The Elastic Nature?

As I have explained in a earlier link I am fascinated by the images of bubbles that were demonstrated through a way of thinking of the early universe to arise as Bubble Nucleation.

These images all show the 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-fold eversions in the upper left, lower left, upper right, and lower right cornerse, respectively. First we see an early stage, with p fingers growing in the p-fold everion. Next we see an intermediate stage when the fingers have mostly overlapped. Finally we see the four halfway models. For p odd, these are doubly covered projective planes.

If we had understood the early universe to have this continous nature and not have any tearing in it, how would such rotations have moved according to some method, that we might have considered the klein bottle or some other concept, that would lend itself to explain some of the ways and means, such dynamics could have unfold, enfolded and everted in the actions of that same cosmo?

It would be very difficult to speak to probability statistics, if you did not envelope the possibilites in some kind of configuration, or compared it to a Dalton Board. The Bell curve, or the pascal's triangle to consider how something could arise in certain situations? Might we have called the basis for a "new math" to emerge? If we had come to accept the departue point for Euclid's fifth postulate then what has we encouter inthe dynamcial world of Gauss? Einstein includethese calculation in the evolving feature of GR, so how could we not see this developing of a geometry that would lead to smooth and topological considerations?

The statistical sense of Maxwell distribution can be demonstrated with the aid of Galton board which consists of the wood board with many nails as shown in animation. Above the board the funnel is situated in which the particles of the sand or corns can be poured. If we drop one particle into this funnel, then it will fall colliding many nails and will deviate from the center of the board by chaotic way. If we pour the particles continuously, then the most of them will agglomerate in the center of the board and some amount will appear apart the center.

UNderstanding then that such cosmological event could be unfolding in the universe, visually to me, these configurations had to follow some pattern of consideration, or it just didn't make sense that such abstract math in topologies could ever work. So in looking at a previous comparison here the dynamical nature of the orbital seemed a valid comparison not only on a cosmological scale, but on a very small one as well?

A Holographical way of thinking?

Quantum Microstates: Gas Molecules in the Presence of a Gravitational Field

Andy Strominger:

This was a field theory that lived on a circle, which means it has one spatial dimension and one time dimension. We derived the fact that the quantum states of the black hole could be represented as the quantum states of this one-plus-one dimensional quantum field theory, and then we counted the states of this theory and found they exactly agreed with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.

I do not know of many who could not have concluded that microstates would have been something of an issue, as one recognizes this focus towards cosmological considerations. One aspect of Einstein’s general relativity, helped us recognize the value of gravitation that is extremely strong in situations where energy values are climbing. We had to look for these conditions and work them out?



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

The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited. All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn't the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did.

If we did not have some way in which to move our considerations to the energy states that existed in the beginning of this universe what other measures would you use? How would you explain a cyclical model that Neil Turok and Steinhardt talked about and created for us?

Is this a predictive feature of our universe that had to have some probablity of expression and mathematically, if one wanted some framework, why not throw all things to the wind and say, Pascal's triangle will do?:)

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

One had to have some beginning with which to understand what could have emerged from such energy configurations. If such energies are concentrated and found to bring us to the supersymmetrical values assigned on that brane, then how would cooling functions of the CMB have figured a direct result would be expressive of those same events? Was there no way to measure chaoticness. Maybe it was all Fool’s Gold?:)

Inverse Fourth Power Law

By moving our perceptions to fifth dimenisonal views of Kaluza and KLein, I looked at methods that would help me explain that strange mathematical world that I had been lead too geometrically. If such a bulk existed, then how would we percieve scalable features of the energy distributed within the cosmo?

The angular movements needed to signal the presence of additional dimensions are incredibly small — just a millionth of a degree. In February, Adelberger and Heckel reported that they could find no evidence for extra dimensions over length scales down to 0.2 millimetres (ref. 11). But the quest goes on. The researchers are now designing an improved instrument to probe the existence of extra dimensions below 0.1 mm. Other physicists, such as John Price of the University of Colorado and Aharon Kapitulnik of Stanford University in California, are attempting to measure the gravitational influence on small test masses of tiny oscillating levers.

