Instead of the Pea, What New Paradigm?

Omega=?

Imagine for one moment that this is all wrapped in a bubble(universe). Our views of earth, the hills and valleys, of the gravitational perspective, as I showed of earth as "time variable measure" now brought to conceptual realization for society.

Einstein's playful example of the hotstove, remember?



The picture you refer belongs to ISCAP and if you "refresh" that page a couple of times, you will see a number of pictures. They are important. Especially the "Lagrange points" How this perspective is used with satellites in space travel.



This is a very important perception that is not understood very well. I have another picture that will explain it well. I have maybe given to much to absorb here?

Hey hey

Do you believe that Einstein will last forever and that presently visualized elementary particles are all there are?

What happens on a cosmological scale is indeed explanable as I have shown.

The trouble is when we move our perception to the quantum probabilities. I surmized these things in context of how we would determined information from the horizon, yet the value of energy determinations here ask us to consider the value assigned to particle inclinations. These energy determinations are still valid within context of the conformal field theories, as the map shows of Bekenstein bound.

At this site you will find the new black boxes and calibration samples for the LHC Olympics! See: Revolutions for Change

For example test runs in the olympics of the LHC to be done.

Blackhole Production

Blackhole production of course created some concern, while it was being answered in terms of strangelet developement. This spoke to blackhole production directly. But low and behold, how would any of us considered the context of the cosmic particle collisions that go on all the time, and from it, secondary particle showers that are presented to earth as microstate blackhole production, which quickly dissipates.

So you might have thought indeed strangelet production from microstate blackholes in terms of cosmic particle colllisions?




But the point is learning to identfy the very beginning, and like most I thought the singualrity was like a pea, while the energy valuation and quark gluon plasma created, has some effects that we have to consider? That were counter intuitive.

Produced tunnelling? :)

Thus, this changes the very dynamics of constructs that are being present here, in a philsophical format for consumption by a society that had reached critical density?

While the energy valuation here would created certain effects. How would you apply this to the sociological developement of a society that welcomes, and from it, is born new possibilities?

Paradigmal changes perhaps?

Mental Constructs

How would such a definition as mental construct find it's place among our interactions?

Would we not need some "mental construct," to say that if the processes exist and we are fundamentally part of that process, are there different ways in which to measure our valuations in relation to how we might now see earth?



So there is this "touching" in the way you have said it at a fundamental level and then there is the touching at another level? I am justing tryng to understand it from a frame of reference, yet the idea, ideal, is much finer in it's measure? Where did it begin?

electron wave packet repelling eachother by exchanging virtual photons

As you know this process is also encapsulated as part of GR.



When you engage Gauss's thinking, Gauss's coordinates, it is not without "seeing in ways" that one might not be accustomed too, that we ask, how might we treat this subject?



Yet, you look for "the consistancy" that is thread through all the geometric incursions we send our perceptions into? So what is this consistancy?

While we entertain these distances, quark to quark measures, how will this ocnsistancy of thought be held to "a measure" while we send perception all the way down to the reductionist levels, and find that such a fluid allows new physics and idealogical valuations to be now interpeted according to the measures enforced?



Of course the answer is very simplistic in my books and is one uesed to maintain this consistancy, yet, we would find there is no new geometry or new physics as far as we know, from that beginning point?

Observation Pays Off

Most won't know of my particpation in bringing people together, to confront the basis of what models can do, and how these things can change perceptions. I, from taking a stance on such model assumptions, realize, that if held to any position most firmly, would not allow any other thought constructs to make their way into my mind.

That is the nature of such stubborness, not to have listened and listened well to the outcome of questions as to the basis of reality.

So, could I have said I had been changed by the interactions and posts implied, that these served as catelyscts for change? Most definitely.

It is here then such a credit should be applied to the links of Not Even Wrong, The Reference Frame, and Cosmic Variance that these have help to direct my attention to the constraints neeeded in our thought processes. Our pursuates ofwhat indeed lies at the basis of this reality. So I here Thank them most graciously.

