The Periodic Table of the Moon's Strata

Clementine color ratio composite image of Aristarchus Crater on the Moon. This 42 km diameter crater is located on the corner of the Aristarchus plateau, at 24 N, 47 W. Ejecta from the plateau is visible as the blue material at the upper left (northwest), while material excavated from the Oceanus Procellarum area is the reddish color to the lower right (southeast). The colors in this image can be used to ascertain compositional properties of the materials making up the deep strata of these two regions. (Clementine, USGS slide 11)

Clementine gravity experiment used measurements of perturbations in the motion of the spacecraft to infer the lunar gravity field

Like Grace, I choose to build an understanding of the gravity fields.

S-Band Transponder Doppler Gravity Experiment

The gravity experiment used measurements of perturbations in the motion of the spacecraft to infer the lunar gravity field. Clementine was equipped with an S-band microwave transponder and 2 S-band omni-directional high-rate antennas which were used for tracking by the NRL tracking station in Pomonkey, MD, and the NASA Deep Space Network. The frequency of the S-band transmission was measured every 10 sec, and the Doppler shift would give the relative velocity of the spacecraft towards or away from the Earth. Accelerations were calculated from changes in the velocity, and after accounting for the orbit, relative motions of Earth and moon, and Earth and solar gravity, these accelerations are converted to lunar gravity effects on the spacecraft.
The calculated lunar gravity field can be used to model subsurface lunar structure. The Pomonkey station could measure the velocity to an accuracy of 3 mm/sec, while the Deep Space Network stations could achieve about 0.3 mm/sec. Tracking was not possible on most of the lunar far side (120° to 240° long, -45° to 45° lat), when the moon was between the spacecraft and the Earth. In all, over 361,000 observations were made, approximately 57,000 at less than 1000 km altitude.

As our physical interpretation of this lovely pearl(earth) we live on has changed in the conceptual views of "times clocks and such," it became evident in GRACE that the world was quite different then what was first view from space in triumph.

As you might well know, all matter in the universe consists of small particles called atoms and each atom contains electrons that circle around a nucleus. This is how the world is made.
If one places an atom (or a large piece of a matter containing billions and billions of atoms) in a magnetic field, electrons doing their circles inside do not like this very much. They alter their motion in such a way as to oppose this external influence.

Incidentally, this is the most general principle of Nature: whenever one tries to change something settled and quiet, the reaction is always negative (you can easily check out that this principle also applies to the interaction between you and your parents). So, according to this principle, the disturbed electrons create their own magnetic field and as a result the atoms behave as little magnetic needles pointing in the direction opposite to the applied field*.

But of course may I infer "floating ships" over mineral deposits that were conducive to transportation in regards to the superconductors, floating frogs and such? An "attenuator of a kind" for the strength's and weaknesses of such composite gatherings?

But anyway before this "energy is considered in it's matter formed," how did such asymmetrical breaking from the origins not have ocnsidered such constitutions built on the very matters of the moon or such, in it's construction? In the end the gravity field is worth what?

At SLAC and elsewhere in the 1990s, precision measurements probing quantum effects from physics at higher energy scales were very successful. Precision electroweak measurements accurately predicted the mass of the top quark before it was discovered at the Tevatron at Fermilab, and they were cited in the awarding of the 1999 Nobel Prize to Veltmann and t'Hooft, which recognized their work in developing powerful mathematical tools for calculating quantum corrections and demonstrating that the Standard Model was a renormalizable theory. The discovery and mass measurement of the top quark at Fermilab's Tevatron and the precise Z0 boson mass measurement from CERN experiments added to well established values for other Standard Model parameters, to allow predictions for the only Standard Model parameter not yet measured, the Higgs mass.

What is a coupling constant? This is some number that tells us how strong an interaction is. Newton's constant G_N, which appears in both Newton's law of gravity and the Einstein equation, is the coupling constant for gravitational interactions. For electromagnetism, the coupling constant is related to the electric charge through the fine structure constant a


While the idea in my mind is "the extension of all elements demonstrated in some way arising from the standard model, what said that "this element or that" could not have been created from a oscillatory expression of the big bang, and the particles that issue forth, are not without some geometrical expression as "inhernet structures" of that table?



As a "resonantial value" of a point along the length of the string?

Dr. Timmothy Stowe's physicists periodic table



So you see, I had a vision about the future. A time when I will work in space deploying satellites. But what said that future would not ascertain the requirements when our fossil fuels will have to be disregarded? Change the way the planets inhabitants will look forward to the benefits of such conceptual changes?

So this is a fictional posting then, about that future.

CP Violation

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. Bernhard Riemann

ON a macroscale the blackhole is a understanding of when we investigate curvature parameters with regards to the nature of our universe in spacetime. We understand this right?

What are the "entropic valuations" being recognized as we look to a earlier time of when the QGP existed and then such manifestaion in the "matters states" have exemplified such characteristics as?


Both space and spacetime can either be curved or flat.

I am going to give you a quick summation of what GR is. It is about "Gravity." Now if you hold that in mind you should not loose any time with what I am telling you.

Now, how is it that we can see the dynamcial nature of the universe, yet, we would not consider the effect of the presence of microstate blackholes in regards to such gatherings in the space, of what we call "spacetime?" What would "such gatherings" show of itself?


A circle of radius r has a curvature of size 1/r. Therefore, small circles have large curvature and large circles have small curvature. The curvature of a line is 0. In general, an object with zero curvature is "flat."

Think about the "circle" and it's 2D view of what the blackhole is doing in 3D +time in context of many blackholes. I always refer to "one" so you can see the comparative view that I am having little success in transferring to you, in what I am seeing.

The curvature parameters are closely associated to the thermodynamic realizations. This is importnat not only on a cosmological level, but on a microstate as well.

Lubos explains that here.

Lubos:

There are lots of other examples what you can do to increase the number of black holes. Change the couplings so that the stars burn their fuel faster, and they will collapse into black hole faster. Reduce the gap between the Planck scale and the QCD scale, and nuclear collisions will be more likely to end up as black holes.

It is quite obvious that the change of virtually any parameter of the Standard Model (plus inflation) in the right direction (one of the two directions) will result in an increase of the number of black holes. How can you doubt such a trivial thing?

So there is something about the nature of our universe and the balance that it seeks to maintain of itself? Here we are, looking at events within the cosmo and "secular views of it's manfiestation" different then other locations within the universe. Yet not apart from it, or not indifferent to it's nature to be part of a larger picture?



Silicon Vertex Tracker. The SVT is the heart of the BABAR experiment at SLAC—in the photo, physicists are putting the finishing touches on improvements to the detector. (Photo Courtesy of Peter Ginter)

SLAC's BaBar collaboration has discovered that CP violation—an asymmetry between the behavior of matter and antimatter—exists even in a very rare class of particle decays. This result offers the most sensitive avenue yet for exploring matter-antimatter asymmetries, with implications for the future understanding of physics beyond the Standard Model.

