Gravity and Electromagnetism?

"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

Oskar Klein and Theodor Franz Eduard Kaluza

What a novel idea to have the methods used by the predecessors like Maxwell, to have been united from Faraday's principals? To have Maxwell's equation Gaussian in interpretation of Riemann geometry, somehow, united by the geometries of Einstein and defined as gravity?

Then, to have Gravity and Light United?

A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a "black hole."

It seems then that the very statement of "Unification," the "Theory of everything," does not seem so far fetched as we look at the implications of what comes after. What comes from the knowledge, extended.



I was starting to loose hope here in the efforts of blogging as well, and was thinking that the time had come to a end. But "these questions" help to fuel the understanding that I had gained by giving time to "what work" has been put out there by scientists?



To think scientists would close up shop to their elite view, would seem disastrous to me, because of the leading perspective of what the physics means along side of that math.

We need to know what is "experimentally going" on so that we can also judge what theoretical models are doing for us as we extend this knowledge gained.

I gave a few views in environmental sciences in terms of the cosmic relation as well as what Gr was being introduced using time clocks and such, for views of the topographical understanding of earth from a fluidness point of view.

Now join the "cloud cover" along side of particle collisions sources, and have we learn anything that we didn't know before, or has this push new light onto what we now see of earth, as it's placed in the cosmological frontier?

Lisa Randall on Xtra Dimensions

In physics, Randall-Sundrum models imagine that the real world is a higher-dimensional Universe described by warped geometry. More concretely, our Universe is a five-dimensional anti de Sitter space and the elementary particles except for the graviton are localized on a (3 + 1)-dimensional brane or branes.

The models were proposed in 1999 by Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum while studying technicolor models.

With the online chat yesterday I'll have to look in on Sabine Hossenfelder and Stefan's of Backreaction blog entry in this regard to look at it more in depth.


Photograph by Phil Knott
Click to view for a larger version.So you intuitively believe higher dimensions really exist?

I don't see why they shouldn't. In the history of physics, every time we've looked beyond the scales and energies we were familiar with, we've found things that we wouldn't have thought were there. You look inside the atom and eventually you discover quarks. Who would have thought that? It's hubris to think that the way we see things is everything there is.

If there are more than three dimensions out there, how does that change our picture of the universe?

The very ideas are of extra dimensions are very progressive, and are not without some history. Some people will label anything as crackpot, without understanding the history of these discussions."

Physics strings us along by Margaret Wertheim of LAtimes.com

In the latest, hottest Big Science tome — the delightfully titled "Warped Passages" — Harvard physicist Lisa Randall describes the idea that the universe we see around us is but one tiny part of a vast reality that may include an infinite number of other universes. Randall is an expert on both cosmology and that arcane branch of particle physics known as string theory. By marrying the two fields, she and her colleagues have formulated a picture in which our universe may be seen as a soap-film-like membrane (a "braneworld") sitting inside a much larger space: the bulk. According to general relativity, the universe we live in has four dimensions: three of space and one of time. Randall's work extends this framework and posits the existence of a fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is the bulk, and within its immeasurably expanded space, there is no reason to assume that ours is the only cosmos.

The Cosmic Connection to Climate

Cars and industrial activity contribute to the 7 gigatons of carbon dioxide released each year into the atmosphere.Credits: EuroNews

Some thoughts about this were being contemplates as I was slowly awaking this morning. I was actually thinking of one more image about seeing Gr being measured by how Grace is looking at and being used to look at the planet in other ways as well.



I'll add that later.

Variation of Cosmic ray flux and Global cloud coverage by Henri Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 26 NOvember 1996

Some historical perspective about eight years ago below here raises question about what this cosmic connection might mean from a wider perspective.

CERN plans global-warming experiment(1998)

A controversial theory proposing that cosmic rays are responsible for global warming is to be put to the test at CERN, the European laboratory for particle physics. Put forward two years ago by two Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, the theory suggests that it is changes in the Sun's magnetic field, and not the emission of greenhouse gases, that has led to recent rises in global temperatures.