In previous posts I have outline the emergence and understanding of hyperdimensional realities that we were lead too. Our early forbearers(scientifically and artistic embued with vision) as they moved through the geometrical tendencies, that if followed , made me wonder about that this strange mathematical world. How would we describe it, and how would it make sense?

Our new picture is that the 3-D world is embedded in extra dimensions," says Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University. "This gives us a totally new perspective for addressing theoretical and experimental problems.

Quantitative studies of future experiments to be carried out by LHC show that any signatures of missing energy can be used to probe the nature of gravity at small distances. The predicted effects could be accessible to the Tevatron Collider at Fermilab, but the higher energy LHC has the better chance.
These colliders are still under construction, but results also have consequences for "table-top" experiments, being carried out here at Stanford, as well as the University of Washington and the University of Colorado. Here’s the basic idea: imagine there are two extra dimensions on a scale of a millimeter. Next, take two massive particles separated by a meter, at which distance they obviously behave according to the well-known rules of 3-D space. But if you bring them very close, say closer than one millimeter, they become sensitive to the amount of extra space around. At close encounter the particles can exchange gravitons via the two extra dimensions, which changes the force law at very short distances. Instead of the Newtonian inverse square law you’ll have an inverse fourth power law. This signature is being looked for in the ongoing experiments.

As you look at the issue of two points(introduction to hyperdimensional realites of quark confinement as a example), it is well understood, by this point that such emergence had to be geometriclaly consistent on many levels. That such royal roads leading too, culminate in some realistic measure? In that mathematical realm, we had left off, and in recognition of the fifth postulate of euclid. By acceptance and creation of this extra dimension, it was well apparent, that such tendencies were developing along side with the physics as well.

But we had to determine where this mathematical realm had taken us, in terms of measure? We are quckly reminded of the place in which such measures become the constant rallying point around important questions of these views.



Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.

It wasn't a game anymore, that we did not suspect that reductionism might have taken us as far as the energy we could produce could take us? So we had to realize there was limitations to what we could percieve at such microscopic levels.

High energy particles have extremely small wavelengths and can probe subatomic distances: high energy particle accelerators serve as supermicroscopes:

To see What?

The structure of matter

(atoms/nuclei/nucleons/quarks)

Faced by these limitations and newly founded conceptual views based on the quantum mechanical discription of spacetime as strings, how would we be able to look at the cosmos with such expectancy? To know, that the views energetically described, would allow further developement of the theoretcial positons now faced with in those same reductionistic views?

What has happened as a result of considering the GR perspective of blackholes, that we had now assigned it relevance of views in cosmological considerations? Such joining of quantum mechanical views and GR, lead us to consider the sigificance of these same events on a cosmological scale. This view, had to be consistent, geometrically lead too?

If we discover the Planck scale near the TeV scale, this will represent the most profound discovery in physics in a century, and black hole production will be the most spectacular evidence of that new discovery

=> A Symmetry Breaking Phase Transition

If we understand what that point suggests, we understand well what the planck length has told us to consider, that even for the briefest of moment, the gamma ray burst would have revealled the CMB in its glory, and slowly we see how such consolidations would have materialize in the current temperatures values of that CMB today?

Below is a quote from Green that help me to recognize the energy values assigned in the KK Tower, to have understood the Radius of this circle, has to reveal symmetrical phases in the developement of that same cosmo. I needed a way in which to see how it was possible geommetrically to absorb the variations in the symmetries of events, in that same cosmo such points could have existed at any time? We needed to look for these locations. These blackholes?

How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, pages 248-249





G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1)

Here, each arrow represents a symmetry breaking phase transition where matter changes form and the groups - G, H, SU(3), etc. - represent the different types of matter, specifically the symmetries that the matter exhibits and they are associated with the different fundamental forces of nature

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

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

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

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

As you can see Brain Greene's quote at the top of the page was taken from the context of the paragraph below. One of the difficulties in a commoner like me, was trying to piece together how the develpement of the mind of string theorists, could have geometrically defined the relationships on a more abstract level. As strange as it may seem, I found other correpsondances that would have probably shaken the very foundation of our human thinking, that I could not resist looking and following these developements.

