Ideas on Quantum Interrogation

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.

So I am deep in thought, and the images of the neuron's capabilties, have me picturing the possibilties that could have been produced in the synapse. That the quantum computer would have said that it is directlty and photonically, linked to a wide range of possibilities in the developing ideas of the cosmo?

Okay, if that is too much, then think of Trackbacks, pictures with direct links, or paragraphs, directly linked to sites. This is what we want to create as a versatile function on the internet? Whie images are sparked in mind, where did they arise from, or some profound thought held in perspective of the Rainbow by Feynman, about what is beautiful about the work these physicists like to do. Their motivations spectrumly enhanced, about what it is about the nature of reality?



But it is more then this I think. Imagine using a feather to rotate a sphere, and the effect of the superfluid, to produce these strange anomalies of perception on superfluids. Okay, I am loosing myself here.

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

Part of the struggle for me is, how we see, ingoing and out going states, and the possibilities that may arise? How in computation ideology, might raise it's head, as a third choice.

Now I am not certain here, and I open myself up to speculation, because I would like to see how such states, like those leading to "microstate blackholes" which would see the dissipation, resulted in the ability of all those particles to be mapped. In such a way, that the "onion skin or glast," interacts calorimetrized, colliderized, and with, cosmological high energy particles have by it's very act said, the result is, that the early universe, is this way, and the interacting measure, is the result of today? What is this product then?

It might have amounted to a "variation" of the cosmological constant? :)

On the other hand you need to be aware of the maybe most bizarre aspect of quantum mechanics: the fact that our world is only apparently tridimensional, in reality it is formed from two tridimensional worlds that we see superimposed onto each other: everywhere we think we see one point in fact there are two points. An elementary particle (such as an electron) when it rotates around its axis is passes from one part of the world into the other part, as if it would climb on a spiral; when it rotates furthermore it goes back as if the spiral would descend back into the first part of world.

See:

Entanglement and the New Physics

IN Viscosity State Production is ?

John Bahcall and the Neutrinos

John Bahcall
1934–2005

What makes the sun shine? How does the sun produce the vast amount of energy necessary to support life on earth? These questions challenged scientists for a hundred and fifty years, beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century. Theoretical physicists battled geologists and evolutionary biologists in a heated controversy over who had the correct answer.

The article traces in non-technical language the historical development of our understanding of nuclear fusion reactions as the source of stellar energy, beginning with the controversy over the age of the sun and earth between Darwin and Kelvin, and including the discovery of radioactivity, the experimental demonstration that four hydrogen nuclei are heavier than a helium nucleus, and the theoretical insights provided by Einstein, Gamow, and Bethe. The concluding sections concern solar neutrino experiments that were designed to test the theory of stellar evolution and which, in the process, apparently revealed new aspects of microscopic physics.

Also see the latest program by Nova entitled, "the Ghost Particle."

See here:

The Ghost Particle

Phase Transitions?

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

With a distance measure in mind, the idea of a tree is to identify where something began, and ended? So you say that this interactive phase began and ended how?

So if one wants to keep it simplifed one would have had to identified the earlier known time, where conditions were permitted, which arose to entropic valuation, from that singular time? So lets call this beginning, "Plancktime"?



How things change, by simple rotations? It is always good to have "an image" in mind as you look at this topic presented with the perspective on puppies, instead of whether cats are alive or dead.

Schrödinger's cat is a famous illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition, proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. Schrödinger's cat serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level.

While I had started out from a macroperspective, the idea is to put forward how we see around us right now? While I had isolated "the event" and "phase rotations" to a macroscopic valuation, the idea is to understand that this process holds true to the one at the quantum level as well. How so?

The complexity, arises from the resulting evidence we have about objects in space, yet, there is a real understanding about "how things came to be" at this time in the cosmo, and the relating value seen in the temperature now. Yet it is possible to create, the time back when the singuarity was not in the way we though it to be as some pea, but as a condition we might have applied to "zero being a superfluid state. Where are these conditions relevant?

Particle Indentification



So before I move on I wanted to relay some understanding about the intrinistic valuation of fundamental particles, and thought it better to draw attention to them while coming back to the issues of entanglement, as they arose from that simplier time.

Spooky action at a distance again?