Experimentalists at CERN will use a cloud chamber to mimic the Earth's atmosphere in order to try and determine whether cloud formation is influenced by solar activity. According to the Danish theory, charged particles from the Sun deflect galactic cosmic rays (streams of high-energy particles from outer space) that would otherwise have ionized the Earth's lower atmosphere and formed clouds.

Looking at this places some extra thinking about what could be taking place in the cosmos, effectively creating the circumstance "also" for changes with regard to earth's climate?



At what point would such intensity of the event in the cosmos cause the larger scenario to be played out, that it also, may have been a contributing factor to what we think about global warming here?



See this link here for further thoughts about the increase in the "lighthouse effect" and how such intensities may be considered in light of the following thoughts being demonstrated here.


This is not to dissuade people from thinking about the current considerations that are man made but raised questions in my mind about the consequences of other factors which may or may not be contributing to global climate changes.

A missing link in climate theory

The Danish National Space Center (DNSC) is a research center under the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The research activities include astrophysics, solar system physics, geodesy and space technology.

The experimental results lend strong empirical support to the theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate through their effect on cloud formation. The original theory rested on data showing a strong correlation between variation in the intensity of cosmic radiation penetrating the atmosphere and the amount of low-altitude clouds. Cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines.

It is known that low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth’s surface. Hence, variations in cloud cover caused by cosmic rays can change the surface temperature. The existence of such a cosmic connection to Earth’s climate might thus help to explain past and present variations in Earth’s climate.

Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s magnetic field which shields Earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century. However, until now, there has been no experimental evidence of how the causal mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation may work.

‘Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds to climate as unproven,’ comments Eigil Friis-Christensen, who is now Director of the Danish National Space Center. ‘Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. The SKY experiment now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research.’

Quantum Computation and Evolution?

We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding out that we must learn a great deal more about 'and'."- Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944)

Of course a lot of this post has to do with the post created by Sean Carroll over at Cosmic Variance.

Sean Carroll:

Nobody would just be sitting around in their armchair, thinking deep thoughts about the nature of spacetime, and say “Hey, maybe if we look at quantum gravity with anti-de Sitter boundary conditions, it will be dual to a large-N conformal field theory in Minkowski space.” You had to be led there, bit by bit, by struggling to understand the individual puzzles presented by different pieces of the theory along the way. And it paid off big-time.

What he said caught my attention because I had been thinking of so many things piece meal, that when I realized the beauty extracted from the chaos, I couldn't help see things working on a sociological level as well. Sure, we can be arm chair philosophers, with systemic approaches that are computational in disquise, that at first glance would seem....um.....crackpotish?


Deep in the interior of a red giant star, hydrogen rich clouds (red) are seen to float above the hydrogen burning shell (blue)
Click here for high resolution image.>

It seems such insight gained from all the articles I have read, that have been shared with me, have amounted to nothing? Here I am, sitting in the pottism of my own...er I mean, "others" illusions which I continue to perpetuate?:)

What can be said about journalism is that within it's stories the substance of scientific thought is being generated/not generated?

Despite the universe's tendency towards disarray (like the socks in your drawer), there is a surprising amount of spontaneous order in the universe: stars clump into galaxies, atoms combine to form organized crystals, ants work together in a colony, species interact with each other and the physical environment to form ecosystems, cells build the different parts of a person, and neurons coordinate their firing to produce thought. When thousands of components get together in just the right way, something remarkable happens—they fall into recognizable, persistent patterns in space or in time. We live in a universe in which interactions among the basic building blocks of matter, or among individuals in our societies, give rise to unpredicted and unexpected emergent behavior. This occurs for many different types of things, large and small, living and inanimate.

Emergence is the study of how order arises from chaos, of how the interactions of simple objects with each other and their environment give rise to highly complex and often surprising behaviors.

Synchrony pervades the living world: some types of fireflies will flash in unison, the cacophony of crickets converges to a unified chirping, and populations of locusts swarm every 17 years. More sophisticated synchrony is found in the life cycle of an ant colony. Individual ants react robotically to chemical signals left by their neighbors during their short life span, while the colony as a whole lives, matures, and dies as a single organism that outlives any of its constituent, crawling parts.