"BaBar has proven to be a fantastic instrument for exploring the origins of matter-antimatter asymmetries, allowing us to probe with exquisite precision very rare processes related to how the early universe came to be matter dominated," said David MacFarlane, BaBar Spokesperson and Professor at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.

So here we are having been given the example of CP violation above and here?

How is it that anything could be asymmetrical? :) So you introduce anti-matter and matter?


(ambigram courtesy John Langdon)

If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.

As a observer Einstein made it clear that the observable universe has ideas attached to it. The "Pretty girl and the hot stove analogy" was compelling to those of us who recognized the values we may attach to life. "The Gravity of the situation?" How narrow our view of the world is when we feel the world is lost?

But the hope and inspiration is, that the world has a bright future when we undertsand the implications of our views. Our involvement in the "toposense of reality? We are "part and parcel" of it?

So, should we talk about the components of Heaven and Hell( my philosophical discourse on the nature of consciousness?)? You have to understand the picture and the dynamical nature this universe can say about it's entropic valuation?

While I may have understood Omega, it didn't come to the nature it is by not including a geomtrical perspective about the nature of that same universe.

That's my point. It had to arise from a earlier time and the manifestation is the matter states we are defining in correlation to the entropic valuations.

While you see these as macro-characteristics and the relation to blackhole in 3d+time, the result is, a explanation of matter states in "macrostylistic beauty" we see in the events of the cosmo.

If such inclinations to drive the energy to a ever smaller defined circle, as it gets smaller "the difference is" not so indiscernable that the events of the "particle showers" created are matter states that arise form the energy that was used.

You see?:)

The Ceiling

The deeper implications of such a thought from perspective is focused upward? Yet such perspective can be made from other positions? So some minds were flexible? Others, were just engineers? ;)

Understanding other worlds came naturally to him. Perhaps it was an inevitable consequence of being the child of Japanese Americans. His parents, though born in California, spent World War II behind barbed wire, guarded by people with machine guns: incarcerated by their own country as enemy aliens. Afterwards his father worked as a gardener, his mother a maid: two of the few jobs that were available to Japanese Americans. Kaku grew up poor, but one of the family treats was to visit the Japanese Tea Garden in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. It turned out to be the place of a childhood epiphany. Wondering in the way that only a child does, Kaku looked at the carp swimming in a weedy pond and imagined how they would not be able to conceive of other worlds. "A carp engineer would believe that was all there is; but a carp physicist would see the ripples on the surface and start thinking about unseen dimensions," Kaku told me, laying the first of many lashes on his token engineer.

The "ceiling" is the perspective of the carp, not the perspective of the "carp physicist."

See:

Liminocentric Structures: Which Circle do you Belong Too?-Sunday, July 10, 2005

Ps: Some updates are curvature given for perspective. Think of a string, and any point on that string. What does the energy value of "that point" tell you in regards to the circle? The point on that string. It's just a way of looking at the string and the resonantial value assign along the string's length?

Catching Nature in Action

To capture the particles emerging from powerful proton-proton collisions at the LHC, scientists design and build huge, massive detectors. The CMS detector, about 50 feet tall, relies on an array of particle detection subsystems. The tracker (the subsystem at its core) records particle tracks with ultrahigh precision. The intermediate subsystem, the calorime-ter, determines the energy of the particles escaping the collision. The outermost devices identify muons, heavy electron-like particles that can travel long distances.

Graphic: CMS collaboration

LHCf is a different type of experiment, using the LHC's protons as a source that simulates cosmic rays. It will study how colliding protons cause showers of particles, in particular photons. Analysis of these showers will aid in the interpretation and calibration of large-scale cosmic-ray experiments, which can cover thousands of square kilometers of ground

See:

The wonders of Quark-Gluon Plasma

Quest For Convincing Evidence?

THE BEVALAC IN WHICH IONS OF HEAVY ELEMENTS, CREATED IN THE SUPERHILAC (TOP), WERE SENT DOWN A BEAM PIPE FOR FURTHER ACCELERATION AND EXPERIMENTAL WORK IN THE BEVATRON

WHEN NUCLEI COLLIDE AND THE ENERGY DENSITY OF THE PARTICLES PRODUCED IS SUFFICIENTLY HIGH, THEN A QUARK-GLUON PLASMA COULD BE PRODUCED

Are Strangelets Natural?

Thus RHIC is in a certain sense a string theory testing machine, analyzing the formation and decay of dual black holes, and giving information about the black hole interior.

It is important that you look at the date of this article following, and what has subsequently arisen from "then to now." The title of this post asked a legitimate question and it was answered in response to the disaster scenario's presented to the LHC "recenty?" Check the date on it? Not so recent?

Discovering this raised the conclusiveness about what was comparative to the cosmic ray collisions. This lead us to believe, the microscopic blackhole creation was safe. Becuase it happened all the time in the space above us. Just as we may see the aurora borealis in our observation in the interaction with the sun, so too, in cosmic particle collisions in ways beyond the standard model.

So looking back?

SCIENTISTS ARE OFTEN ACCUSED of trying to play God. But obviously they can't really mimic the feats of the putative Creator of the Universe, and make a universe in the laboratory. Or can they? Before you snort in disbelief, you should know that some serious cosmologists have considered the idea. Indeed, one of them has already had a shot at creating a universe--albeit inside a computer. The idea dates back to the late 1970s, when Andrei Linde, now at Stanford University, and Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology separately came up with the concept of "inflation". According to this idea, an incredibly short, violent burst of expansion occurred around 10-32 seconds after the birth of the Universe. Propelled by concentrated vacuum energy, inflation boosted the size of the Universe from one billionth the width of a proton to the size of a grapefruit. That's what the theorists claim, but showing that inflation really did take place like this is hard... unless, of course, someone can recreate the right conditions in the lab and watch what happens. Linde and his colleagues have already done a dry run on a computer. "Setting up the simulations was hard work, and only on the seventh day did we finish the first series," he reported in Scientific American in 1994, adding in Strangelovian terms: "We looked at the shining screen, and we were happy--we saw that the universe was good!" This isn't enough for Linde: he wants to do it for real. But theory suggests that matter has to be squeezed to densities similar to those in the primordial Universe before such fields appear. No-one has the faintest clue how to create such densities, yet. Linde is sanguine about the dangers involved, if it ever becomes possible. "You can think of our Universe as being like a smooth surface, with one part of it inflating like a balloon. The new universe will be connected to ours by just a tiny passage--what we call a wormhole--the size of a subatomic particle." Quite how we'd know we'd succeeded isn't obvious, but at least there seems little danger of someone tumbling into the new universe by mistake, or anything nasty getting out.