Sure you have to start somewhere, and we know given "state of existance" is held in consideration? So you simplify, and entanglement seems relevant as Dick mentions to make something more complex. I would of quickly jumped to "spintronic idealizations" in his case, as well as understanding, we were moving towards complexity, in computer systemization.

Let's call it Plectics, by Murray Gellman

but without any commitment to the notion of "once" as in "simple" or to the notion of "together" as in "complex," the derived word "plectics" can cover both simplicity and complexity.

It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying.

While we had been playing with these ideas many have speculate over time to make this spooky action idelized earlier on by einstein, to a more solid foundational transferance in communication. GHZ entanglement became much more complex over time as experimental testing moved it forward.

Practical Applications(27 Feb 2006 Wikipedia)

It is unknown as to whether or not Schrödinger actually owned a cat; it is known that this experiment was proposed as a purely theoretical experiment, and the machine proposed does not exist.

Roots, and the Rings of History

The jump from conventional field theories of point-like objects to a theory of one-dimensional objects has striking implications. The vibration spectrum of the string contains a massless spin-2 particle: the graviton. Its long wavelength interactions are described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Thus General Relativity may be viewed as a prediction of string theory!

Author Unknown

How on earth, did such geometries take us into the abstract realms that it did?

Euclid postulate found embedded and manifested in Reimann's developing perspective and the fruitation, General Relativity? IN some imaginative space, I see Einstein gleefully sitting, eating his apple?:)It must be "a tree" kind of thing.

On Wassily Kandinsky Musical Score

The term "Composition" can imply a metaphor with music. Kandinsky was fascinated by music's emotional power. Because music expresses itself through sound and time, it allows the listener a freedom of imagination, interpretation, and emotional response that is not based on the literal or the descriptive, but rather on the abstract quality that painting, still dependent on representing the visible world, could not provide.

Well okay not this old, but the idea is, that learning through history had gone through much revision. That no matter the idea, that no physics was discovered then, it is the way that a result, manifested today. One may refer to Democritius, and know that the relevance, had started back then? Platonic solids, or some Pythagorean notion of numbers underlying nature?

A cross section of a Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) snag found in El Malpais National Monument near Grants, New Mexico (it's about 3 feet across) (photo © H.D. Grissino-Mayer and R.K. Adams). This tree had a pith date of 256 BC and an outer ring of about AD 1320, making this tree nearly 1,600 years old when it died!

But we do not want to talk about the impurities of philosophy, while we deal with "abstract and concrete" things do we?:) That the very subject, had been adopted and shunned by our greater teacher(Feynman), is good to know this is apart and separate from ourselves? That because a teacher did it, that we shall too? Or ,was it, that the appreciation for science at it's deepest level, didn't make room for such speculation, or some defining nature of a crackpottery(without history), who had supposedly calculated the proton's mass? Yes, the crackpot might of jumped on this notion. :) Scream about the aether and said, "strings is no different."

In May 1996, Chris Baisan and I found this tree, a Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), at El Malpais National Monument (photo © H.D. Grissino-Mayer), and currently it is the reigning oldest wood yet discovered in New Mexico - 256 B.C.!

SidneyFest and the Parents/Teachers Before Us

Richard Feynman's history, was entangled with Murray's and seeing what was there then in Caltech 25 years ago, and what exists today at Harvard, is a reminder of what began under Murray's Gellman's umbrella. As to how John Schwartz career was preserved. The seed bed of Murray's Gellman understanding arose from the 1950's, to Susskind and Nambu in the 70's, to where in Harvard it is today.

Some have wide sweeping claims to this history. The illegitimacy and rights to something, being theoretical dogma? As some false God set before us? While the religiousness of institution, is to bring forth those who work the equative understanding before them. Tried and tested. Who would in their right mind, is going to denounce the fathers/teachers before them?

Lubos Motl:

Just one or two comments. Murray also talked about the representation theory for the hadrons. Sidney played a rather important role in these developments, too. Murray mentioned that they sometimes incorporated the same particles into different representations - one of them was wrong and I forgot who was it. During his talk, Murray's cell phone started to ring twice. Murray Gell-Mann '69 interrupted his talk and studied who was calling him. "One call missed," was the answer after one minute of research. Gell-Mann, who is a Yale graduate, admitted that Harvard had been pretty good. Also, Harvard had created a string theory group only 25 years after Gell-Mann and his friends did the same thing at Caltech, which is not bad.