While the wording of emergence is being entertained here it's applicability is far reaching. While being governed by the statement of Witten, it is not without understanding that the world and universe we have gone through in "computation evolutionary changes" allow us to see the dynamics of the universe in unique ways. It has to be mathematically consistent, or computationally it does not work out?

1. Quantum Matter (atoms in a crystal, electrons in a superconductor)

2. Soft Matter (the stacking and flow of ball bearings)

3. Living Things
(ant colonies, evolution, neural networks)

4. Social and Economic Behavior (cities, traffic, economies)

So in the instance I shared in terms of the neutrinos and the "value of the sun" in contemplation, such pictures of nature while very detailed microscopically in perspective, are still quite beautiful over all to look at.


The ribosome is a living factory, the essential element within cells that creates proteins by decoding each protein type's specific recipe that is stored within messenger RNA. Ribosomes are a fundamental model for future nano-machines, producing the protein building blocks of all living tissue. Credit: Los Alamos National Laboratory

Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory have set a new world's record by performing the first million-atom computer simulation in biology. Using the "Q Machine" supercomputer, Los Alamos computer scientists have created a molecular simulation of the cell's protein-making structure, the ribosome. The project, simulating 2.64 million atoms in motion, is more than six times larger than any biological simulations performed to date. Today, the effort is featured in a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

While all these ideas of photons "dancing in my head" I couldn't help but think of, "I" Robot.

I, Robot:

signs of new life emerge as images photonically flicker in the new logic forming apparatus

I had a dream....

Deja Vue?

NewScientistSpace-How to be in two places at once

The basis of this post is in answer to Bee's question in relation to, "Back to the Beginning of Time."

Bee writes:

interesting post. A question: what does it mean for the elephant to 'be' in more than one place. Or, what is there inside our space, how is 'it' different from the space, and how do we attribute a location to 'it'. And finally: what can we possibly say about 'it' being 'somewhere' without understanding the measurement problem in quantum theory? So many questions. Best,

Not many engage me in questions and it is appreciated when some involved in science take the time to do so. While spending considerable time as a hobby, I have not included the years of research in developing the thinking I did, based on past exercises. Without this interaction, I had to rely on "other ways" to bring the information forward.

Plato's dialogues, in the spirit of discussing ideas, served to do this, with, or without people involved.

It is these instances, which help to propel forward my thinking if corrected, or challenged that such delusions are less then likely held to the procedures of science. It's mechanisms. Anyway, the interaction is appreciated.


One needed a "testing ground," and a thought experiment usually precedes it??

The elephant and the event horizon By Amanda Gefter

Because of their enormous gravity and other unique properties, black holes have been fertile ground for researchers developing these ideas.

What was held in mind is the thought of spook action at a distance and Einstein.



Quanglement

next.....

B:

0 is the identity element of the addition, it’s a finite closed subgroup, it never gets you anywhere.

So where it "the beginning" then?

I gave a link further down in terms of poetry justice and the "short story." Underneath the short story is a link to something written by Ian Stewart.

That story is based on "Fuzzy Logic."

Do we selectively ignore other models from artificial intelligence such as Zadeh's Fuzzy Logic? This is a logic used to model perception and used in newly designed "smart" cameras. Where standard logic must give a true or false value to every proposition, fuzzy logic assigns a certainty value between zero and one to each of the propositions, so that we say a statement is .7 true and .3 false. Is this theory selectively ignored to support our theories?

There is something deterministic about this relationship, between the elephant inside the blackhole and outside the blackhole.



Or here
.

To resolve this, "fuzzy logic" lays itself over top of this "thought experiment."

B:

what does it mean for the elephant to 'be' in more than one place.