It's Not Over Until the ......

I think what sounds silly, is that if one already understood that our observation of the basis of reality is indeed "seeing and being sightful of what already exists," while it may be indivdualistic, as a idea, such construct from appearance, could be manifested into other possibilties no doubt.

Playing with the illlusions, possibly? :)

But having such a view does not in anyway invalidate what may be implied or said about what a "God" might think? That may be the mistake? To think that what "we" think supplants what already exists as a potential?

Any "possiblility" would have been okay, had it been realized what one was doing, yet, being fully aware you are a particpant. That "creavtivity and imagination," are actualy tools that we use to desribe these indepth journies, to bring back the reailty of what could exist naturally.

Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.

I use paragraphs and picture sources as direct links and as secondaries.

I am pushing the boudaries of the internet. Forcing the issue of ownership as well as asking what new ways in which we shall use the internet. The basis of this thought held in regards to the visualization techniques, that amout from model consumption, and lead perspective into other areas.



Observation pays off?

If you look into the realities that we currently write, how are we to say that what truly lies at the basis of this "is" reality? Is what, if held to, "what lies beneath?"



You had to know what I am talking about here in terms of the nature of the harmonic oscillator? My attempts at describing what this reality may be, as no different then the "thought construct and models implied" and attached too, current realities.

Pushing them "beyond" what is currently accepted. What is held socialogically in societies construct thinking mind.

They(the teachers) would have to have known me to apply the constraints. While not given persepctve about my nature and methods, such constraints would have been from a position of mind(?), assuming it's value in relation to what is currently being desimmnated to the "public mind," as well as what is taught, is not being disrupted.

Of course:)

Building our Illusions?

Back to Fractal Neurodyamics and Quantum Chaos Part 1

10 Conclusion
The importance of developing a model of brain function which gives a consistent description of mind, consciousness and free-will, is profound. The model described links the structural instability of brain dynamics, quantum uncertainty and the dual-time model. The quantum-physical brain may thus be more than just an interface between sensory input and decision-making. It may in fact be a doorway between complementary aspects of the physical universe, the time-directed nature of real-particle symmetry-breaking and the time-symmetric aspect of the sub-quantum domain (King 1989). If so, the role of consciousness and mind-brain duality may be central to cosmology.

While I am no expert by any means and a student of, with my own learning curve, I have struggle to gain understanding of the concepts of that string theory model. That is what my site is about.

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

Yes that is a interesting article, and it could be said the Gabriele is the Father of string theory.

There were many conceptual problems for me when I kept reading about what the nature of reality could be described as? Cosmological considerations were held to the very beginning, and and anything beyond that was of course not spoken of? What is nothing?

Birth of the Universe

It has to do with the "timing" of the energy scale. At 0 second the effect of the universe is what(?) and what set this motivation into existance?


Quantum Gravity Era:

A temperature value of10³²⁰C and a time of10^-43Second.

Proton-At 10 Microseconds, Quarks are bound into protons and neutrons.

Well now, it is really important to know where the timeline is, that speaks to "string theories position within the expression of that universe. So, that is important.

If one had thought the universe entropically very simple, this would have had to held some considertaions to what supersymmetrical realization would mean in regards to that beginning?

Also, that in that beginning certain ideological factors become known when held to the understanding of the colliders and what is taking place there.

The blackhole danger creation of in RHIC, as well as, how this extension of thought(strangelets) has been moved to the cosmological particle collisons take place above us. Shower earth with it's particle reductionistic familiars, is an important step in how we speak of the nature of the reality that has been conceptual built as a construct.

Validity as to it's measures. While in string there has been no confirmation, it is conceptually pitted minds to develope experimental methods in regards to the ideas of the string theory model. As it should.

Do you know who or what you are? Think about it. There are many illusions in life. The arguably tragic thing is that so many people of the past have lived their entire lives in illusion. They believed in their mental constructs, and took them to be the truth of things. They were confined within their human consciousness, and never looked beyond. They never saw the true potential of consciousness, nor realized the constructive nature of reality. They never realized that their 'truths' were simply mental constructs, including their own sense of self-identity.