So what new fruit have to you to bear, given the "disassociated state of existance," that one would never acknowledge. As never really needing to acknowldege, "standing on the shoulder of giants"?

INSIDE ON CAMPUSBy ROBERT D. MECKEL

“Since Buddha was enlightened under a bodhi tree, it has become a symbol of enlightenment,” said Mahajan. “The tree is more than religion, it is a symbol of peace, meditation, oneness with yourself, finding harmony with the world. Whenever there is chaos going on, people can use this to find themselves, and a oneness with themselves and the world we live in.”

Reference:

Feynman's Rainbow, by Leonard MlodinowWarner Books 2003
Euclid's Window: The Story of Geometry from Parallel Lines to Hyerspaceby Leonard MlodinowFreePress 2001

Nothingness:The Science of Empty Space

Henning Genz

"The experiments at the LEP collider have shown us many times that all virtual particles need in order to become real is energy. Now, we might argue that the energy needed for the passage from virtual particles to real ones could become available by that very passage." (page 234)

See:

Nothingness

Succession of Thinking

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

Big Bang: One Man's Change of Heart

Nature in Analog Models

Plato:

"For everyone, as I think, must see that astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another."

Oh! how complete our world view would be, that I have moved quickly to the very question of all summations given. That while "visually" occupying the mind, we had been taken to the standard model's extension. That we moved beyond, to the "introduction of the graviton," as a force carrier? What world is that Plato?

Structuralists, like Plato we would be, that we seen not as Feynamn did, but as "platonic developers" as to the very alluring question of, "nature's form?" Lost was our view of the "interactions and processes" yet, seen in another way? That there is a discription ,of all of what these particles could be?

"Analogue Gravity"by Carlos Barceló and Stefano Liberati and Matt Visser

Analogue models of (and for) gravity have a long and distinguished history dating back to the earliest years of general relativity. In this review article we will discuss the history, aims, results, and future prospects for the various analogue models. We start the discussion by presenting a particularly simple example of an analogue model, before exploring the rich history and complex tapestry of models discussed in the literature. The last decade in particular has seen a remarkable and sustained development of analogue gravity ideas, leading to some hundreds of published articles, a workshop, two books, and this review article. Future prospects for the analogue gravity programme also look promising, both on the experimental front (where technology is rapidly advancing) and on the theoretical front (where variants of analogue models can be used as a springboard for radical attacks on the problem of quantum gravity).

Part of the theoretics I imagine, is trying to incorporate this into analog models for a deeper comprehension of concepts mathematically embued. Part of the deeper intuitive developement, is what attracted me to the questions about "creativity" and what can be immersed in minds of scientists. What they do with their days.

Murray Gellman:
On Plectics

It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying.

As I read Feynman's words about what the scientist actually does, the human side of the scientist makes it very clear to me, that they are to be treated with the respect, as he conveyed his thoughts. As we might, treat someone who brings together "different ideas" to move conceptual understanding forward, much like those in the mathematical ways. Better to be ignored, eh?:)

Vision Can Move in the Small world

The Planck scale is the scale at which quantum gravity is believed to become important. At this scale the smooth structure of spacetime breaks down into some structure (strings, spin-foam, lattice, who knows?). The Planck length is approximately 10-35 m, which is very, very small. To get an idea of how tiny this is we can compare a Planck length LPl with the size of a proton and the size of Rhode Island. The radius of a proton is larger than the Planck length by roughly the same factor as the size of Rhode Island to the proton.

Did we ever comprehend how we would take our "vision" down to a world so small that we did not recognize that occupying the physical world of large things, there would be comparsions needed. That the "particles" that Murray Gellman speculated would emerge from some model, and become the constituents of a world created in the wonder of, "all these particles may be part of the some alternate form of the same thing?" This arose in the 1950's.

So before, Susskind and Nambu, Gellman held a interesting perspective, and from it, a question arose. It became the developing insight of string theory. Some, have abandoned the very question and idealization, having graduated to Brane world, does not mean, the very thoughts and principals embued in this focus to the small world, would have been discarded, just, that it will have gone through "revisions and progress" in conceptual design?