The familiar extended dimensions, therefore, may very well also be in the shape of circles and hence subject to the R and 1/R physical identification of string theory. To put some rough numbers in, if the familiar dimensions are circular then their radii must be about as large as 15 billion light-years, which is about ten trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (R= 1061) times the Planck length, and growing as the universe explands. If string theory is right, this is physically identical to the familiar dimensions being circular with incredibly tiny radii of about 1/R=1/1061=10-61 times the Planck length! There are our well-known familiar dimensions in an alternate description provided by string theory. [Greene's emphasis]. In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, pages 248-249



I was attracted very early to what I seen in the Klien bottle, that such modelling of these concepts was very striking to me. How could one not have seen some correspondance to the way in which the torus could have been revealled? That one might have considered, such modelling in the shape of our universe, as the point emerged from the brane? This inside/out feature was very troubling to me and still is, that I have endeveaor to follow this line of thinking, alongside of other avenues that were less then appreciated by the scientist/theorist that I have refrained from mentioning it here now.

Figure 15-18b Conformal Changes

Mapping Quark Confinement and The Energy

As I moved through the thinking of those extra dimensions it became apparent to me that the conceptualization of that distance scale was a strange world indeed. How, if we had accept the move to non-euclidean views could we not of accepted the consequences of this move?




Dazzled with the amazing properties of this new mathematical realm, everything seemed a bit magical, as if, experiencing for the first time a taste that is strange indeed? How would I recognize this strange dynamical world, if I had not understood this move to include the geometry that Kaluza and Klien adopted, to gather together another reality of photon engagement with that of gravity?



Fig. 1. In quantum chromodynamics, a confining flux tube forms between distant static charges. This leads to quark confinement - the potential energy between (in this case) a quark and an antiquark increases linearly with the distance between them.

So at the same time you had this distant measure, how could we resolve what was happening between those two points?

Without some supersymmetrical reality(supergravity) how could any point emerge from the brane if it did not recognize the evolution of those dimensions?



So how does this point expand? This is a simple enough question?

A theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.

In the above picture Michael Duff draws our attention too, I was drawn to the same principals that Klein demonstrated in his ideas of projective geometry, as the dimensions are revealed?

IN this effort and recognition of appropriate geometry, I had wondered, that if the same consistancy with which these two had demonstrated the principals, euclidean
postulates fell in line, as a basis of this method of applicabilty? Does one now see this thread that runs through the geometry?

Having accepted the road travelled to GR we have come to recognize the royal road has lead us to a strange world indeed. First it was Reimann with Gauss looking over his shoulder, and Maxwell joining Faraday in this celebration, with Einstein bringing all the happy go lucky, into a fine example of what has been implied by the harmonious nature, structure of strings in concert?



But I am not happy yet. If one could not see what was happening between those two points, what's the use of talking any math, without the co-existance of the physics?


The distance a particle can travel before reaching its initial position is said to be the size of the dimension. This, in fact, also gives rise to quantization of charge, as waves directed along a finite axis can only occupy discrete frequencies. (This occurs because electromagnetism is a U(1) symmetry theory and U(1) is simply the group of rotations around a circle).

Gravity and Light in the Fifth Dimension

Theodor Franz Eduard Kaluza November 9, 1885 - January 19, 1954


In Kaku's preface of Hyperspace, page ix, we find a innocent enough statement that helps us orientate a view that previous to all understanding, is counched in the work of Kaluza.

In para 3, he writes,

Similarily, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and grvaity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained inthe fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensions.

Oskar Klein September 15, 1894 - February 5, 1977

Oskar Klein proposed that the fourth spatial dimension is curled up in a circle of very small radius, i.e. that a particle moving a short distance along that axis would return to where it began. The distance a particle can travel before reaching its initial position is said to be the size of the dimension. This, in fact, also gives rise to quantization of charge, as waves directed along a finite axis can only occupy discrete frequencies. (This occurs because electromagnetism is a U(1) symmetry theory and U(1) is simply the group of rotations around a circle).

A Classical Discription of the Quantum World?

D Orbital

Orbitals are probability diagrams. Specifically, an orbital describes a region in space where there is a 90% change of finding an electron. The electron is never restricted to an orbital as in travels around a nucleus, but it seems to keep returning to this particular region even though its behavior is random. The concept of the orbital differs from Bohr's concept of the orbit. Bohr considered an orbit to be a path that the electron always followed much like a train stays on a track. The concept of the orbital was developed in Schrodinger's work to avoid violating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In the Modern Theory of Atomic Structures a picture of an orbital is also called a Probability Diagram. By agreement among chemists, the orbital is a 90% Probability Diag ram. This idea allows the electron to be found anywhere and still indicates where the electron spends most of its time.