THis one post includes "lots of link"s from the accumulation of my thinkng as a layman. I had gathered these as they unfolded, to help me understand what was introduced to me some time ago by Paul on the question in regards to the "Disaster Scenario at LHC."

Now in regards to "new physics" one needed to see what would come out of such collisions that would be produced, so one had to indeed follow that thinking which I did. How far from the truth of it was what was generated in the public eye distant from what was published by the reputable scientists?

Well you would have to judge for yourself, and "my excuse," well it has been provided for me, so one can say as a layman I am really distant from the current thinking.

So yes before Cosmic Variance and the disaster scenario, it was in our conversations that "Mooreglade of Superstrintheory.com forum" introduced the article of "A Blackhole Ate My Planet" which lead too "Fate of our Planet"

So you see, between then and now, I was able to construct accordingly as I was exposed to the information in regards to "both ways" to which Lubos implies in that statement in comment link?

Okay. Now the stage has been set.

What has been Lubos been saying?

That the connection in "B's question" again sets the stage for further thoughts?

That's just the way of it and who better then student who will make way for further insights, whether it be "Lubos or B?"

In the past my mistake was made to "mirror" Lubos with Peter Woit, because I needed to see what the others may offer in regards to the positions they adopted. Or, another example would have been Smolin and Susskind, who bounced off each other. Or, Gell-mann or Feynman. Or maybe even Plato and Aristotle shhown in the picturte at the top of this Blog?

IN the above case with Peter Woit, I did not learn much? The counter arguments as to why strings were failing in the road to experimental validation(sure we were preoccupied with it's validity then), and how this message was being put out there.

Be sure that more senior people agree with me that it is trivial to falsify that conjecture, including Susskind, Vilenkin, Banks, and others who have looked into it.

So where are we today in regard to strings? Lubo's reference to Banks, Vilenkin, and Susskind already asking these questions is a significant pointer to what has already transpired, and what days, weeks, years, have passed before we see this statement today?

You see how this is done?

Historical Approach of the Sand Reckoner

I should pave the way for how the thoughts that are unfolding this morning.

But nothing afflicted Marcellus so much as the death of Archimedes, who was then, as fate would have it, intent upon working out some problem by a diagram, and having fixed his mind alike and his eyes upon the subject of his speculation, he never noticed the incursion of the Romans, nor that the city was taken. In this transport of study and contemplation, a soldier, unexpectedly coming up to him, commanded him to follow to Marcellus; which he declining to do before he had worked out his problem to a demonstration, the soldier, enraged, drew his sword and ran him through. Others write that a Roman soldier, running upon him with a drawn sword, offered to kill him; and that Archimedes, looking back, earnestly besought him to hold his hand a little while, that he might not leave what he was then at work upon inconclusive and imperfect; but the soldier, nothing moved by his entreaty, instantly killed him. Others again relate that, as Archimedes was carrying to Marcellus mathematical instruments, dials, spheres, and angles, by which the magnitude of the sun might be measured to the sight, some soldiers seeing him, and thinking that he carried gold in a vessel, slew him. Certain it is that his death was very afflicting to Marcellus; and that Marcellus ever after regarded him that killed him as a murderer; and that he sought for his kindred and honored them with signal favors.

First off, as Plato I understand "the secret" of the Building of the Pyramids. Why and what it means as a model of comprehension about the building blocks of nature.

So "carefully think in conclusion" about what this post means as you near it's end. For I had much more to say about it philosophically, but that would be stepping ahead to "now." :)

Anyway

Many physical quantities span vast ranges of magnitude. Figures 0.1 and 0.2 use images to indicate the range of lengths and times that are of importance in physics.

A lot of people do not understand that if you look to the cosmo, you do not just look at what is evident from observation, but that your observation is increased, as you enhance your perceptions about the "real depth" of that universe.

IN "LHC Factoids," presented by JoAnne of Cosmic Variance, some of the tantilizing ideas about the complexity of the information is being discussed. To me, this presents an opportune time to gain perspective from the "bottom up" discussed by Frank Wilczek .

If the sand is melted into a lense or a diamond, what view had been established by Frank that you might say his lense "is" distorted? If you read the article you understand the context, but until then, what use any "mountain/pyramid to climb" if you did not understand the complexity of the information?

Archimedes met an untimely death while deep in thought, pondering a figure he had drawn in the sand. He did not see the Roman soldier approach, sword in hand. The mosaic portrays this historical event

About Dimension

John Baez's link this morning in his comment is important for a lot of different angles... ummm... reasons?:)

So when you are pointed towards the valuation of all these "sand particles," it not that you want to look like an "ostrich and bury your head in the sand," but that you want to retain perspective on the complexity of the "sand castles" that mathematicans like to build? So you tend to look for the technique concerning the point, breadth and width of the evolving statemntement of the projective geoemtries?

A space is a collection of entities called points. Both terms are undefined but their relation is important: space is superordinate while point is subordinate. Our everyday notion of a point is that it is a position or location in a space that contains all the possible locations. Since everything doesn't happen in exactly the same place, we live in what can rightly be called a space, but points need not be point-like. Any kind of object can be a point. Other geometric objects, for instance, are totally acceptable (lines, planes, circles, ellipses, conic sections) as are algebraic entities (functions, variables, parameters, coefficients) or physical measurements (time, speed, temperature, index of refraction). Even so-called "real" things can be points in a space: people are points in the space of a nation's population, nations are points in the global political space, and telephones are points in the space of a telecommunications network.

So of course you always start off with Euclidean perspective, and work from there. So, you have "one" grain of sand? One raindrop? One string? Okay, you get my point yet?

The beginning of the Universe?

I want people to realize where the strings fit in. I can't help but stress that such advances to "the cause" of what perception is necessary had to start off in a "avenue" like all things, this road leads to the universe we have today.



Because it starts off in the analogy of "the string" makes this feature no less important then the "sargeant major" of Robert Laughlin's condense matter theorist view.

See:

What are those Quantum Microstates-Tuesday, October 18, 2005

A Perspective on Powers of Ten?

Science People Working the Trades?

Now how often have we seen the ability of good science people brains tested with actually "construction techniques" in the everyday world? Be it, some calculation on how much concrete is to be supplied in the driveway to drain the water to the drain area in the most appropriate way?

A Sundeck which need some repairs, to have concluded the types of painting to make it last that little longer? You remember who you are.

Well, as a "lay person" I am not a very good science person, yet, neither am I a very good builder with little tolerance for constructing on the large scale.

But I persevered, and challenge myself. Find, that doing it with someone you brought into the world, has been a really enjoyable time. Imagine, a trwenty six year old with out the history building as he has done, leading his poor Father through the time.:)

The Plan

So yes, it is always good idea to have a plan for the model which you choose to construct. Ideas, to manifest in real mattered forms. In the following, I seen these things, and should have drawn the plan, but I like to "wing it" in case I need to adjust.