Analog models of quantum field theory in curved space

In condensed matter, one can construct systems where the propagation of long wavelength phonons (sound waves) is very similar to the propagation of a scalar field in a curved Lorentzian spacetime. Such systems are called 'analog models'. It is even possible to construct analogies to black holes in this manner, where the phonons that travel past a certain point cannot return. For example, consider a fluid where long wavelength phonons in the fluid propagate with speed cs, which is analogous to the speed of light in these models. Now put this fluid in a pipe and change the shape of the pipe such that the speed v of the fluid is faster than cs in one section and slower in an adjacent section. A phonon can travel "back against the current" only up to a certain point, where the the fluid speed equals cs. After that the fluid flow carries it down the pipe. This point in the pipe therefore mimics a black hole event horizon, from which nothing can escape. Other black hole features such as Hawking radiation are also present in these models. Since these models give an example of a system that has a fundamental structure at very short distances (where the fluid description breaks down), yet has a pseudo-Lorentz invariance at long distances.

Plato as a Composer

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

Those who would conduct the orchestra, enlisted sounds, which make a whole compositon? One, from which, if physical sight had been remove, and focused internally, had just witnessed the particle world in shower, would lead one to the climatic vision of, "nature of things." From, "it's source?" What began before this whole musical interlude, much as if, the cosmo will wait for our question as to what was?

So now the very idea of the poem wording I developed here, "no time standing always new", had me thinking about how such a cyclical processes could have ever made its way into our "completeness of views". An extension, beyond the standard model. It was a logical question and place with which responsibility can be still held, regardless, of those who have spelt out the lineage of science in research in this way(string theory model), as some disrupted process in the way of thinking?

So how would we map this whole process, while we had been taken down to such reductionistic principals. The continuity resorting to structurally discrete, while pondering this structure( what model shall you insert here, Loop, Twistors, Strings)? There are "no rules and no physics" with which we can "initiate thinking" beyond the standard model? So we see the minds very busy with such introductions, professors hired to work the field of choices. Whether to teach or not? To be devoted to a specific area, or just ponder the most difficult question, as to the natures very structure?

So now we come to a important question, having recognized the power with which the Word "Plato or Aristotle will now be invoked in your mind. That the "archetypes" had been drawn and related. Any future reference, will be in the way Plato might of felt having held his views on music? Possibly, thought about the nature of the world with structure. Developed the forms, as constituents of the way the world exists now.


See:

Laval Nozzle and Blackholes

Accretion Disks

Quark Stars

Plato and Aristotle

Plato - holding the Timaeus - Pointing up as a sign of his metaphysical belief in the higher world of the forms, shown with the face of Leonardo.

Aristotle - holding his Ethics with hand palm down, reflecting a more grounded approach to the problem of universals.

I wanted to remind people of something quite profound as we look at Raphael's picture above. That it would be in such a position as that of the signatores relation, had been more of hindrance to me. Here, any document with which was to be signed, as representing the whole Catholic Church.

I would have liked to have seen the better message be, that this room would sign all faiths, all religions, to something built into each of us. It is something that we will take from pondering such a picture. It will become part of us.

PLato saids,"Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle saids "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth" To Remember: Eskesthai

I wanted to create this post as it has been sitting on my mind right from the every beginning and inception of this Blog. While my discription had been drawn from historical reference, the stage(Arch), from this beginning, is a interesting one.



Without the ability to have teachers hold one's hand all the way through the process to knowledge development, it was necessary that confidence be built into any who would adventure to such learning and research. So I developed a early a conceptual framework that would draw attention to "insight developement" through states of "correlation of cognition," as signs evident in, the natural world around us.

These were important features of model consumptions, and the "simplestic idealizations" behind their developement. If you saw this from working the model, then what value any prediction, and if you had saw insightually into the workings?

Right and Left
I came across this thinking in my adventures, where such distinctions held in the opening at the top of this page, might had arisen from left and right brain people? Would have been attributed to characteristics of the very minds who involved themself in the ways with which they might approach science today? Brain matter is encase, are our minds too?

There seems to be something special about positions historically identified to current day researchers? This came to me while I was doing early research on Plato and Aristotle themself. Underneath this picture, painted in the center, Plato and Aristotle stand. Look at what had been taken for further inspection below. What does it's link imply?


