as the basis of experience?

For instance, in Plato's academy, and in contrast, and the revolution of the sixties saw the Beatlemania as subversive? It's lifestyle?



So on the one hand our parents resisting change in the formal art of music and lyrics, might have actually had some values?:) Rap, as a fungal fractorial growth of lyric inspired, emotive rythmics dances around the fire of a most primitive kind, finds an outlet for our youth?

If one thought of the "dissonance of thinking" that Plato saw, could it corrupt youth to it's potential? He saw "sound as instrumental" in moving youth to the farthest reaches, while "bad noise" subversive. This wouldn't have been a cosmological assertion, could it, about the nature of our universe and chaos?

So while beating hearts and rhtymns may have moved the harmonic brain into better retention times( there is some science here), this would not have been known to the revolt against beatle mania. Just that, they wanted to resist corruption of the youth?

I have no script, so I adlib.

An artistic view having grokked paradigmal changes, creates possible artistic pathways for all of us. It takes as little time as asking, "what the future holds."

Ole forms of mathematical construct is a value of mathematical height of abstraction. We common people, would have never understood this loftiness, had we not see their images? But they speak more, about the content, then what little science is known to the public mind. So those who knew better, scoff and make fun?

Feynman as a joker, gave us toy models in which to exorcise our mind of misplaced interactive features of science's theoretical opinion?

The Mathematics Of Plato's Academy: A New Reconstruction(Second Edition)
by David Fowler
Reviewed by Fernando Q. Gouvêa

Greek geometry was not arithmetized. In other words, the way we automatically connect the notion of "length" or "area" to numbers is something completely foreign to Greek mathematics. This is perhaps what makes it so hard for us to think mathematics in the Greek way. The idea that a length is a number is so deeply ingrained in our thought that it takes a conscious effort to conceive of an approach to geometry that does not make such an assumption. It is such an arithmetized interpretation that led historians to describe Book II of the elements as "geometric algebra". Fowler argues that Greek geometry was completely non-arithmetized. The strongest evidence comes from his analysis of the very difficult Book X, where he shows, I think successfully, that the way Euclid (or Theaetetus?) structures the argument precludes an arithmetical approach.

Wunderkammern

For me this is a wonderful view of abstraction, that had gone into model making, to help those less inclined to "the visonistic qualities of those same abstractions."

Shown here are the models in the mathematical wunderkammer located in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Arizona. Like those in most modern mathematics departments, the collection is a combination of locally-made student and faculty projects together with a variety of commercially produced models. Sadly, a century since their Golden Age, many of the models are in disrepair and much of their documentation has been lost. However, some recent detective work, with the help of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, has helped the department identify models by the American educators W. W. Ross and R. P. Baker in the collection.

So having been allowed through internet developement to understand the work of fifth dimensional qualites could exist (why Thomas Banchoff must be added below), has far exceeded the understanding of those currently engaged in the mathematics? I do not mean to undermine or cast uncertainty in the direction of those who are helpijng us, but make for recognition of what technology has done for us, in the use of these internet capabilities.

Long before the advent of the World-Wide Web, Tom Banchoff was experimenting with ways of using electronic media to enhance mathematical research and aid in mathematical education. Banchoff helped install one of the first mathematics computer labs in the country, and continues to lead the development of innovative geometric software and curricula for undergraduate mathematics courses. He uses computer graphics as an integral part of his own research, and has used mathematical videos for the last 30 years as a means of disseminating his results.

I have been exploring these issues in regards to the Sylvester Surfaces, and the relationship seen in matrix development. It wasn't without some understanding that "isomorphic images" might have been revealled in orbital images categories, that dealing with this abstract world, didn't require some explanation?

The Magic Square



The picture below was arrived using the applet given from that site. What did you have do to change, in order to get the image I did? We are given possibilties?



But of course I am held by the physics of the world we see. As small as, might have exemplified itself in some larger cosmological imagery of a kind, can it be suited to topological features spoken too in string theory?

We know Max Tegmark has refuted the soccerball universe, and bazeian valuation of a quantum gravity model, that seem to good to be true? PLato, still felt that this soccer ball represented God? So maybe baezian, interpretaion, although derived from archimeadean, was more then the models through which they were precribed in Wunderkammen. Something ancient has been brought forward again for the mind bogglers that like to paly in these abstract spaces?