But hey, that's not very good either. You tend to waste good hard earned money.

You all know that ole adage, "measure twice, cut once?" I know practise makes perfect.

Building the aggregate patio

So anyway I had my own things that needed to be done in accordance with something that we as a family enjoy. While physically we can and do work hard, we find the beauty and peace of sitting under the stars quite tranquil. We like to rest the weary bones in the soothings waters of the Hot Tub.

So ya, the plan included a Hot Tub and a place to put it. A place "over it" with the Gazebo pictured above, to protect it from the wind, snow, sleet and everything else that nature can throw at you. You see we had one before and being in the open we change lids often which were costly in themself. So this new one, was to be protected to reduce the cost over the long run.

Also energy concerns were an issue compared to the ole hot tub, which ran electricity as if somebody turned on a tap. Like water conservation, which I had reiterated in my previous posts about our living in the wilds, thes ethings of course are of a concern. New technologies make these things more capable which is another reason we bought a new one.

Hot Tub Here now the Gazebo?

As you can see as you click on picture and enlarge it, it also meant putting in new shrubs and plants. Also, you'll notice that there are still "white boards there" with which I had to build the Gazebo over top of the Hot Tub. Not good planning again. Thes ewere used to put baorads acrss as I was then able to work above.



The roof is to be a clear Suntuff, that has yet to be put up. This will be taking place over the next couple of days.

SOLAR B and Van Ellen Belts

SCIENCE GOALS OF SOLAR-B

To determine the mechanisms responsible for heating the corona in active regions and the quiet Sun.

There are of course reasons why you want to keep these perspectives together.

While I have been extolling the virtues of Grace satelitte systems and climate it has been noticed that the developing framework of science here is also important and has been recognized in regards to what we don't see, and what happens in the Sun/Earth relation.

Univ. of Iowa
Space physicist James Van Allen, shown here in a University of Iowa photo, was best-known for discovering the radiation belts that now bear his name.

For me, my "philosphical views" take me to the "basis of all life", and the valuation I have see in how we related things, emotively, mentally, and spiritually with the planet and the lifeforms on it.

I couldn't help be amazed at the direction of my research over time, and the value the Van Ellen Belts serve as a model, to the human structure as a schema of what goes on in relation to earth's spherical body interactions.

Shall I dare point out this thought?

Shall I carry it over to the human being, or the computer screen, that is affected by....? Communciations, that are interrrupt by the value of what the Sun casts off in it's corona?

Helioseismology

The science studying wave oscillations in the Sun is called helioseismology. One can view the physical processes involved, in the same way that seismologists learn about the Earth's interior by monitoring waves caused by earthquakes. Temperature, composition, and motions deep in the Sun influence the oscillation periods and yield insights into conditions in the solar interior.

I keep the "image" in the right index for such a reason.

The Coming Season of the Aurora Borealis.



Helioseismology became of interest to me, and the way in which we can percieve this relation. To be able topercieve when the events were to be most illuminating. So yes, I was always enthrall by what I could myself see in space, as I watched going into the fall months as the "aurora borealis danced" in the color displays. To know what was going on in that Sun/Earth relation.

Last night, under the stars, we looked through my "construction technique of the roof" of the Gazebo, as it divided the night sky of stars into eight sections. We relaxed in the hotub, under a beautiful display of the cosmo.

Cosmic Rays in Atlas

Like Piglet describing the Heffalump in Winnie the Pooh by AA Milne, one knows this started out in some fantastical world. More then, the "inkblot" as a comparison leads too/from, a fictional story, and became the fantasy of Alice that had already been mathematically set in motion?

So, theree are "ground rules" on using the inkblot in comparison to any microstate blackhole

The flux of cosmic ray muons through the ATLAS cavern can be utilized as a tool to "shake down" the ATLAS detector prior to data taking in 2007.

Additionally, a thorough understanding of the cosmic ray flux in ATLAS will be of great use in the study of cosmic ray backgrounds to the search for rare new physics processes in ATLAS.

Again people like John Ellis lead us to the understanding of what Pierre Auger initiated in understanding this relation of cosmic particles and the issue coming to the forefront, in regards to the microstate blackhole production from these collisions.

It is only today, that I discover the back ground process that was going on here, while it was bein worked out on Sabines's and Stefan's Backreaction site. I didn't relaize I was a "boucing board" from which the "questions in mind" were being initiated. Repeated comments "there" placed here in the comment sections to advance a position on what I thought.

The momenta of the charged particles are measured from the curvature of their trajectories in a magnetic field provided by superconducting magnets. The volume and strength of magnetic field needed are not achievable with conventional magnets.

We use each other as spring boards(nudges) to seeing a little further each time. That is defintiely appropriate to developing a good comprehension of the subject at hand, and creating insight to further information values gained in that research.



See:

Stefan and Sabines Backreaction site on Backreaction: Micro Black Holes

A wonderful resource link to cosmic particles demonstrations

Also my comment at Backreaction, has some more information in the search for understanding on microstate blackholes as well.

Gravitational Radiation

How dry this article in comparison to what we can witness in the cosmo?

One gets this sense of "curvature implied" that the events connected at locations in the universe could have been felt in other locations? What connects them? The spacetime fabric?:)

If one was speaking and one was seeing beyond the observation of the events shown here, then what is there to say if one cannot accept "the language" while they hold to only what they see? No speculation, no theories, no future?

Only, the now?

With the development of quantum mechanics, it was realized that on this scale the protons must be considered to have wave properties and that there was the possibility of tunneling through the coulomb barrier

So while this information exist here now, how does this help you look at events, or is this information lost?

Virial Theorem

A general theorem from the mathematics of physics becomes a useful part of the picture of gravitational collapse. In the context of gravity it can be applied to a finite collection of particles which interact with each other by gravitational attraction. We can attribute to the collection of particles a total gravitational potential energy and a total kinetic energy. The virial theorem states that

Average kinetic energy = -1/2 x Average potential energy
One application of this theorem would be to a known mass of hydrogen gas in a proto-star. If you had a good estimate of the mass of the gas and could measure a sample of particle velocities to determine the kinetic energy, then you could predict the kinetic energy as the gas cloud underwent gravitational collapse. So for a given radius of collapse, you could make a prediction of the temperature of the hydrogen gas in terms of the kinetic energy and could make a prediction about when it would reach the ignition temperature for hydrogen fusion.

Another potential application is to the question of dark matter. If you examine a system of objects out in space and are able to measure the kinetic energy of the system, then you can imply the gravitational potential energy. If the total mass of all the visible objects is too small to give that amount of gravitational potential energy, then the implication is that there is matter there which you cannot see (dark matter). When this has been done for a variety of types of galaxies, there is strong evidence for dark matter (Baez).