Plato:

Look to the right of Raphael's painting lower right hand corner. Look at the link this picture is connected too?

What was even more provoking, was the way in which I could see this arche identified in oppositions of scientists, who would lead us into the explorations of what and how we have come to where we are today.

Can you see yourself in the figures of fathered archetypes, embedded within our consciousness, to have known, that such an evolution was part and parcel of the scientific process in the developement of your very own minds?

"I would like to be like Feynman," yells Lubos, dememaning all philosophical adventures, while Anon screams, "no, I am Feynman." I would say you both have your place in all this. We just didn't recognize where it would come from, so we emmulated our teachers, and the teachers before them? Oh dear Aristotle, how are you?

Feynman and Gellman
For instance let us say that Feynman's thnking was more like Artistoles, while Gellman's Plato's

What was distinctive about either was that one, Gellman saw eternal and immutable patterns inhernet in the phenomena of the material world, while, Aristotle saw these as myth? Feynmen worshiped nature itself.

While discarding the myth, as philosphical pandering, are you a Feynmen who sees what is underlying, as a possible abstraction? If so, you would have been in good company with Robert Laughlin and the issues of condense matter physicist, and the relevance of building blocks of nature as, irrelevant? Oui! NOn?

Not by inception of strings that had implied itself as a discriptor of the very underlying feature of all that exists? How could we have seen that such a expression and revolt would have taken such thinking to further the basis of the standard model, to incorporate the graviton? To have conceptually incorporated the "Bulk."

You needed Plato?:)

History of the Universe and the Standard Model

Who would of thought the history of the universe could have ever been contained in this one moment? While it had been translated to 13.7 billions years, what is the value of recognizing this vast history, to what is contained in that one specific moment held in context of the collisions, we have in the colliders? What takes place between high energy particles, and what this process helps us to understand, as we see neutrino effects, talked about in ICECUBE.



So while we ponder this momenet in time, some things became apparnet as one reads words retro spect, that help to clarify what had been going on in my mind, while never really undertanding that what had been transpiring in my thinking, had been more or less, described from another perspectve as well.

I talked about "correlation of cognition," becuase it is important that we understnd intuitive development. That we build confidence in ourselves, as we move through the informtaion and see that what we had been learning, had taken us to another level of comprehension, as if, having digested the model in question, whatever that may be.

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.

The Four Fundamental Forces

Electromagnetism causes like-charged objects to repel each other and oppositely charged objects to attract each other. The electromagnetic force binds negative electrons to the positive nuclei in atoms and underlies the interactions between atoms. Its force carrier particle is a photon.

The strong force binds quarks together. While the electromagnetic force works to repel the positively charged protons in the nucleus of an atom, the strong force is stronger and overrides these effects. The particle that carries the strong force is called a gluon, so-named because it so tightly "glues" quarks together into larger particles like protons and neutrons. The strong force is also responsible for binding protons and neutrons together in the nucleus.

Gravity is the phenomenon by which massive bodies, such as planets and stars, are attracted to one another. The warps and curves in the fabric of space and time are a result of how these massive objects influence one another through gravity. Any object with mass exerts a gravitational pull on any other object with mass. You don't fly off Earth's surface because Earth has a gravitational pull on you. Gravity is thought to be carried by the graviton, though so far no one has found evidence for its existence.

The weak force is responsible for different types of particle decays, including a process called beta decay. This can occur when an atom's nucleus contains too many protons or too many neutrons -- a neutron that turns into a proton undergoes beta minus decay; a proton that changes into a neutron experiences beta plus decay. This weak force is mediated by the electri- cally charged W- and W+ force carrier particles and the neutral Z0 force carrier particle.

Reductionistic Views

Part of this discription is important from the understanding, that how we see, and talk about things that we do in let's say Q<-->Q measure and distance, have some relation to what we are talking about and discribing in collision states. So this entry here helps to this degree, to maintain some cohesion and understanding, while differences in model and experimental conceptions are explored.


Cosmic Rays

Conservatively the idealization, is the progression from the understanding of Unifying forces, and progression to conceptual understanding found and revealled in the world of natural processes. Who would have ever thought that platonic forms could have been capture in the mind of a Gellman, while a Feynman help to introduce us to the interactions?