Mental Constructs then? Okay?:)

Yet there is enough reason to believe, that if the consensus is, that many will share the perceptable value of the construct, then it becomes a major illusion does it not?

So what do you say of all these people of science who are looking for "what Lies Beneath." Looking to build a understanding in regards to the value of those mental construct?

Is it worthless to have the mind occupy such a intellectual pursuite, and then say, that if you did not find the correlation and cognitive value to such an insight in regards to the begonning of the universe, then what value is this science if it did not bring us to a closer understanding of "What Lies Beneath?"

You remember Robert Laughlin?

So, you may call it "eastern influence" with a philosophical history? Baking bread, or perhaps playing with bubbles, using the explanations as a fundamental reality underneath that reality?

Articulating Oneself?

If the title of thread and objective of the article written are to follow the thread of responsibility, then such journies into the fantastic, have to be thought about in regards to the smell of Jasmine? :) That's part of another story, don't worry about it.

While in the room, devoid of the the branches and trees of the flowering history divine, had one thought about the wind that may drift from a open window, or the residue from having engaged a whole bush??

What constraints shall you be held too, that the thought about what wording held, might enter the hearts of any other person, that you, consider very carefully the sanesness of that scientist who speaks, for the right things in life, and speaks about the fantastic in such ways?

It's okay, your human.

I would say these small fine things, made in such a visual way point to the beauty of life is fantastical and in a warming way much for the soul, regardless.

You announced yourself, and the intentions of such validation warms your soul when others to speak. That's the way of it, and if it does not come, while with it, others whom may be cruel in their remarks, how shall you deal with it?

KNow that it is okay to feel the way you do and know too that if you wonder then about the way of doing things, shall it continue to be this way, while such integrity of the soul shows it's hand regardless of what others may have thought. Constrain it to what another thought, feel comfort, that you may be able to speak freely regardless.

Sonofusion Analogies in Geometric design?

Every picture held in mind is a link to other pictures? The larger context of the universe, is now seen in how our minds evolving such a reality through such thought constructs( it's bits and pieces) that it is not just words and equations any more, but the understanding that this picture can includes more then one thousand words of discriptive power.

It had to be really compelling that such thoughts illustrated here, had a whole geometric history underneath it. Some might of thought it again as "ad hoc," but the truly deeper perception exists whether they like to think it does not.

Lubos reminds one that no such geoemtry exists or new phsyics in this place, but it had to come from somewhere, no matter what you called the constituents of this reality.

What is Quantum Gravity?

Quantum gravity is the field devoted to finding the microstructure of spacetime. Is space continuous? Does spacetime geometry make sense near the initial singularity? Deep inside a black hole? These are the sort of questions a theory of quantum gravity is expected to answer. The root of our search for the theory is a exploration of the quantum foundations of spacetime. At the very least, quantum gravity ought to describe physics on the smallest possible scales - expected to be 10-35 meters. (Easy to find with dimensional analysis: Build a quantity with the dimensions of length using the speed of light, Planck's constant, and Newton's constant.) Whether quantum gravity will yield a revolutionary shift in quantum theory, general relativity, or both remains to be seen.

Some would like to think themselves "so pure" that they could not plant their own poison?

It is a hard thing to remain pure in our feelings of sharing, once our egos intrude and we fight each other, for some dominance like some animal uneducated, while we dawn such clothing of the civilized being?

While earlier entries have been spoken to in terms of, what analogies can do for us in what and how we like to portray the world. Such analogies do have to be carefully considered. It okay if we speak around each other whie we move peception forward. We do not "own" any of it?:)

Lubos's last statement of the blog entry made here and linked here is of course most correct, and an understanding of the early universe? It is very hard to to see how such dynamical world could fit our views of a reality, as we peer into, with our imaginations.

With my imagination?