Black hole computers

Hawking radiation owes its existence to the weirdness of the quantum world, in which pairs of virtual particles pop up out of empty space, annihilate each other and disappear. Around a black hole, virtual particles and anti-particles can be separated by the event horizon. Unable to annihilate, they become real. The properties of each pair are linked, or entangled. What happens to one affects the other, even if one is inside the black hole.

B:

what is there inside our space, how is 'it' different from the space, and how do we attribute a location to 'it'.

"Fuzzy logic" assumes a position "between" the blackhole inside, and the blackhole outside. The event horizon.

Both locations are linked and like entanglement, resolves spooky action at a distance?

B:

what can we possibly say about 'it' being 'somewhere' without understanding the measurement problem in quantum theory

When probing the "perfect liquid," do our energy valuations take us to the anomalie or not? Imagine what a feather could do in zero viscosity, as we learn of the fundamental nature of that liquid.

Superfluid attributes of He4? Which leads me to the points of L positions in Lagrangian perspective.



At what point does a universe make? Are there "such locations" that are similar to what we perceive, as a passage through the "blackhole state" for new universes to begin?

Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles

Like "geometric principles" one needed a way in which to explain this transition from that "perfect fluid" to explain the mass particle initiations derived from the singularities to what new universe are and have been implied to bubble manifestations?

Tonal Perception Changes

Sir Isaac Newton

It is true without lying, certain and most true. That which is Below is like that which is Above and that which is Above is like that which is Below to do the miracles of the Only Thing. And as all things have been and arose from One by the mediation of One, so all things have their birth from this One Thing by adaptationSir Isaac Newton

Of course I see these things a little differently then some of you because I have researched and found, "model changes using theoretical perceptions," allowed such perspectives to form. Sort of like "shifting perspective" by the shifting of the Tonal.

Now seen, and understood in context of current science valuation demonstrated, I thought it important to understand how the "effect of" the sun as a central theme, could have been transmitted to "our way of thinking," to a humanistic point of view?

Atheistic or not, you cannot change what the result of your biochemical thinking does and "subsequent states of consciousness" if you did not understand the deeper correlation to what "point of view" is being explored here.

Plato:

What if we “reversed” the way we believe the “mind is inherently embodied” to, “the body” is inherently embodied by the mind?”

Is this acceptable/not aceptable, to a scientist?

Now I don't want you to think that because my own life's research has been "shallow" and "just starting," that I might have been called a professor by now in years spent?

That I use the term "layman" because each departing point of perspective I find through such research, seems apparently "new" to my thinking. To others as well, I am quite sure?

What we have learned

We have found consciousness can be described as an emergent property of the complex electromagnetic process generated from predictable biochemical and biological processes. Although the terms soul and mind may have been useful at one time to describe this process, they are no longer required. They are more like the term "phlogiston" that was employed to describe why things burned before modern chemistry emerged. When there is no electrical current moving through the parts of a television, there is no picture. When the specific electromagnetic patterns are not generated within the brain structures there is no consciousness or awareness.

Some individuals with very different brain structures show different electromagnetic correlates that are associated with their ability to discern stimuli others cannot detect. Counter clockwise rotation of weak magnetic fields around the skull at specific rates of change (derivatives) can affect subjective time and allow the average person to experience many of the altered states reported by practitioners of mystical traditions as well as "paranormal" phenomena. The critical variables, like any chemical reaction, are the complexity and specificity of the temporal parameters. One component of consciousness may be "sequestered" within second or third derivatives of very narrow bands of changes in frequency within the theta range. Our calculations of resonance, based upon the power changes within quantitative electroencephalographic measures, suggest that one electromagnetic source of consciousness may actually exist within the 10 cm region outside of and surrounding the cranium.

I add this underline portion to show why I would assume such a statement represented in Cosmic Variance comment section under the God Conundrum presented by Sean Carroll.

Also the link in general to give Sean Carroll something to think about as he speaks of what the presence in terms of what a God might mean to him regardless of what he had to say from a atheistic position or from anyone else for that matter.

We are all responsible for building the walls/tonal around us. If you work hard enough to build the understanding you have and supportive positions then why would you not think the desired result would have far reaching consequences?