Mathematical Teaching Tools

Introduction: Lost Geometry

When I was small, growing up in Wisconsin, I loved to walk along the railroad tracks. As I walked, I would watch the steel rails grow from a point in the distance ahead of me, sweep around me, and then disappear again in the distance over my shoulder, converging slowly back to a point. The pure geometry of it was breathtaking. What impressed me the most, however, was the powerful metaphor that it suggested: How wide the present seemed, simply because of my presence there; how small the future and the past. And yet, I could move along the tracks, imagining myself expanding and contracting the infinite timeline of history. I could move ahead until any previous place along that continuum had shrunk to insignificance, and I could, despite the relentless directionality that I imagined moving along the tracks like so many schedule-bound trains, drift backwards as easily as I could let myself be carried forward.

The wonderful stories exemplifed by human experience, places me in states of wonder. About how processes in geometry could have engaged us in a real dialogue with nature's way around us. To see these stories exemplified above. One more that quickly came to mind, was Michio Kaku's view from the bridge, to the fish in the pond. Looking at the surface from two perspective sseem really quite amazing to me.

Such exchanges as these are wonderful exercises in the creation of the historical abstract. A Lewis Carroll in the making? An Abbotsolutely certainty of math structures, that we would like to pass on to our children and extend the nature to matter of the brain's mass?

Coulomb Interactions, Thomson Scatterings

I think most people understand this stuff, and that experiment is the most efficient way of dealing with this issue. Even if we understand the matrix developemental view it's shortcoming are well expressed by others in that field of quantum grvaity. That could have easily helped orientate further constructive processes in that same respect.

John Ellis:

To my mind, one of the most plausible extensions of the Standard Model is supersymmetry (just look at the subjects of my research papers!), so could the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model have created the matter in the Universe?

John Ellis and the views about the supersymmetrical are really more in depth then the suttle words listed and spoken about by some. String Theorists knew how far this went?:)

Peter Woit said,

Certainly some people should be working on quantum gravity, especially if they are doing it in a non-overhyped way, trying to really seriously understand the technical issues involved. The LQG community appears to be doing this. But, personally, I don't have any ideas about how to start from thinking about quantum gravity and get to particle physics, whereas I do see some hope that if one better understands the structure of the standard model, one may be able to get to quantum gravity from there.

Posted by Peter Woit at May 30, 2005 05:22 PM

While some people are looking for consistant means of determinations, others apply "conceptual situations" and bring forth comprehension of a kind. Now to this degree, that "gluonic perception is being adjusted" to see these values. The Smolins and others understood well the limitation of these views? Are there any?

It becomes extremely difficult, as reductionistic processes are further detailed. So how far will this informtaion take us in terms of early universe understanding? Througha comsic interactive theme in the expeirments lead by situation in particle interaction in our atmosphere we can direct same particle interaction?

The calorimeter design for GLAST produces flashes of light that are used to determine how much energy is in each gamma-ray. A calorimeter ("calorie-meter") is a device that measures the energy (heat: calor) of a particle when it is totally absorbed.

What will glast do for this comprehension, understanding well the Calorimetric view of information given to us about those early universe situations?

Remember that the age is determined by the dark matter density. Mathematically, the length is roughly the geometric mean of the mean free path and the distance light can travel without obstruction (the horizon scale).

Microstates and Gravity

Strominger: That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.


I was scanning over at Sean Carroll's blog and noticed his current article. It seems he is doing some kind of exorcism?:)

Entropy and intelligence

Consider the following system: a rectangular container filled part way with tiny spheres, some of them made of glass and some of brass. All the spheres have equal size, but the brass ones are heavier than the glass ones. Okay, now please tell me which of these configurations has the lowest entropy (or highest order, or greatest complexity, or whatever it is that you think only intelligence can bring into existence):

Now what was appealing to me here is the question of arrangement, and how chaotic systems might have been ruled by other consequences? Like gravity. So troubled by the analogy presented and distancing myself from some satanic feature of intelligent dsign, I wonder, what is going on here?


The animation shows schematically the behavior of the gas molecules in the presence of a gravitational field. We can see in this figure that the concentration of molecules at the bottom of the vessel is higher than the one at the top of the vessel, and that the molecules being pushed upwards fall again under the action of the gravitational field.

Now if I was to wonder about what would govern these thoughts, then indeed the question is raised that such intelligence is governed by a organizational ability that evolved from a better understanding of these graviational influences?