Fig. 1. The four forces (or interactions) of Nature, their force carrying particles and the phenomena or particles affected by them. The three interactions that govern the microcosmos are all much stronger than gravity and have been unified through the Standard Model

.

This is what I like to do. Summations while they be ill time to a better comprehension demanded, I found this a wonderfiul idealization in moving intuitively perception to a clearer understanding, as I looked at ICECUBE. All that I am encountering through exploration of principles embued in experimental observations, according to what "new" physics might be revealled.

While the experimental situation has been set up( who determine what experiments would be challenged?) All the worker bees ready to do their parts. How well had they understood this process, to potentially reveal a better insight into what will come next?

There had to be evidence of your theoretical positions in nature.

Would you be so hesitant to just sit and wait, while the opportunity exists for you to unite these experimental procedures? Into a pciture of a complete scenario, as you understood it in nature. How energy of the particle collisons within our environ and the resulting particle dissipation, revealled as the neutrino base experiment given to signs as what?

So what is this unifying concept, that we could see the strong force, to the weak being explained, while we had paid attention and witness to many things going on with earth, as an observatory, in it's completeness?

At this moment then the division and valuation of experimental cross sectioning of fundamental forces( experiments respectively), would have been placement of "all aspects of the unifying forces" as it's measure. That we could have correlated across the map, all aspects united in some unique translation, as LIGO, or Pierre Auger, or Collider experiments, along with Ice CUbe, paints a extremely interesting picture for us.

What "new math" will be borne in the minds with "new concepts and models" to bring analogy into context as natures way?

See:

Mathematical Enlightenment

Resonance Curve

Some might inference a very spherical world, but when you take "this view below" the world becomes very bumpy indeed. This was only possible by a revision in thinking and science of measure. Perspective was changed. The "biological genetic result" are lead by the mind, and not the other way around?:) Evolution of the brain structure makes me think this. Evolution of Emotive IQ, makes me think this.

This of course, in regards to biological thinking, runs in contradiction to everything that has been built up? What neurological pathways is built in thinking when your thinking "fires" neuronic pathways that never existed before?

While these pathways are already established, in our unthinking coordinated body movement these had been relegated to such a product of the species, after much travelling and exercising the mind's connection. Then w let it go, like we let many things go after repeatingly reliving the experience and assuming such idealizations. All thinking becomes biased then, yet we can meet the memory, and current daily incursions comparatively lived, by changing the way we see. By the way we meet situations. We had to open up our memory and track the evoluton of reaction.

That these migh tbe seen on anotherlevel, would have not been so far remved from the work being done on how gravity is thought about.



It's an ole way of thinking(GR perspective) and how measurement above, and at the earth, helps one see? That this process had been taken to very precise mesurements gravitationally considered?

Variable "constants" would also open the door to theories that used to be off limits, such as those which break the laws of conservation of energy. And it would be a boost to versions of string theory in which extra dimensions change the constants of nature at some places in space-time.

I mean when you take your thinking and transfer it to what happens within context of the gravitational field, then you soon learn the value of the photon within that environ.

The "spectrum" had been modified to a way of thinking, and is representative. But in order to do that, you had to move the thinking from GR to abstract valuations. You might not have seen this before, if you had not moved to a fifth dimensional understanding. "Spacetime wording" then becomes self explanatory, about it's every nature. "Spacetime" then becomes the "fabric of the cosmos."

Oscillatory Universe(21 Febuary 2006 Wiki)

The oscillatory universe is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.

More on Dual Nature of Blackhole

In some theories, microscopic black holes may be produced in particle collisions that occur when very-high-energy cosmic rays hit particles in our atmosphere. These mini-black-holes would decay into ordinary particles in a tiny fraction of a second and would be very difficult to observe in our atmosphere.

The ATLAS Experiment offers the exciting possibility to study them in the lab (if they exist). The simulated collision event shown is viewed along the beampipe. The event is one in which a mini-black-hole was produced in the collision of two protons (not shown). The mini-black-hole decayed immediately into many particles. The colors of the tracks show different types of particles emerging from the collision (at the center).