Plato:

While Persinger was not able to induce the desire state for even the “most skeptical,” the research is interesting nonetheless.

"Organized religion" for those "less then kind" for what a God might have meant to us? Those, "less then human" in their evolution, their actions in the name of?" Would this have been a safe statement under the guise of conformity?

We have seen enough rationalization under the "auspice of religious tenets," to know that such a statement is "shallow" from the animalistic brain? Fight or flight response?

As we evolve to the "frontal cortex," then does it not seem strange that our thinking would/should evolve too, while all the aspects of the brains physical development follows the thoughts accordingly?? Qui Non?

Back to the Beginning of Time

While some of us who had been engaged in a little prehistory examination of earliest QGP states as glast determination of high energy photons, the question, "to Be or not to be," how could we not ask what Professor Susskind offered up for examination under the title, "the elephant and the event horizon?"

What happens when you throw an elephant into a black hole? It sounds like a bad joke, but it's a question that has been weighing heavily on Leonard Susskind's mind. Susskind, a physicist at Stanford University in California, has been trying to save that elephant for decades. He has finally found a way to do it, but the consequences shake the foundations of what we thought we knew about space and time. If his calculations are correct, the elephant must be in more than one place at the same time.

I think there is still this far reaching philosophical question about what really started time? If "nothing" existed then how could we assume anything could arise from it?

While empirically Aristotle has lead the thinking, you know how I think don’t you:) Do you see me stand apart from Aristotle?

So I resolve this question in my own mind, even if I do refer to Gabriele Veneziano and his introduction of what began as string theory.

How could I resolve "anything" that has been taken down to the very first microseconds, while recognizing the value of anything "underneath the guise of building blocks of matter," and have said, "that this is the theory of everything?"

It only helped us to the point of the singularity, but it is much different then a complete death. The whole time reductionistic thinking has dominated the move back in history, there were other things going on, that us simple lay people were not aware of. Maybe for some scientists too?:)


Colliding galaxies, NGC 4676, known as "The Mice" (credit: Credit: NASA, H. Ford (JHU), G. Illingworth (UCSC/LO), M.Clampin (STScI), G. Hartig (STScI), the ACS Science Team, and ESA )

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope, scheduled for launch in 2013. JWST will find the first galaxies that formed in the early Universe, connecting the Big Bang to our own Milky Way Galaxy. JWST will peer through dusty clouds to see stars forming planetary systems, connecting the Milky Way to our own Solar System. JWST's instruments will be designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range.

JWST will have a large mirror, 6.5 meters (21.3 feet) in diameter and a sunshield the size of a tennis court. Both the mirror and sunshade won't fit onto the rocket fully open, so both will fold up and open only once JWST is in outer space. JWST will reside in an orbit about 1.5 million km (1 million miles) from the Earth.

JWST Science

The JWST science goals are divided into four themes. The key objective of The End of the Dark Ages: First Light and Reionization theme is to identify the first luminous sources to form and to determine the ionization history of the early universe. The key objective of The Assembly of Galaxies theme is to determine how galaxies and the dark matter, gas, stars, metals, morphological structures, and active nuclei within them evolved from the epoch of reionization to the present day. The key objective of The Birth of Stars and Protoplanetary Systems theme is to unravel the birth and early evolution of stars, from infall on to dust-enshrouded protostars to the genesis of planetary systems. The key objective of The Planetary Systems and the Origins of Life theme is to determine the physical and chemical properties of planetary systems including our own, and investigate the potential for the origins of life in those systems.

So again, we are being lead by science here to look ahead to what plans for the future may have influenced, or caused the decsisons they did, on another trip to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope?

The Dark Ages of the UniverseBy Abraham Loeb

What makes modern cosmology an empirical science is that we are literally able to peer into the past. When you look at your image reflected off a mirror one meter away, you see the way you looked six nanoseconds ago--the light's travel time to the mirror and back. Similarly, cosmologists do not need to guess how the universe evolved; we can watch its history through telescopes. Because the universe appears to be statistically identical in every direction, what we see billions of light-years away is probably a fair representation of what our own patch of space looked like billions of years ago.