If One thought about creativity and the undertanding of where these deeper insights of the soul reside and emerge from, how could they emerge from the very origins, while holding the views, peering deep into space? Peering deeply, into the space inside?

So fanciful creatures we are, that we create all these models and thought constructs to help us along to concretize what the thought construct could do for us, as a measure and yardstick of that reality? So we might playfully use such analogies to open the mind to another possibility?

Sonofusion - star in a jar

Lubos Motl:

The authors admit that the number of events is not enough to build a power plant. However, there is some controversy whether the number of fusion events is what the authors say or whether it is lower by a few dozens of orders of magnitude, as implied by physics.

The mechanism behind sonoluminiscence remains a bit controversial. Claiming that a thermonuclear fusion occurs during sonoluminiscence is among the more conservative explanations. The physicist Claudia Eberlein argued that the correct explanation is that the imploding bubbles create sonic black holes and the flashes are the counterpart of Hawking radiation as the sonic black hole evaporates. You should not think that this is an example of a very, very low energy quantum gravity because the sonic black holes have no connection with the scales of gravity. It is not a supercollider in a glass of beer. But let me admit that as an undergrad, I was excited by this proposal, at least for a few minutes, but I apparently forgot the details of that encounter.

Yes, your last statement sums it up Lubos.

Now, why had such model had been gainfully employed in my analogies?

The need for a leading construct and all the geometries to be included in a particluar way? Would they match the very expressions of our universe?

While education would indeed detail the complications and ideas around such models, it is not without simplicity, that such understanding could be pictured first( Dirac comes to mind(?)), and then contain the thousand words, equations, that are to come afterward? This all evolves forma universal expressinand idea I have about how such expression are contained inthe new expressions we see of this universe.

So it is by looking for this thread of thought and emerging property of such thought, that we would have to trace it back? How would you do that if you did not believe in your interactiveness with the universe at large. An "deductive/inductive," relation with reality that one may have morphed in the exchange from "one moment to the next?" Becoming.

This is a evolving thread of growth that somehow goes on in our ever education and open mind,least we be restraint by our very own convictions and said, "here is where I lie?"

How Particles Came to be?

The First Few Microseconds, by Michael Riordan and Willaim A. Zajc

For the past five years, hundreds of scientists have been using a powerful new atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island to mimic conditions that existed at the birth of the universe. Called the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC, pronounced "rick"), it clashes two opposing beams of gold nuclei traveling at nearly the speed of light. The resulting collisions between pairs of these atomic nuclei generate exceedingly hot, dense bursts of matter and energy to simulate what happened during the first few microseconds of the big bang. These brief "mini bangs" give physicists a ringside seat on some of the earliest moments of creation.
During those early moments, matter was an ultrahot, superdense brew of particles called quarks and gluons rushing hither and thither and crashing willy-nilly into one another. A sprinkling of electrons, photons and other light elementary particles seasoned the soup. This mixture had a temperature in the trillions of degrees, more than 100,000 times hotter than the sun's core.

What was the initial energy that distributed the particle natures to have "microstate blackholes" created, while the conditions for other experiments are considered?

There are some things we need to know and I will show this shortly. I know certain people believe I am "ad hocing," but how would you get to the source of the thoughts, if one did not consider the conditions in which thought forms were created? So while we lok at the high energy collision of cosmic particles what are some of the things to watch for?

Forbush Decrease

Scott E. Forbush discovered the surprising inverse relationship between solar activity and cosmic rays

How would you not know, while the timeline has been explained, and a place for such expression would reveal such conditions to have them displayed, that we could think of them from such a beginning?

Where is that? Maybe you had to know about RHIC to understand the full notion of such a superfluids created, to know that such a condition became counter-intutive because of the new physics that it could present?




What is dissapated and how did it get there as other particle conditions are realized? Remember, the initial energy of such a expression was in a more simplified state, before it became as complex as it did in entropic realizations.