How would one remove the uncertainty principals from the small world but to have considered the probability density distributions? Below is a link that I saw early in my investigations that I had wondered, forced me to look at what could have been happening within the cosmo with events, that would release information into the bulk?



Electron’s probability density distribution for an atom in the state; n=4, l=4, m=0.



The star Eta Carina is ejecting a pair of huge lobes that form a "propeller" shape. Jet-like structures are emanating from the center (or "waist"), where the star (quite small on this scale) is located.

If string theory, in the Kaluza Klein tower energy determinations could have discriptively spoken to the particle natures, why was it not possible to map the nature of these particles, in gravitational information released from these cosmological events?

If information in the bulk has been released, then this information has been geometrically defined in the gravity waves that we would percieve here on earth? Ligo would have performed its ability to then map the configurations that we see happening in that same cosmos. What made this visualization interesting is if photon release was specific to electromagnetic events held to the brane, then our perception of this energy, would have been left for us to consider in those same gravitational waves?

Entanglement and the New Physics

I have to go back and look at this subject carefully to get a sense of what is going on in Lubos Blog(will supply proper link later).

It is possible to entangle two photons that have never interacted before by using two down-conversion sources and then subjecting one photon from each entangled pair to a Bell-state measurement. This causes the other two photons, which have never interacted, to become entangled.

Further Links for Consideration

The basics of two-party entanglement
---------------------------------------------


http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9511030
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9511027
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9604024
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9707035
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709029
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801069
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9811053
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905071


Basics of multiparty entanglement

------------------------
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907047
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908073
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9912039
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0005115


Basics of secret sharing

-----------------------
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9806063







We have engineered an entangled state made of two atoms and the cavity mode. The entanglement is produced in a succession of controlled steps addresssing the particles individually. The sequence is fully programmable and could be configured to produce any quantum state. We have chosen here to prepare a triplet of entangled particles of the GHZ type. The entanglement has been demonstrated by experiments performed in two orthogonal basis. The procedure can, in principle, operate on larger numbers of particles, opening the way to new fundamental tests of quantum theory.

Test of the Quantenteleportation
over long distances in the duct system of Vienna


Working group
Quantity of experiment and the Foundations OF Physics
Professor Anton Zeilinger

Quantum physics questions the classical physical conception of the world and also the everyday life understanding, which is based on our experiences, in principle. In addition, the experimental results lead to new future technologies, which a revolutionizing of communication and computer technologies, how we know them, promise.

In order to exhaust this technical innovation potential, the project "Quantenteleportation was brought over long distances" in a co-operation between WKA and the working group by Professor Anton Zeilinger into being. In this experiment photons in the duct system "are teleportiert" of Vienna, i.e. transferred, the characteristics of a photon to another, removed far. First results are to be expected in the late summer 2002.

Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano

Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense - that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology.

The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the bang is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and forth for millennia. In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?" The piece depicts the cycle of birth, life and death - origin, identity and destiny for each individual - and these personal concerns connect directly to cosmic ones. We can trace our lineage back through the generations, back through our animal ancestors, to early forms of life and protolife, to the elements synthesized in the primordial universe, to the amorphous energy deposited in space before that. Does our family tree extend forever backward? Or do its roots terminate? Is the cosmos as impermanent as we are?

One had to know at a deeper level how we might have engaged the cyclical universe? Could bubble nucleation fall in line with the ideas about the origins of this universe and find itself too part of this creative scenario?


Colliding branes had to have some recognition in the world that we would have considered, bubble nucleation, as manifesting itself over and over again within the confines of our own universe now? Would this have made it likely that such manifestions really go to the source of what could have begun, has always been and wil continue to evolve, in this cycle of birth death and being reborn?