So then I am at a loss to explain that what happened billions of years ago near the beginning of this universe, could have ever been created in this universe now? Some body may say to you, "that the beginning of time and the distance of the beginning of the universe to now, has no correlation?"

If the circumstance are to be created in our colliders, then what said that mass determinations will ever arise from our research into the HiGG's, is not relevant, to what can be created in this space and time now?

Remember, everywhere you look in the cosmos this possibility exists. The WMAP is indictive of what I am saying.

So you say, the beginning of the universe and "the time created" to produce the particles of new physics, has no correlation into how this universe came into being?

Perhaps you may like to read Stephen Hawkings perspective on the beginning of time?

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

Understanding the Tonal

Sir Isaac Newton

So, you have your units, and the powers of ten?

Distances shorter than 1 µm 1 micrometre (micron)
Items with lengths between 1-10 µm (microns)
1.55 µm — wavelength of light used in optical fibre
6 µm — anthrax spore
6-8 µm — diameter of a human red blood cell
7 µm — diameter of the nucleus of typical eukaryotic cell
7 µm — width of strand of spider web
1-10 µm — diameter of typical bacterium
about 10 µm — size of a fog, mist or cloud water droplet

While I may have a complicated image for you to digest here, what values would you assign what you had never previously seen?

Would you change in the dynamics of your thinking had you known that all the results of the "thought process" had it's effect too?

Kandinsky, himself an accomplished musician, once said Color is the keyboard, the eyes are the harmonies, the soul is the piano with many strings. The artist is the hand that plays, touching one key or another, to cause vibrations in the soul. The concept that color and musical harmony are linked has a long history, intriguing scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton. Kandinsky used color in a highly theoretical way associating tone with timbre (the sound's character), hue with pitch, and saturation with the volume of sound. He even claimed that when he saw color he heard music.

Will scientists ever understand "this application" that when applied to the statements of their thinking, and "voiced from their reasons," that if not supported properly, can cast a wide and ugly shadow over the whole process?


Wassily Kandinsky-Yellow, Red, Blue
1925; Oil on canvas, 127x200cm; Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris

Well as you know, most of us cannot help our backgrounds as we talk about the sciences, or the ways in which we will attack science, based on the knowledge we have accumulated. These give the pursuit's a certain "flavor" based on the approach and meaning being conveyed? As one tries to paint this picture for us.

In my case, about the effects of "what the sun may mean as a central theme."

While based on previous knowledge of the things that help to form an idea about the tonal, vague and mystique, less then the desire of science, it does not reduce what affect is raised here?

I may indicate the very human being in it's colored thinking, but want to look at the science process itself. Nor do I wish to be blinded by such clarity that I be stopped on the road to knowledge accumulated of old age, that the path may indeed finally produced some fruit to bear.

The Sun then, becomes a powerful image/mediator of all the things that we will learn as we look at it's effects. These are as if, in the mind once settled to their private views, try to help through expression want to paint a picture of the world in it's mysterious ways.

Tone color is also often used as a synonym. People who experience synesthesia may see certain colors when they hear particular instruments. Helmholtz used the German Klangfarbe (tone color), and Tyndall proposed its English translation, clangtint. But both terms were disapproved of by Alexander Ellis who also discredits register and color for their pre-existing English meanings (Erickson 1975, p.7).

So while I debate the nature of what the tonal means, it is not without recognizing it's source that we could take in all that we know, may find of our views have now changed some? Try and deny it, and such theoretical models, have not without it's recourse said, that you remain the same in your views, and have not outwardly changed anything?

German photographer and artist Karl E. Deckart is known for his thorough, precise, and beautiful work both in photography through the microscope and with macro camera systems. This gallery of interference photographs made with soap films is a testament to both Deckart's skill as a photographer and his understanding of the physical phenomena that surround our everyday lives.