New state of matter more remarkable than predicted -- raising many new questions

The four detector groups conducting research at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) -- a giant atom “smasher” located at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory -- say they’ve created a new state of hot, dense matter out of the quarks and gluons that are the basic particles of atomic nuclei, but it is a state quite different and even more remarkable than had been predicted. In peer-reviewed papers summarizing the first three years of RHIC findings, the scientists say that instead of behaving like a gas of free quarks and gluons, as was expected, the matter created in RHIC’s heavy ion collisions appears to be more like a liquid.

“Once again, the physics research sponsored by the Department of Energy is producing historic results,” said Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, a trained chemical engineer. “The DOE is the principal federal funder of basic research in the physical sciences, including nuclear and high-energy physics. With today’s announcement we see that investment paying off.”

As a product of mind could it be reborn, or burn up, and we are only discussing the philosophical considerations. Phenix, or was that Phoenix, like the bird? Rising from the flames and a renewal, as part of the creation of new conditions?

Scientists May Soon Have Evidence for Exotic Predictions of String Theoryissued by Northeaster University

"String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap. This increases the number of 'down' neutrinos detected. At the same time, the creation of black holes causes 'up' neutrinos to be caught in the Earth's crust, reducing the number of 'up' neutrinos. The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."

Intuitively Compelling

While it does appear that Einstein has indeed given us a paradigm which was indeed world-changing and affected everyone, how well might he have known himself?

He was "driven," as to the" focus and outcome" of GR's growth? Yet, being Jewish, and the meaning he might have had for God(Old ONe) had a perspective about nature, that was embued with a certain terminology?

So having engaged the wording of scientist as of late, I wanted to stay as close as I could to the thinking being developed as they engaged society through their blogging site perspectives.

It was most troubling that any discussing of the timeline and any other constructs place in accordance with that timeline, would/could have been insulting to some, even though it fit into a perspective in terms of microseconds, lesss then somany eseconds of expression.

Again for sure, "thought constructs," most appropriate measures as yard sticks of reality conforming to model approaches? Be open.

Thomas Torrance

In 1978, he won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion for his contributions to theology and the relationship between it and science

You must understand there is a current struggle in today's world with those who support the Templeton Foundation, it's scientists, and those who believe science should remain free of such influences, so they propagate any information forthcoming as tainted?

Einstein and God By Thomas Torrance"Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" was asked of Einstein.

I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

The Nature of Reality
Having read all of Jane Roberts books( some might not have taken a shine to such information, but part of the developing perspective included information that was written "intuitively compelled"), so she might have answered a little different, but in essence, thought, to the nature of the universe.

I'll try and find her definition of the building blocks.

So you are give this question as to what the nature of the unverse is? What is it, and people are lead through theoretcial constructs to develope perspective on what that question might be?

Robert Laughlin, does not care if they are Lego bricks or Drunk Sargeant majors:)

Self Organization of Matter, by Robert Laughlin

What Lies Beneath, by Eugene Samuel

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

One had to indeed understand that the maps drawn, were drawn from thOught constructS engaged from wanting to understanding where first principles may have emerged from?

How would you do that without undertanding where this map began?




So what use to Engage Strangelets, New Physics



So from a resulting comprehension of such first principles, there came this resulting course of events, that went through all the phase transitions, to become what it is, in context of the strangelet, a perspective about a measure in the IceCap?



I have been following this research for sometime now. I will be updating this information here].

One has to know where to begin with all this information, and that such "mental constructs" had to know where this beginning was. While there are few here mathematically endowed, I wanted to come here and share perspectve in context of the neurological idea behind the mental constructs that we develope in science.

This is not without foundation that, "globally," when we now see, we had indeed step back to access the greater potential in "thought generation," and that "mass psychosis," (could we call it that as such a verification by the masses?)" endowed to measure, experimentally verified.

I'll wait to see if you want some time to digest and rethink, if you think, it worth doing that? :)

True creativity often starts where language ends-Arthur Koestler

Intuitively Compelling=Intuitive Grasp of Self Evident First Principles



No matter the ideology spread, is there something today that is quite useful in our approaches to cognizing relevance, from "thought constructs" to actual processes, currently asking us our about the beginning of the universe?