I am a junior here so the idea that such a exorcism would have been dispelled in this attempted has me wondering. Is there some greater design here in elminating the abilities of capable good thinking people and spooky actions, that have defied explanation?

A nice airplane ride is always fruitful to higher forms of thinking here? Time clocks, still exemplify some characteristics on molecular arangements? As well as Einstein and liethe impulsive qualites that such characters appeal to the scolastic heroes of our time, we are drawn by some inexplicable force to wonder about natures way?

Self Organization of Matter

Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.

See:

Quantum Microstates

"Lightening," as Strings, Strike?

With a "supersymmetrical realization" capable of being disemminated in the brain? What could have manifested from it's beginning? To have nature exemplify this greater potential "for new airs to breath life " into other possibilties of minds constructs "real objects" and "things"?

Are the brain matters limited in terms of this new math? A perspective on the origination of what this universe was before it settled into "the cosmic bands of creation," we know as matter constituents of a galaxy kind.

Flower representation (plank epoch and guth's expansnonary universe) as a torodial expression of form? As the basis of this supersymmetrical realization, seen in mathematical enlightenment? Makes it hard ,to see how expansionistc views could have been missed in gaining this toposense?

Mind Over Matter: Brain Waves Guide a Cursor's PathBy Rick WeissWashington Post Staff WriterMonday, December 13, 2004; Page A08

Wolpaw's "thinking cap" sports 64 sensors (the polka dots) that detect electroencephalographic (EEG) signals generated by neurons. With a software program analogous to those used in voice-recognition programs, which "learn" people's verbal quirks over time, people can gain control over a cursor's movement in two dimensions by modulating signal intensities in certain regions of the brain, Wolpaw and co-worker Dennis McFarland reported in last week's early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Now it's never easy to see how such tomographical initiatives of the brains complex firings, might have a issue with the way we do things? So early work here, and the ideas of cursor control stimulation from human contact rhythmns could exemplfy the greater complexity of control that the minds likes to extend from itself?

No less the idea that calorimetric views would measure some event in particle reductionistic views, about how things work. As a picture, is taken. Views condensed into greater meaning from a huge outlay of supersymmetrical issues, into this crazy bands that streak across our mind sky?

Here we have gone to extremes to say, "that the brain has a third arm" and we know how it works and we can use it?

Monkeys Adapt Robot Arm as Their Own


Image: Miguel Nicolelis, M.D., Ph.D., professor of neurobiology and co-director of the Center for Neuroengineering, Duke University Medical Center, with robot arm. PHOTO CREDIT: Duke University

"In our new experiments, the idea is that by using vision and touch, we're actually going to create inside the brains of these animal a vivid perceptual image of what it is to have a third arm," he said.

The greater complexity of a system would have known that the physiological coordination of views, could have, "photosynthesis processes"? Used chemcial derivatives endocronologically reduce to the euclidean view. While it existed, within this massive torodial view of the human body? Reduced it, to viable means of expression?

So why is it so difficult to accept the idea "that if a Professor is walking across the room, that many of his students would congregate.:)" Just as they would in any other attempts at defining the nature of this reality?

Hooft, Witten and now Lauglin himself understands, that we have face to face with a problem? By arguing "stuff", would we have divested ourselves of recognition of this Third Superstring Revolution? Of course not.:)

BrainInfo Site

Mathematical Enlightenment

This enlightenment experience is a realization about the nature of the mind which entails recognizing it (in a direct, experiential way) as liminocentrically organized. The overall structure is paradoxical, and so the articulation of this realization will 'transcend' logic - insofar as logic itself is based on the presumption that nested sets are not permitted to loop back on themselves in a non-heirarchical manner. 11

This plate image is a powerful one for me becuase it represents something Greene understood well. His link on the right hand side of this blog is the admission of "cosmological and quantum mechanical readiness," to tackle the cosmological frontier.

While it is has become evident that the perspective I share and the wonders of mathematcial endowment, this basis has pointed me in the direct relationship between, brain matter and mind? Mind and mathematics?

In the West we tend to think of 'enlightenment' itself as an exceptional mental state, outside of (or separate from) ordinary states. But in many of the spiritual traditions of the East, enlightenment is described as, in essence, a 'realization' 9 about the ultimate nature of the mind. Enlightenment is really nothing but the 'ordinary' state, as seen (and experienced) from a somewhat wider perspective, as it were. This is not unlike how the Newtonian frame which describes events in the material world at a HUMAN scale can be conceived as enclosed within a wider frame of explanation that is Einsteinian.