Staunch in our positions and thinking, while holding to the familiar, we may provide for a much more colorful picture, yet, find the principals by which we stand, do not have to change while held by sciences. It's as if, we have "crossed the wires," that the way in which we now see has had color added to it? While previously in cosmology, it was still a very beautiful picture, is, still a beautiful picture.

Plato:

Sometimes we might need visual aids. So, I thought I would add this in relation to the question, on how would we see these dimensions, if we accept the gravitons in the bulk? Aug 7, 2004 3:46 pm

I added this comment to Backreaction's post because of the way in which my attempts at theoretical modeling had me trying to make sense of the world that had been so abstractly painted.

While one can indeed convolute the world with so much articulation and example, what use the "whole story" if it could not indeed be reduced to the one equation/the physics, that would help us make sense?

Great White North

Just got back today from visiting the Grandkids and having spent Halloween with them.



The pictures are ones my wife took, on our way back.

The Higg's Boson and Memory?

While some like chocolate bars and the bubble nature of candy, some also like the molasses and ice cream? :)

If Plato Had thought "the new born" was not really such a "blank slate" then what did he mean exactly? If we could remember, "in what form" would these memories have manifested?

The origins of thought would have found that what existed before, had to make it's way into what we are doing today? So is it really "lost" since we cannot and do not remember what was before? Or, is it possible to remember?

Not many can see in this abstract way, or have considered how a photon might have traveled? Sure they have understood satellites and the travel through space, but have they consider this in context of CSL lensing? Sean put up a link yesterday that had me seeing how such a travel over distance might have had some photon's strange journies in context of such lensings.

So how does this lump of clay ever take with it all that was before. Is it just a slight shift in our tonal? What was "not apparent before" is now very much a a part of our views of nature now. Before, it was "very pleasing," and now, it is "still very pleasing" that our cosmological views have been extended some how? :)

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.

Of course we always look for directions as to which way we'll have to look for things to understand just what our perceptions reveal and what is the basis for our thoughts as to the nature of the universe?

For example, theory says that Higgs particles are matter particles, but in most respects the Higgs behaves more like a new force than like a particle. How can this be? In truth, the Higgs is neither matter nor force; the Higgs is just different.

So it is never easy for me to follow from one thought to the next.

Imagine, the "molasses" here for a minute. What gives mass it's shape while we cannot discern the very beginning as an asymmetrical valuation? Based on the notion, that there was a simpler time entropically, how do we know what is discretely measured?

Why the discrete measure and it's shape?



New measurements of top quark mass at Fermilab have revised estimates for the mass of the Higgs boson.

Scientists believe that the Higgs boson, named for Scottish physicist Peter Higgs, who first theorized its existence in 1964, is responsible for particle mass, the amount of matter in a particle. According to the theory, a particle acquires mass through its interaction with the Higgs field, which is believed to pervade all of space and has been compared to molasses that sticks to any particle rolling through it. The Higgs field would be carried by Higgs bosons, just as the electromagnetic field is carried by photons.

"In the Standard Model, the Higgs boson mass is correlated with top quark mass," says Madaras, "so an improved measurement of the top quark mass gives more information about the possible value of the Higgs boson mass."

According to the Standard Model, at the beginning of the universe there were six different types of quarks. Top quarks exist only for an instant before decaying into a bottom quark and a W boson, which means those created at the birth of the universe are long gone. However, at Fermilab's Tevatron, the most powerful collider in the world, collisions between billions of protons and antiprotons yield an occasional top quark. Despite their brief appearances, these top quarks can be detected and characterized by the D-Zero and CDF experiments.

So yes there are these experiments that lead us to think about how the universe came into being? All these things that we see in the universe, are they so very different from every other point in space. How is it's particle nature revealed and we have gained much from discerning the quantum dynamically nature of what, "just is."

What just "is?"

Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles.

I mean it's vague to me that such a memory could have been transferred to other things. The Universe has become very large, and entropically complex? Our universe of discrete things, have become complex in discretized values. How would we have ever seen the "purity of thought manifest" if we did not delve ever deeper into the nature of things?

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.