While such solidification ensues from taking a stand, as a concluson drawn, is it compelling as to the nature of what first principles might mean? You had to understand the current environment, to conclude an opinion about the measures and constructs, as to those measures asking if there was another way?

You couldn't know that, unless you might have read the links of Robert Lauglhin and understood reductionistic tendencies(science), as to the nature of our universe? It's like joining quantum perspective with General Relativity? You would have to known how this was acomplished? It's result, and hence it's application within society?

If one had not understood, shall we call it a "probabilistic discourse," to have now understood, that a new course may be set today, was different from the past, by "one additional grasp of self evident first principle?" That a new page may be written( what thinking had done so) which may change the course of our lives?

Of course, some will not have confidence yet. :)
That the potential exists within each of us to understand we are partaking of a quest to percieve where this point in existance might be revealled. If not at the basis of reality, then what use the math? While I generalize becuase of my inefficieny of these interpretations, the vastness of the world of math, there was some undertanding geometrically inclined, that is revealled as we followed the logic leading to GR.

Did it mean we should be devoid of our belief in a God, if we held to science principles, while, we engaged in the subjectivity of our opinions?

It All Began in a Dream?

An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.Srinivasa Ramanujan

So to me, it is still all out there for us to look? How we might entertain that awe and beauty in nature?

"God does not play dice" by Thomas Torrance
Einstein was not a determinist but a realist, with the conviction that, in line with Clerk Maxwellian field theory and general relativity theory, nature is governed by profound levels of intelligible connection that cannot be expressed in the crude terms of classical causality and traditional mathematics. He was convinced that the deeper forms of intelligibility being brought to light in relativity and quantum theory cannot be understood in terms of the classical notions of causality–they required what he called Übercausalität–supercausality. And this called for "an entirely new kind of mathematical thinking", not least in unified field theory–that was a kind of mathematics he did not even know, but which someone must find.

Once Comsuming any Model

It is difficult to explain how one might have "the feeling" for curvature on cosmological plateau while such tendencies for quantum perception would be rule by uncertainty?

I wonder if such states held in context to what consciousness might be able to percieve at that level of high energy areas, would give indications to particle natures and the curvatures assigned to each particle nature. What gave these meomntum ad emotive feelings to such travel from the initial contact?

How are we able to pierce this veil and environment, while talking about the nature of such curvatures? We wouldn't survive realistically, yet, we are able to perform "thought constructs" to such models?

So looking at time dilation, the photon within environments, what indications for such curvatures, and one gets this sense of momentum, and in another way, something that I have called toposense.

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.

Constants with and without dimensions

Nature presents us with various constants. Some of these constants, such as the fine-structure constant, are dimensionless and are not expressed in terms of units. However, other constants, such as the velocity of light or the mass of the proton, are dimensional and their numerical values depend entirely on the units in which they are expressed. The laws of nature do not, of course, depend on a man-made system of units.

To put this another way, if we want to measure a dimensional constant, we need a "yardstick" to make the measurement. But if we obtained one value when we measured the speed of light on a Monday, say, and a different value when we measured it on a Friday, how would we know that our yardstick had not shrunk or expanded? We would not. Moreover, if we were to interpret our observations as a change in the length of the yardstick, how could we verify it without reference to a second yardstick? Again, we could not. And so on.

However, dimensionless constants are fundamental absolute numbers, measured without reference to anything else. Therefore, if we want to investigate if the laws of nature are changing we must measure dimensionless quantities such as the fine-structure constant or the ratio of the electron and proton masses

Bulk Perspective, As Sound?

Let's say, it all depends on how you would like to look at the universe. Develope your constructs, to tell you how it is the universe came into being and such. A picture then, could become a thousand words? Links on pictures are always important too.

Have you read of the way sonoluminece works?



Let's not worry about the "energy production" for now, other then, the sound and it's application there? Are any of you familiar?