So is there some cosmological embodiment of brain matter, once it has realized the mathmatics, that it will issue from that brain has somehow traversed, all laws of nature and transcended itself away from the curent standards set for itself. Mind, is limited by the brain matter we have?


In this metaphor, when we are seeing the donut as solid object in space, this is like ordinary everyday consciousness. When we see the donut and the hole at its center, this is like a stage of realization in which 'form' is recognized as 'empty'. When we zoom in extremely closely and inspect the 'emptiness' at the center, or zoom out an extreme distance away from the object and the donut seems to disappear and we have only empty space - this is like certain 'objectless' states of awareness that can occur in meditation. But the final goal is not to achieve the undifferentiated state itself; it is to come to the special perspective that allows us to continue to see all three aspects at once - the donut, the whole in the middle, and the space surrounding it - this is like the 'enlightened' state, in this analogy. 10 The innermost and outermost psychological 'space' (which is here a metaphor for 'concentrated attention' and 'diffused attention') are recognized as indeed the same, continuous.

So imagine the eire I could raise when I say that string theory has transcended the current status of mathematics, "brain matter controlled." That any attemtps to side swipe this new emergent quality of mathematics (what is it that has materialized?)and now we see that what lies in the cosmo is not limiteed to cosmlogical endeavors of General Relativity alone, but the deepr significance and recognition of the reductionist views of those same matters around us?

Who is going to argue with this?

I have set the standards well, that brain matters and functions if stood by, have revealled that mathematics is embodied by the brain matter with which we are dealt?

Then how shall any new mathematics form and become the responsive road to recogniton of the physics we have endured by experimentation, to say, that new roads are now to be considered? Our brain status will not allow this, because the brain matter has not be readied for this new transcendance of thinkng. We are limited by the very matters with which we like to deal?

So if string theory is to be considered in context, of the way in which the brain deals, then how could transcendance and twenty first century thinking ever prepare society for this new transcendance and viability for change in the way humanity has always seen?

This is a torus (like a doughnut) on which several circles are located. Unlike on a Euclidean plane, on this surface it is impossible to determine which circle is inside of which, since if you go from the black circle to the blue, to the red, and to the grey, you can continuously come back to the initial black, and likewise if you go from the black to the grey, to the red, and to the blue, you can also come back to the black.

Reichenbach then invites us to consider a 3-dimensional case (spheres instead of circles).

Figure 8 [replaced by our Figure 2] is to be conceived three-dimensionally, the circles being cross-sections of spherical shells in the plane of the drawing. A man is climbing about on the huge spherical surface 1; by measurements with rigid rods he recognizes it as a spherical shell, i.e. he finds the geometry of the surface of a sphere. Since the third dimension is at his disposal, he goes to spherical shell 2. Does the second shell lie inside the first one, or does it enclose the first shell? He can answer this question by measuring 2. Assume that he finds 2 to be the smaller surface; he will say that 2 is situated inside of 1. He goes now to 3 and finds that 3 is as large as 1.

How is this possible? Should 3 not be smaller than 2? ...

He goes on to the next shell and finds that 4 is larger than 3, and thus larger than 1. ... 5 he finds to be as large as 3 and 1.

But here he makes a strange observation. He finds that in 5 everything is familiar to him; he even recognizes his own room which was built into shell 1 at a certain point. This correspondence manifests itself in every detail; ... He is quite dumbfounded since he is certain that he is separated from surface 1 by the intervening shells. He must assume that two identical worlds exist, and that every event on surface 1 happens in an identical manner on surface 5. (Reichenbach 1958, 63-64)

One had to be able to maintain this positon between the inner and outer and a consistent feature of the brains ability to unite, the world outside, with the one inside?

Did we not see the ability of Time variable measures on the basis of how we see earth not mean, that we should place less significance to how Persinger asked the question, and ran contray to Lakoff and Damasio's views? One in which I postulate now too, as evidence of the transcendance needed to incoporate a much more palatable feature of the 21st century.

My evidence is, and although speaking to some ideal of enlightenment, has shown that such graduations needed to see the "Work of Iscap" as a fundmental progression of this new feature of the brain's compacity? This is part of it's evolution.

Oh, I have no views on intelligent design, so any comparisons seen, are coincidence.