Neil Turok

The Myth of the Beginning of Time

The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the big bang is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and forth for millenia. In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined witha grand set of concerns, one famosly encapsulated in a 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? Scientific America, The Time before Time, May 2004



Sister Wendy's American Masterpieces":

"This is Gauguin's ultimate masterpiece - if all the Gauguins in the world, except one, were to be evaporated (perish the thought!), this would be the one to preserve. He claimed that he did not think of the long title until the work was finished, but he is known to have been creative with the truth. The picture is so superbly organized into three "scoops" - a circle to right and to left, and a great oval in the center - that I cannot but believe he had his questions in mind from the start. I am often tempted to forget that these are questions, and to think that he is suggesting answers, but there are no answers here; there are three fundamental questions, posed visually.

"On the right (Where do we come from?), we see the baby, and three young women - those who are closest to that eternal mystery. In the center, Gauguin meditates on what we are. Here are two women, talking about destiny (or so he described them), a man looking puzzled and half-aggressive, and in the middle, a youth plucking the fruit of experience. This has nothing to do, I feel sure, with the Garden of Eden; it is humanity's innocent and natural desire to live and to search for more life. A child eats the fruit, overlooked by the remote presence of an idol - emblem of our need for the spiritual. There are women (one mysteriously curled up into a shell), and there are animals with whom we share the world: a goat, a cat, and kittens. In the final section (Where are we going?), a beautiful young woman broods, and an old woman prepares to die. Her pallor and gray hair tell us so, but the message is underscored by the presence of a strange white bird. I once described it as "a mutated puffin," and I do not think I can do better. It is Gauguin's symbol of the afterlife, of the unknown (just as the dog, on the far right, is his symbol of himself).

"All this is set in a paradise of tropical beauty: the Tahiti of sunlight, freedom, and color that Gauguin left everything to find. A little river runs through the woods, and behind it is a great slash of brilliant blue sea, with the misty mountains of another island rising beyond Gauguin wanted to make it absolutely clear that this picture was his testament. He seems to have concocted a story that, being ill and unappreciated (that part was true enough), he determined on suicide - the great refusal. He wrote to a friend, describing his journey into the mountains with arsenic. Then he found himself still alive, and returned to paint more masterworks. It is sad that so great an artist felt he needed to manufacture a ploy to get people to appreciate his work. I wish he could see us now, looking with awe at this supreme painting."

Quantum Geometricization: The Struggle

If Lorentz symmetry is broken by some mechanism originating at the Planck scale, is there any hope of detecting such an effect? Surprisingly, the answer is yes. Over the past decade Kostelecky and co-workers have been exploring how a violation of Lorentz symmetry might provide evidence for new physics arising at the Planck scale. However, rather than smash particles together at high energies to explore this, researchers are turning to ultrahigh-precision experiments at low energies to search for signs that Lorentz symmetry has been broken. The idea is that such low-energy effects are caused by corrections involving inverse powers of the Planck scale.

Possible violations of Lorentz invariance are an ideal signal of new physics because nothing in the Standard Model of particle physics permits the violation of special relativity. Therefore, no conventional process could ever mimic or cover up a genuine signal of Lorentz violation.

Since a viable theory of physics at the Planck scale remains elusive, it is difficult to make precise predictions for the small corrections that could occur due to Lorentz violation. However, we can obtain a rough estimate. The rest-mass energy of the proton, for example, is about 1 GeV, and the ratio of this energy to the Planck scale is about 1 part in 10¹⁹. If an experiment with protons is sensitive to effects at or below this level, then it is effectively probing the Planck scale.

I tend to think if one can orientate the thinking that is developing, it is not to hard to see where we might develope further perspectives, as they have been outlined in article and in articles that I have presented for consideration.

This idea of Quantum geometry being revealled in quantum geometricization is a valuable insight that Greene offers to us. Continues, to speak to Einstein revelations, much as Smolin does in his own theoretics.

"But now, almost a century after Einstein's tour-de-force, string theory gives us a quantum-mechanical discription of gravity that, by necessity, modifies general relativity when distances involved become as short as the Planck length. Since Reinmannian geometry is the mathetical core of general relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory. Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Reinmannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."

The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 231 and Pg 232

Many claim a commercialization of the work current technologies are spoken to here(?) of researchers respective corners. That piece meal information is feed to the public, does not do its justice? If such, "cut and paste" values would institute a perspective view of what has been reveallled with some consistancy, then one has done their job in getting to the source valuation and recognitions of the limitations now affecting theoretics and physic alike?