If one holds to the bulk perspective, and you would have to know what I mean by the bulk, then, such concentrations would have held perspectve to the gatherings and created the circumstances for new universe to be borne?



If one types in the "search function" at the top left hand corner the word "bulk," of the blog as I did, with the word, "sound," then a page will come up that will help explain that term. How it is used. The Picture and it's link will be most useful as well.

Basis of Reality by Geometric Design?

I would like to continually like to remind one of Plato's cave. If the sun is behind us, how do you relate what is seen dimensionally, and describe it from first principles? The shadows are used in a way to draw our attention to our limitations of thinking.



So I moved this internally, and the sun behind, becomes the sun from a center realized inside. Circles within circles, topologically and constructively asking, which way are we seeing now?

I was thinking here that to get to the "truer source of reality" what underlies our basic intepretations of such "thought constructs," would be to defined essentially in a geometric way, first. This is how first principle is established, as observation to a "geometric way" leads all concepts from this beginning?

Man ponders shadow, or shadow ponders itself?

So let's say you are this fellow sleeping on the bus, and he is having deep suttle thoughts about life. He generalizes what he might see of "mass psychosis" in a geometical way, as well as, see science, necessary as the basis of this expression?

You also hads to know where the beginning of all expression arose from, so this defintion is very important in that respect?

Although theoretical, it establishment with the basis of science would be very important. As Feynman diagrams are.

Example here given with Dirac?

Paul Dirac:

When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.

Picture is link :)

So the thought construct is very dependant on how we would look at reality and this might inject various geometric processes, yet, we are very aware of the timeline, and where this expression arose from. This is what first principle must do?

While we like to think of the "building blocks of matter" you may of liked to call them strings in the first microseconds, this still does not take you to the source of the expression of what is now geometrically enhanced? So one siads there is no geometry? And of course the Pizza Guy is amazed at how all this could exemplify itself in some way in which the false vacuum and the true vacuum can tunnel from one to another.

So definition of "brane thinking" here encases a lot of information conceptually, as we speak about the reality of such things, and how they arose? These are contained in the most simplfied picture forms. It is necessary to see into how the workings of all "thought constructs," will manifest. Why pictures beomes links to a much more detail way of thinking geometrically.

I gave Dirac as a example.



I also link Albrect Durer for a example as well.

What Comes Next?

What Lies Beneath, by Eugene Samuel

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

You might as well famiiarize yourself with Robert Laughlin's, "Self Organization of Matter."

I mean if you think of micro-seconds and someone saids to you, it just doesn't make sense( what energy scale the model of strings applied?) then one might have trouble accepting the report on colliders for consideration, and how we view the outcome of the universe from that beginning?

Nice moose picture in there to look at.

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

Maybe we need a adustment on what we actually thought happenned at the very beginning? Current science writing then needs to reflect what the information is leading us too?

Quark Soup(Scientific American), is limited then, in what we may think about what happens in those gold ion collisions. The relations, as to what happened cosmologically at the very beginning?

What are the characteristics of superfluids that we would find the work of Ketterle involved here?

Berkeley Lab Technology Dramatically Speeds Up Searches of Large DatabasesJon Bashor

In the world of physics, one of the most elusive events is the creation and detection of “quark-gluon plasma,” the theorized atomic outcome of the “Big Bang” which could provide insight into the origins of the universe. By using experiments that involve millions of particle collisions, researchers hope to find unambiguous evidence of quark-gluon plasma.

Shouldn't that writing lead us to ponder in our minds the next step?

A conclusion then about the difficulties upon which thoughts of viscosity with regards to the beginning of that time? The most perfect fluid. A Hydrodynamical calculation then? I am also thinking of the laval nozzle and the back reaction as well.

You have to forgive me here because it is of some interest that I would like to write, but I would like also to write reasonably and responsibly as well. :)

Reductionism and the Universe

I have been thinking about things quite a bit in regards to information, and where I am getting it from lately. As well, what has occupied me the last couple of days. It has creatd a greater distant in time between blog entries. If you look, you will see it was April 30, so I want to explain that first, and then deal with the opening title of this blog entry.