Still the connection "is" in the "spacetime fabric" and all events have to be detailed according to some "relation of value in the energy distributed of itself," as we gaze upon the beautiful events within that cosmo?

Gravity-Don't Let it Get You Down

If a inkblot appears on your desk, would you think it appeared in the shape it did to convince you, that what you are "seeing is real?" To you, it may look like someone trying in their attempts to convince you of what a blackhole is?

These questions greatly disturbed Richard Feynman. His famous paper on quantizing general relativity, in which he first described his discovery of the "ghost particles" that eventually played a crucial role in understanding modern gauge field theories, begins with a discussion of the smallness of gravitational effects on subatomic scales, after which he concludes,

There's a certain irrationality to any work on [quantum] gravitation, so it's hard to explain why you do any of it. . . . It is therefore clear that the problem we [are] working on is not the correct problem; the correct problem is: What determines the size of gravitation?

So the fantasy of implying such things as "ghosts" go to the points of what Feynman wants to say? He then shows you this inkblot. Psychologically are you prepared?

Piglet describes the Heffalump,. in Winnie the Pooh by AA Milne.

Why do physicists want to study particles?

A few "cosmic rays" pass through our body every second of every day, regardless of where we are.

They consist of particles created when high energy atomic nuclei (mainly protons) coming from outer space collide with the atoms at the top of the earth's atmosphere. Such particles are not just electrons, protons and neutrons, but also other kinds of particle.

Near the ground, the cosmic rays include muons, similar to the electrons but more than 200 times heavier. Unlike electrons, which live forever, a muon will live about 2.2 microseconds, and then convert into an electron and two neutrinos (electron-neutrino and muon-neutrino; these are like a very light neutral version of the electron and of the muon).

The muons themselves emerge mainly from the decays of other short-lived particles. Some of these particles, called pions, are made from up and down quarks. However, others (kaons) contain a third type of quark, called the strange quark.

Cosmic matter is then made up of more components than the atoms. In addition to the electron, electron-neutrino, up quark and down quark, we have the muon, the muon-neutrino and the strange quark.

Do Blackholes Radiate

The possibility that non-radiating "mini" black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe. Attempts to place observational limits on the number of "mini" black holes (independent of the assumption that they radiate) would be most welcome.

A Distorted Lense?

Gravity dominates the large-scale structure of the universe, but only by default, so to speak. Matter arranges itself to cancel electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces are intrinsically short range. At a more fundamental level, gravity is extravagantly feeble. Acting between protons, gravitational attraction is about 10^-36 times weaker than electrical repulsion. Where does this outlandish disparity come from? What does it mean?

These questions greatly disturbed Richard Feynman. His famous paper on quantizing general relativity,1 in which he first described his discovery of the "ghost particles" that eventually played a crucial role in understanding modern gauge field theories, begins with a discussion of the smallness of gravitational effects on subatomic scales, after which he concludes,

There's a certain irrationality to any work on [quantum] gravitation, so it's hard to explain why you do any of it. . . . It is therefore clear that the problem we [are] working on is not the correct problem; the correct problem is: What determines the size of gravitation?

Hydrogen, and the Law of Octaves

Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One article by Mark of Cosmic Variance drew my interest again after reading with a new perspective gained from understandng some implications about the "anthropic principle."

Sometimes I even still hold to the idea it is better not to touch this topic because of the greeness with which insight has now taken over. This greeness resides against the reason with which such logic is necessary in regards ot the debate between Susskind and Smolin.

I do not want to be blinded by the razzle dazzle either of men leading this debate, so as to the layman's pursuite of understanding, I hope to show what I am seeing?

While I have not read the book either I am still "drawn to the debate" about what the "anthropic reasoning" is talking about at a fundamental level? Scared yes, and on wobbly legs so I continue.

So as a layman I am curious too ,about views here and what the basis could lead too, in terms of what our universe had become?

If "carbon" wasn't present at the beginning, then how would you explain our universe?

Because the triple-alpha process is unlikely, it requires a long period of time to produce carbon. One consequence of this is that no carbon was produced in the Big Bang because within minutes after the Big Bang, the temperature fell below that necessary for nuclear fusion.

Ordinarily, the probability of the triple alpha process would be extremely small. However, the beryllium-8 ground state has almost exactly the energy of two alpha particles. In the second step, 8Be + 4He has almost exactly the energy of an excited state of 12C. These resonances greatly increase the probability that an incoming alpha particle will combine with beryllium-8 to form carbon. The existence of this resonance was predicted by Fred Hoyle before its actual observation based on its necessity for carbon to be formed.

I too hate the idea of the "law of crackpostism," yet research back to mendeleev table in regards to Newland, raised interesting ideas about the future of testbility?

A "harmonical disseration" about the ways we will in the fuure be able to map the elements in "photonic imagery" devised to work within carbon processes?

What were the ground rules for this universe?

He is best known for discovering the element plutonium, with Edwin McMillan. He led the team that devised the chemical process for extraction of plutonium.

Seaborg served as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission from 1961 until 1971.

He and McMillan shared the 1951 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for research into transuranic elements.

Having a framework here in which to establish the elemental nature of our universe, how is it that such principals inherent in "string theory" should not direct our attention to what is a viable indicator of what will fill the spaces between, as Mendeleev was able to do in prediction?

While one has been introduce to the "allotopes of Coxeter," it is not without some thought that "planck length," along with the understanding of what "geometrical inhernetness?" qunatum geometry, would also spew forth from the very basis of the beginning of that big bang?

So while I have shown the allotrope here, and dimensional perspective developed, what degrees of freedom say that the space would allow all constants of nature to be described here, and allowed such geometrical principals to form in the bucky ball of carbon, carbon nanotubes?

It was not wihtout directing our attention to the immediacy of that big bang in the microsecond of "planck time" that we are at a loss then?

The last major changes to the periodic table was done in the middle of the 20th Century. Glenn Seaborg is given the credit for it. Starting with his discovery of plutonium in 1940, he discovered all the transuranic elements from 94 to 102. He reconfigured the periodic table by placing the actinide series below the lanthanide series. In 1951, Seaborg was awarded the Noble prize in chemistry for his work. Element 106 has been named seaborgium (Sg) in his honor.

See:

CNO and the Law of Octaves

Allotropes and the Ray of Creation

What is Natural?

Fig. 2. Image showing how an 8 TeV black hole might look in the ATLAS detector (with the caveat that there are still uncertainties in the theoretical calculations).

The question I would pose to those who do not have the dynamical nature of the universe in mind, are you happy with what you are seeing? Is it enough that your measure will be in the value of Steven Weinberg's first three minutes?

Becuase I have taken you down to the microseconds, we can now see of this uiverse, do you think it so unlikely that the very methods for blackhole dyamics would not have include thermodynamic realizations held in context of the issue brought forward by the introduction by Paul of the Conformal Field theory and the issues relate to Penrose?