The RHIC fireball as a dual black hole

We argue that the fireball observed at RHIC is (the analog of) a dual black hole. In previous works, we have argued that the large $s$ behaviour of the total QCD cross section is due to production of dual black holes, and that in the QCD effective field theory it corresponds to a nonlinear soliton of the pion field. Now we argue that the RHIC fireball is this soliton. We calculate the soliton (black hole) temperature, and get $T=4a /\pi$, with $a$ a nonperturbative constant. For $a=1$, we get $175.76 MeV$, compared to the experimental value of the fireball ``freeze-out'' of about $176 MeV$. The observed $\eta/ s$ for the fireball is close to the dual value of $1/4\pi$. The ``Color Glass Condensate'' (CGC) state at the core of the fireball is the pion field soliton, dual to the interior of the black hole. The main interaction between particles in the CGC is a Coulomb potential, due to short range pion exchange, dual to gravitational interaction inside the black hole, deconfining quarks and gluons. 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.

The case for mini black holes

Geodesics in Kerr space-time, as predicted by the theory of general relativity. Small black holes produced, for example at colliders, are expected to be spinning. Image: Numerical simulation by Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Albert Einstein Institute (AEI); visualization by W Benger, Zuse Institute, Berlin/AEI

Approaches of the Gauss-Bonnet type, which include quadratic terms in scalar curvature in the Lagrangian, are good candidates for a description beyond general relativity as they can be supported both by theoretical arguments (heterotic strings in particular) and by phenomenological arguments (Taylor expansion in curvature). In such a case, the coupling constant of the Gauss-Bonnet term, namely the quantum character of the gravitational theory used (and the link with the underlying string theory) can also be reconstructed and the LHC would become a very valuable tool for studying speculative gravitation models.

Other promising avenues are also being investigated for new physics. Firstly, the black holes formed may be excellent intermediate states for highlighting new particles. When the collision energy is higher than the Planck scale ED, the cross-section for the creation of black holes is quite large (~500 pbarn) and has no suppression factor. Moreover, when the temperature of the black hole is higher than the mass of a particle, the particle must be emitted during evaporation in proportion to its number of internal degrees of freedom. There is thus a definite potential for the search for the Higgs or for supersymmetric particles in the evaporation products of black holes, possibly with cross-sections much greater than for the direct processes. Finally, taking account of a D-dimensional cosmological constant also modifies the evaporation law. If the constant is sufficiently high - which is possible without contradicting the low value measured in our brane - the temperature and the coupling coefficients with the entities emitted could be the signature of this particular structure of space-time. It would be quite neat and certainly surprising that a measurement of the cosmological constant in the bulk should come from the LHC!

Microscopic black holes are thus a paradigm for convergence. At the intersection of astrophysics and particle physics, cosmology and field theory, quantum mechanics and general relativity, they open up new fields of investigation and could constitute an invaluable pathway towards the joint study of gravitation and high-energy physics. Their possible absence already provides much information about the early universe; their detection would constitute a major advance. The potential existence of extra dimensions opens up new avenues for the production of black holes in colliders, which would become, de facto, even more fascinating tools for penetrating the mysteries of the fundamental structure of nature

Public Service Announcement: Black Holes @ RHIC by John Steinberg

Unfortunately, all of this is overstated. At RHIC we don’t make a “real” black hole, in the sense envisioned by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Rather, Nastase’s point of view is that RHIC collisions can be described by a “dual” black hole. But what does “dual” mean in this context? It’s not “two-ness” in any sense, but rather indicates that one can write down a theory which describes the collision as a black hole, but in a completely different world than that we see around us. To make his model work, he (and many other researchers who are exploring this direction) make a calculation of a black hole in 10 dimensions in order to describe difficult (but gravitationally benign) aspects of the strong interaction in 4 dimensions.

No Black Holes Today, Thanks

As George Musser remarked to me in an email,

Egads, what a mispresented story. Nastase says they might be *dual* to black holes -- a relation of interest in string theory, but hardly the same thing as an honest-to-god black hole.

Exactly. The point of Nastase's paper is not that the RHIC fireball may be a black hole but that it might be described by the same math used for black holes. Such duality is vital in modern physics, because some problems are easier to formulate and solve within one mathematical framework rather than another, although both are applicable.

Now, if you want to know about the real prospects for making microscopic black holes by colliding particles in an accelerator, watch for the May issue of Scientific American, which will, by happy coincidence, have a feature on that very subject.

See:

Microstate Blackhole Production

Some Distant Bounding Surface