You must understand that the picture up top is in concert with our understanding of what the early universe is saying of itself, while we look at "segments of time," in relation.

As well, our understanding of the relation string theory has and it's plce in relation to that time line. Sean Carroll refers to it as the arrow of time, and I am inlcined to agree, yet there has been some trouble in my thoughts about these things. About how the cyclical process, is possibly tied to the dynamics of this process.

Before the universe was created, may seem difficult to talk about, yet, if anyhting is to be incluisive in an "all" inclusive that model it had to be part of the picture somehow(standard model and beyond it)? So, I believe it should not be excluded? After, the initial universe created, it had to be geoemtrically tied together, to show this complete model of understanding, in relation not only to the standard model and it's extension with gravity, but the "whole geometrical picture?"

At a certain place ithe universe's evolution, this may not have any information to really describe it, but if contained, can we talk about the containment(?) and how it is trasnformed into the new universe? That is a general question but a scientist would know the deeper inclination.

Where I had Been in My Thinking



As I have said before the departments are not so far apart at Harvard, that the research in one area might be of benefit to the other in model and theoretcial design. I know some do not like the psychology. It's implcations as an affront to the objectivivity of science, yet, I would say, that constructs are very subjective first, and then materialize. Why, I might refer to the cognitive realization of the math most suitable for whatever construct we like to create.

Lubos Motl:

When Ari visited Harvard at the end of 2004, he showed a picture of Che Guevara on one of his transparencies. At that time, I did not know that particular communist bastard, so I asked Ari who was that - and Ari answered that it was a Czech dissident. Ari assumed that I was joking - because we certainly had to hear about Che all the time, he thought - but I was not joking and in fact the Czechoslovak communists did not tell us a single nice word about Che. He was never popular in Czechoslovakia and as far as I can tell, the Czechoslovak communists did not trust allies such as Che

As I said my mind has been extremely occupied these last couple of days but not without keeping in tune what what's being posted out there. Some blogs sites have been kinder to me then others in my thoughts manifest.

I have to tell you my journey has been a quite struggle to get to the beginning of thought in regards to the ideas about our universe and the constructs that we are using and developing in science, hence, the title of the blog entry above.

I gave indications to signal to you that I do understand the time line that has been so far constructed. The ways theoretical models are being used in relation to that developement.

I wanted to talk about the "cross cultural influence", we can garner from our youths to "color" our future. I wanted to say, that such "constructs" are as legitamate as the very science models we are using to describe our universe.

It took me a long time to get here. A long time, to realize the beginning of the universe is calling upon our "cognitive abilites," to come to the forefront of our minds, and see, that mind will and should engage the place, "where it all began," as I have been trying to do, with the limited tools that I have in my own arsenal.

Just so you know, that I had not been so will nilly all over the place not to understand the work I had been doing had a purpose and even though I had not followed the student's way in collegiate access, I should not be sigaled out as a non person in the understanding of the quest I have with my/our place in the universe.

I had all the access in the world to the information that the students do. Why, I was able to understand this "time line and the energy associations" given to the times zones, of the phase states of the universe's construction. What we have so far surmized.

Construct's of Our Youth

Given the circumstances of our youth, I wanted to speak to the "construct" that we do form from experience. The statements, as conclusions we will make in public. If we never understood that part of the individual has a past, what use would it be to understand that any state of "becoming," would indeed have a future?

So this evolving idea in mind is crucial, to what will predate the actual objectivity of the expressions we will make? Are you saying this is not you? :) Many scientist while human, might think themself set apart, no matter how hard they try to show this part of themself as being different. WE are involved in the process be it the Pizza Guy, the person sitting next to you on what ever transportation, that the "class struggle" is sort of defined now? Is it?:)

So I'll be getting back to the original thoughts on this post, shortly. I have an all night work process that has to be done first, to pay for that bus ride.