Of course I jump ahead, based on the current knowledge base I have been able to put together by reading, sharing ideas and learning. So "you see," and "I see" what?

Gamma ray detection is just the beginning of the lesson behind deeper perceptions of our universe and it is in this way that you are taken to view the universe on a much more dynamical level.

But wait, I don't talk lightly of Planck scale and the measure of the square box.

Nature (also called the material world, the material universe, the natural world, and the natural universe) is all matter and energy, especially in its essential form. Nature is the subject of scientific study. In scale, "nature" includes everything from the universal to the subatomic. This includes all things animal, plant, and mineral; all natural resources and events (hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes)....en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

On to the Validity of the LHC

I encounter a concept the other day that took me back some. If we intercede and experiment to find the fundamental working associated with "dynamcial thinking" then how could one actually do this, while holding a "cosmological view" to all that we are exposed too in the space, around earth, and beyond?

So of course, while we are being treated to the vast views given to us by Hubble and all the satellites, how much more could we have been satisfied to say, "look at what we have accomplished?"

That is enough for the cosmologist is it not?

In physics, natural units are physical units of measurement defined in terms of universal physical constants in such a manner that some chosen physical constants take on the numerical value of one when expressed in terms of a particular set of natural units. Natural units are intended to elegantly simplify particular algebraic expressions appearing in physical law or to normalize some chosen physical quantities that are properties of universal elementary particles and that may be reasonably believed to be constant. However, what may be believed and forced to be constant in one system of natural units can very well be allowed or even assumed to vary in another natural unit system. Natural units are natural because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are often, without qualification, called "natural units" but are only one system of natural units among other systems. Planck units might be considered unique in that the set of units are not based on properties of any prototype, object, or particle but are based only on properties of free space.

So as strange as it may seem "this concept" held in mind argues the validity of the LHC as a process that is "natural" as it is used to delve into the energies that allow us to see this "cascade of nature as particle manifestations. In this way, we have to support our views on what?

So, we develope instruments to help us look to the very beginnings of creation? We talk about blackholes and we ask, "are these real?"

Microstate Blackholes

What gave us the ability to entertain such concepts that we again ask ourselves, "are these real?" All we had known is that Blackholes exist in nature? So the point I am making is that if you follow the natural costants, what use the microstate in, or as a valuation of what is real in cosmological association?

If, as some suspect, the Universe contains invisible, extra dimensions, then cosmic rays that hit the atmosphere will produce tiny black holes. These black holes should be numerous enough for the observatory to detect, say Jonathan Feng and Alfred Shapere of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Fortunately while we were being occupied by the news of LHC and all the workers found busy there constructing, there were others who were very busy too. They were helping us see in ways that we were not accustom as well, in regards too, the cosmic particle collisions. Now what use this information if we had thought this avenue not fruitful and necessary?

Nevertheless, astroparticle and collider experiments should provide useful input to the theoretical work in this area. Indeed, the signatures are expected to be spectacular, with very high multiplicity events and a large fraction of the beam energy converted into transverse energy, mostly in the form of quarks/gluons (jets) and leptons, with a production rate at the LHC rising as high as 1 Hz. An example of what a typical black-hole event would look like in the ATLAS detector is shown in figure 2.

If mini black holes can be produced in high-energy particle interactions, they may first be observed in high-energy cosmic-ray neutrino interactions in the atmosphere. Jonathan Feng of the University of California at Irvine and MIT, and Alfred Shapere of the University of Kentucky have calculated that the Auger cosmic-ray observatory, which will combine a 6000 km2 extended air-shower array backed up by fluorescence detectors trained on the sky, could record tens to hundreds of showers from black holes before the LHC turns on in 2007.

Lest the knowledge doesn't serve us then what will be the quest of LHC? What new route to be taken? And it is in this design of measure that we will see something more direct to the basis of what these energy valuations serve?

CLIC is based on a novel technology in which an intense low-energy electron beam is used to generate an electromagnetic wave that is used to push a lower-intensity beam to much higher energies in a relatively small distance. It seems to be the only realistic chance of colliding electrons and positrons at multi-TeV energies so, if it works, it will allay (at least for a while) some of David Gross's concerns about the prospects for future big physics projects-John Ellis

CNO and the Law of Octaves

"String theory—the hot topic in physics for the past 20 years—is a dead-end, says Smolin, one of the founders of Canada's Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics and himself a lapsed string theorist. In fact, he (and others) argue convincingly, string theory isn't even a fully formed theory—it's just a "conjecture."Publisher's Weekly

As we keep going here let's remeber to keep our eyes open, eh?:)

Okay just so you know Harmonics "do" color my world.

The CNO (carbon-nitrogen-oxygen) cycle is one of two fusion reactions by which stars convert hydrogen to helium, the other being the proton-proton chain. While the proton-proton chain is more important in stars the mass of the sun or less, theoretical models show that the CNO cycle is the dominant source of energy in heavier stars. The CNO process was proposed in 1938 by Hans Bethe.

Whilst I struggle, it is with the recent post it has become clear that the roles of choice in the expression of our universe has met up with the logic of "Anthropic reasoning?"


NATHAN MYHRVOLD

I found the email debate between Smolin and Susskind to be quite interesting. Unfortunately, it mixes several issues. The Anthropic Principle (AP) gets mixed up with their other agendas. Smolin advocates his CNS, and less explicitly loop quantum gravity. Susskind is an advocate of eternal inflation and string theory. These biases are completely natural, but in the process the purported question of the value of the AP gets somewhat lost in the shuffle. I would have liked more discussion of the AP directly

Up to this point this distance was kept because I really did not understand the full scope of what is being implied here, from either of Susskind or Smolin. I do not want to cloud the issue, but by association with either point of view, it seems I am destined to be called archetyphically, one or the other?

The triple alpha process is highly dependent on carbon-12 having a resonance with the same energy as helium-4 and beryllium-8 and before 1952 no such energy level was known. It was astrophysicist Fred Hoyle who used the fact that carbon-12 is so abundant in the universe (and that our existence depends upon it - the Anthropic Principle), as evidence for the existence of the carbon-12 resonance. Fred suggested the idea to nuclear physicist Willy Fowler, who conceded that it was possible that this energy level had been missed in previous work on carbon-12. After a brief undertaking by his research group, they discovered a resonance near to 7.65 Mev.

I had always remained at a distance with this topic only to find that I had been expressing parts of it in one way or another by assuming model implications by association. Either with Susskind or Smolin with the debate ongoing.

Well as Plato ,I am a little different in my assumption based on a model that sees developmental attitiude towards music in ways that we had never considered before? Sound? Or, had thought arose in minds from other sources, whose philsophical based was always hidden in the mysterium of some secret given to mankind on it's journey to remembering who we are.

So I left stories of the deluge of mankind and the secrets to be maintained in model symbologies, that would remain with us for many a day, without ever lossing it's structure.

Okay. I've gotten a litlle extreme with PLato's name use, but in developing a heirarcheal thinking of that "ray of creation," I was always more impressed with how one may see the "elemental discernation of reality" in such photonic expressions and spectrum analysis, that matter based defintions were somehow holding the mind to matter based thinking. I did not want to be constricted by this. By emotions either. By mental impediments to clear mind and thinking.

So by association I have been cast to the archetypal forms and shapes of thinking minds, either on one side or the other? By speaking my mind on the nature of music, that I would quickly be dispelled to crackpottery, by oneside or the other?

“Superstring theory forms a vast and impressive mathematical framework and makes enormous claims. But where is the experimental evidence? What if your intuition tells you that this elaborate construction, shrouded by the sweet vagueness of quantum mechanics, cannot represent the complete truth? Lee Smolin is keeping his eyes open, asks sharp questions, and offers his delightful insights as a critical insider.” Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate, University of Utrecht

Casting Stones

Hey! If you can apply it to each other, then why not I, or any other, to all of the society of scientists like Peter Woit or a Sean Carroll who belong, that they could on the substance of who drives/speak about the "philosophy of life?" Speak about each other or others that would speak in regards to the concepts(pulled all the way back from "a theory")justifing the new views.

Baby Universes



Looking at Smolin's "baby universes" it became evident then that my views on blackholes would indeed serve as the repository of "events," that it would follow in my line of reasoning, to present "new physics." Whilst I did not know, supporting the road taken by Smolin.

INdeed, I have always had a soft spot for his views, because of the clarity of the reasoning behind Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.

So, where am I now in my thinking, that I should be held accountable to Susskind's views, and find that such views speak towards the photonic expressions I have about spiritual life? The roads that go beyond the basis of "Carbon based reasoning" as the predominant value of this universe? Maybe it is a "cycle in time" of this universe that the "laws in the octave of creation" wait for new energy to be put into, "raising" the octave our thinking?

So by where, and how, such injections in the realization, that the balance of these two thinking minds shall we be elevated to a "real value" in society? One that moves towards a spiritual development, whilst breaking the shackles of a "carbon based society?"

Whose Societal value is now aninflationary rate which has been set by the "blackgold" of human kind's dependancies.

MIT researchers have discovered that certain molecules can attach themselves to metallic carbon nanotubes without interfering with the nanotubes' exceptional ability to conduct electricity. At left, the high conductance state has two molecular orbitals, shown in green. Some molecules even let the nanotube switch between highly conductive, left, and poorly conductive (right, with one red molecular orbital), creating the potential for new applications. (Image courtesy of Marzari Lab)

Shall it be freedom in computerization first, or just another means to hold society to the machinations of our dependancies, and the forever "sleeping state" we like to lay back down in, afer such "revelations" have become use too?

So the process of discovery is precendent/predictive on the developing what we need in terms of the "information age" that we will all awaken to the truth about what?

See:

BigFoot: The Anomalistic Reality?

Allotropes and the Ray of Creation

Just thinking here about "life" in general and dreaming.

As well, this takes us back to the article from Backreaction. This post was generated in response to Q's comment and my subsequent statements that I supplied in turn.

Take "full note of Fermion" discription here, as well as, theoretical understanding implied.



Just to note now that the widget on right called Dialogue of Ideas(Dialogos of Eide)supplies the ability to "rightclick" on name and then copy/paste to box ability. This enhances location and response, that you may have further to any topic.

In this regard, Paul's thoughts on the "Reimann Hypothesis" enters here and the undertsanding that this gave to computerized processes the ability to see ULam as the developemental attitude/geometry of the Carbon, which takes on new allotropic forms.



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.

Ray of Creation

Concept image of a future integrated terabit silicon optical transmitter containing 25 hybrid silicon lasers, each emitting at a different wavelength, coupled into 25 silicon modulators, all multiplexed together into one output fiber.

It is the "archetectual building" that goes on that we may discern the inherent nature of our pursuites? "Ray of creation," is explicit here, in terms of how such building will go on with photonic formation technologies. While imnde th weight of ole structure the sarches hold up an extreme beauty of the churches design? Gravity weight's down with it's burden?:)

Courtesy Edgar Fahs Smith Memorial Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of Pennsylvania Library

Mendeleev's world come true, as we think about the "Rainbow of possibilites" in our spectrum, as well as develope the "basis of perception" that grew from "thematic realizations" from our brightest minds?? Carbon based societies, or further geometrics that remain elusive to us??

So what about the geometrics of all this processing? Our pursuites to Gluonic perceptions where such high energy photons will deliver us informative stylizations to the early events in the cosmo? Angle of perpeptions exist, and what does it say about the photon?

Carbon forms the backbone of biology for all life on Earth. Complex molecules are made up of carbon bonded with other elements, especially oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. It is these elements that living organisms need, among others, and carbon is able to bond with all of these because of its four valence electrons. Since no life has been observed that is not carbon-based, it is sometimes assumed in astrobiology that life elsewhere in the universe will also be carbon-based. This assumption is referred to by critics as carbon chauvinism, as it may be possible for life to form that is not based on carbon, even though it has never been observed.

"Carbon" at the very beginning of the birthing process? Maybe, just in this universe of ours?:)While, moving to the "photonic base" we delve into the spiritual implications of the "observer's choice" of materiality as a "mass enhancement" of our reasoning?

Carbon was not created during the Big Bang due to the fact that it needs a triple collision of alpha particles (helium nuclei) to be produced. The universe initially expanded and cooled too fast for that to be possible. It is produced, however, in the interior of stars in the horizontal branch, where stars transform a helium core into carbon by means of the triple-alpha process. It was also created in a multi-atomic state

So some will not like the "tunes we play," "the concepts" or the "model enhancements" that are less then "the Theory" that Hooft tells us about in his comments in Lee Smolin's book.

So, we are left with the artistically inclined and those whose "thematic" realizations require them to explain to us this anomalistical nature that apparently is waiting out there for us. It is that we just have to discover/remember it?

But until then, we are supposed to be doing science? Ahem! Apparently, we had be doing naught?:)

I then dream.....:)

A Philosophical Juggernaut

GRACE is the first ESSP mission. It will obtain the most precise measurements of Earth’s gravitational field that have ever been obtained. Improved resolution of the gravity field will lead to important advances in a number of disciplines that study the Earth's climate.

When you realize what "timeclocks" can do, you then realize the world view is a changing.

It's far cry from the days of Einstein's hotstove analogy, but the sense is, that the observer can definitely be affected by the "weight of his outlook."

Your weight is not the same everywhere. Because Earth is not a perfect sphere, the pull of gravity is stronger in some places than in others. It's also in a constant state of change, moving with Earth's mantle, falling sea levels, and even tropical storms. The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment mission, better known as GRACE, was launched in 2002 by NASA and the German Aerospace Center to measure exactly how what goes up must come down.

See:

A Sphere that is Not so Round

What's on the Condense Matter Theorist's Mind?

The Theory of Everything


Prof. Robert B. Laughlin

The crystalline state is the simplest known example of a quantum , a stable state of matter whose generic low-energy properties are determined by a higher organizing principle and nothing else. Robert Laughlin

Thre are certain perspective that are different then what reductionism has done to serves it's purpose? Now such ideas lanquish because they seem unfitting. So you gain perspective by those who think about things differently and see what parameters rule the logic of their ideas.

In his book The End of Science John Horgan argues that our civilization is now facing barriers to the acquisition of knowledge so fundamental that the Golden Age of Science must must be thought of as over [38]. It is an instructive and humbling experience to attempt explaining this idea to a child. The outcome is always the same. The child eventually stops listening, smiles politely, and then runs off to explore the countless infinities of new things in his or her world. Horgan's book might more properly have been called the End of Reductionism, for it is actually a call to those of us concerned with the health of physical science to face the truth that in most respects the reductionist ideal has reached its limits as a guiding principle. Rather than a Theory of Everything we appear to face a hierarchy of Theories of Things, each emerging from its parent and evolving into its children as the energy scale is lowered. The end of reductionism is, however, not the end of science, or even the end of theoretical physics. How do proteins work their wonders? Why do magnetic insulators superconduct? Why is 3He a superfluid? Why is the electron mass in some metals stupendously large? Why do turbulent fluids display patterns? Why does black hole formation so resemble a quantum phase transition? Why do galaxies emit such enormous jets? The list is endless, and it does not include the most important questions of all, namely those raised by discoveries yet to come. The central task of theoretical physics in our time is no longer to write down the ultimate equations but rather but to catalogue and understand emergent behavior in its many guises, including potentially life itself. We call this physics of the next century the study of complex adaptive matter. For better or worse we are now witnessing a transition from the science of the past, so intimately linked to reductionism, to the study of complex adaptive matter, firmly based in experiment, with its hope for providing a jumping-off point for new discoveries, new concepts, and new wisdom.

So for me as I look at the state of the world I am asking what patterns were pre-esstablished that would govern the higg's mechanison and looking for such a "organizational attribute" would have settled the question as to why people gathered around the professor as Einstein crossed the room.

From a reductionsitic standpoint what was the "energy" doing as we used these colliders as mechanisims towards matter/mass comstituents discovery. Did this disavow our views on what was emergent from a point in spacetime?

So of course I will draw people's attention to what I think has to come into "expression" and how this is done. What is the "basis" of that expression and how we will see it explode into the sociological valuation that constitutes our society of exchanges.

I referred to John Nash here many times. What is it, he discovered at the heart of "negotiated processes?" What is the schematics of that expression that he identified in human behavior, as showing such schemas? Birds, that had some "higher organization pattern" that governed flock movement?

So are strings a emergent phenomena? You had to know their place in the scheme of things. Do your recognized the method as to the nergy valuation given? How such branching is effected, based on some "Feynman toy model discription" that revealed what about the early universe?

Edward Witten:

One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist's suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics

What about pushing "perspective back" to the microseconds? At what point does the Universe make itself known? Had you already forgotten about the "first three microseconds?"

Coxeter and Plato's Cave

IN Beyond the Dance of the Sun I give an image of Plato's Cave for consideration, about dimensinal perspectve.

This is not only held in my mind in terms of what free people are chained in their perspectives, but I also feel, that the leading characteristics were kindly put forward not only by my own position, but by those who I have listed throughout this blog.

Bolya, Heisenberg and Hooft?

There are "no wares" here to market(no advertising) other then what perception has granted me by "learning" and assuming the inherent nature of the leading perspectves in geometries and their relation to the real world.

Visitors' shadows manipulate and reshape projected images of "Buckyballs." "Buckyball," or a buckminsterfullerene molecule, is a closed cage-structure molecule with a carbon network. "Buckyball" was named for R. Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller (1895-1983), a scientist, philosopher and inventor, best known for creating the geodesic dome.

Imagine then, that such nanotechnology sites have taken us down to microperspectives and there are such things in the "geometry of being" that would dictate the technolgies that we use?

Was it so distant from the real world that such "projective geometries" exposed the correlation of knowledge from a man like Coxeter, that you would say "I would rather demomnstrate the technological aspect because this is real?"

You know you had to be more suttle then this. You knew you had to think of the sun's ray and "think" beyond in the Sun/Earth Relation in a lagrangian perspective. But you refuse?

It is better then, that the cynics remain chained. And allow themselves to spread their venom about the callousness of "good people who had ventured forth" and asked about dimensional perspective. Who is it, that remains in the box?

Focus then, on the science and what has been accomplished. You need no further explanation. No "back reaction" to what constituted this science.

HOUSTON, Texas, Oct. 31 -- Nobel laureate Richard Smalley, co-discoverer of the buckyball and widely considered to be one of the fathers of nanotechnology, died Friday at the age of 62 after a long battle with cancer.
Rice University professor Smalley shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry with fellow Rice chemist Robert Curl and British chemist Sir Harold Kroto for the 1985 discovery of a new form of carbon nicknamed buckyballs. Shaped like soccerballs and no wider than a strand of DNA, buckyballs each contain 60 carbon atoms arranged in a hollow sphere resembling two conjoined geodesic domes. Smalley coined the name "buckminsterfullerene" for the discovery in honor of architect and geodesic dome inventor Buckminster Fuller.

Fullerenes -- the family of compounds that includes buckyballs and carbon nanotubes -- remained the central focus of Smalley's research until his death. According to colleagues, Smalley's belief that nanotubes were a wonder material that could solve some of humanity's problems -- such as clean energy, clean water and economical space travel -- led him to crusade for more public support for science and to help found a business, Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc., in 2000 to make sure his discoveries made it to the marketplace where they could benefit society. Smalley was convinced that nanotubes could only be used to solve society's problems if they were manufactured in bulk and processed economically.

The socialogical foundation of thinking about our world here then is a far cry from the very foundationof the geometries and how human being may envision. How they may descend into mind. Thre posisbilties are endless,a nd I would just point to the images of flowers and the kalidescope they cause, as they reveal strange nodes and anti-nodes brought forth in mandalic pattern interpretations.

What symmetry is this, that we can create such patterns and see how beautiful they are? Some like Clifford like th easymmetry of certain flowers?

Again such liminocentric structure are a inhernet part of our consciousness developement and following this process, into reality is a very important step. Some will only like the pictures and some will venture deeper. That's always be the way of it.

How would I know this?:)