Nurturing Creativity

See here and here


It looks as if moderation, or maybe technical problems, has set in for me at Cosmic Variance. So I have to go from the last statement made there by Lee that I was allowed to contribute. To continue with the points I am making.

I was glad to see Jacques was continuing where David B seems to have decided the futility of dealing with these issues of the String theory backlash.

Lee Smolin:When there was little selection we naturally got a wide diversity of types of scientists, which was good for science. My view is that we need that diversity, we need both the hill climbers and the valley crossers, the technical masters and the seers full of questions and ideas.

Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski in "The String Theory Landscape" September 2004 Scientific issue speak exactly to what Lee is saying and descriptively allow us to see the pattern underlying Lee's comment. Maybe George Musser will release it for the group to inspect here

Take full note of the diagrams.

See OFF THE HOOK. Line-by-line crocheting instructions that tell where to increase or decrease numbers of stitches create the global shape of the Lorenz manifold.Univ. of Bristol

Clifford:Hooking Up Manifolds

The artlcle goes a great deal into the story of how mathematician Hinke Osinga and her partner mathematician Bernd Krauskopf got into this, and why they find it useful. You’ll also hear from mathematicians Carolyn Yackel, Daina Taimina, and Sarah-Marie Belcastro. This has been going on for a while, and there are even published scientific papers with crocheting instructions for various manifolds! How did I miss out on this?! This is great!

If you did not continue with understanding the "topography of the energy involved" in terms of what the string theory landscape was doing, then you would have never understood the "hills and valleys" in the context of string theory landscape being described?

HYPERBOLIC FABRIC. Many of the lines that could be inscribed on this crocheted hyperbolic plane curve away from each other, defying Euclid's parallel postulate.
Taimina

IN retrospect decisions we make will always resound with what we should have done, but that misses the boat when coming to the "creative abilities?" What we see may "institute a productive research group?" You exchange one for another?

Lee Smolin:Is string theory in fact perturbatively finite? Many experts think so. I worry that if there were a clear way to a proof it would have been found and published, so I find it difficult to have a strong expectation, either way, on this issue.

The fact that a way had been describe in terms of developing the "Triple Torus" speaks to the continued development of the string theory landscape? How could you conclusively finish off this statement and then from it describe the state of the union, when this had already been explained technically?

We say that E8 has rank 8 (the maximum number of mutually commutative degrees of freedom), and dimension 248 (as a manifold). This means that a maximal torus of the compact Lie group E8 has dimension 8. The vectors of the root system are in eight dimensions, and are specified later in this article. The Weyl group of E8, which acts as a symmetry group of the maximal torus by means of the conjugation operation from the whole group, is of order 696729600.

You had to see the context of the triple torus in relation too where the string landscape places were placing these modular forms. If I had said E8 and the continued development of modular form, what would this represent?

The complexity of the forms themself are limited and finite so how could one claim that such work on the landscape is futile in regards to infinities?

Finiteness in String Theory Landscape

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.

Please take note of the underlined.

Well after some thought here in terms of the landscape, it was important from what I understood, that finiteness be explained in the String Theory landscape. That there were markers with which to measure this progress?

A sphere with three handles (and three holes), i.e., a genus-3 torus. See Finiteness of String Theory and Mandelstam

There is a conversation going on at Cosmic Variance that is continuing with the ongoing debate String Theory is Losing the Public Debate. Well from the technical aspects that is foolish.

As a lay person following the debate on the issue of Finiteness in String Theory landscape was the point technically reached that I was referring too.

David has been careful to lead us through this and as a layman I am watching the way he is describing, so I am learning, as I learnt in other debates.

I hope Jacques that you would encourage David instead of express the futility of such an debate, I have learnt as so many others that you have to "talk past a certain point" if you can no longer get the subject moving beyond the ole rhetoric.

So while learning the difference between the "Fitness landscape" and the "String theory landscape, I learnt the difference is the "finiteness issue in the String theory Landscape?" This then been carried to the issue of Mandelstam and the triple torus?

So this in itself was what allowed us to say that the string theory landscape was indeed working toward the issue of Finiteness with which many have found to be a problem.

See here

Sometimes I wonder why I care so much about working this process and I can only conclude that having my own motivations, and seeing where we had been lead to a point, I had see for myself where the limits of the discussion or debate was being left off.

I learnt to move this forward in face of the points reached. In terms of the same ole rhetoric supplied by Peter Woit. I found that if I wanted to learn anything further in regards to string theory I had to move beyond his arguments confronted, and I have even stopped listening to him. Why would you continue to do research, when a forgone conclusion had been adopted? It's easy, just adopt his point of view and why comment any further unless you had some ulterior motive? Some important information that you could discredit the string theory model itself?

Then it would all be done an dover with and we would have no need further for their services.

Mandelstam held within context of the String landscape

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

So for me having markers in place seems critical so I can progress from where future points being talked. I continue to learn from Lee Smolin and why it was important to differentiate between the String theory Landscape and the Fitness Landscape that he is extolling.

Now what does this mean and I needed the article from George Musser's editorial position with the Scientific America magazine to further what I had found. Who said a good magazine, holding a independent position, one way or the other, could not report "bias free" without interjecting it's thought to further embed in consciousness, that a perceived condition exists? That string theory is dead? No, that string theory is loosing ground in a debate? Hardly :)

Considering it's source, I would think about shifting the need for consultation to incentives to post docs, and then maybe Lee Smolin could come in and support that position and then it seems, the debate is going in their direction? Talking about getting away form the essence of the debate on string theory loosing ground. This is a smoke screen being put up when the issue technically were getting close, now required some kind of diversion tactic, of course bas don the same issue with which they perceive string theory is being supported by special interest, and then moving the perception to who should be hired and preferential treatment?

The Elixir of the Bee Community

You should know that that the names of the Bee people have their names protected, to protect the community at large. Some larger human species, like to use the benefits of this society, without recognizing the constructive efforts that goes into this elixir Production.

Marc D. Hauser:

We know that that kind of information is encoded in the signal because people in Denmark have created a robotic honey bee that you can plop in the middle of a colony, programmed to dance in a certain way, and the hive members will actually follow the information precisely to that location. Researchers have been able to understand the information processing system to this level, and consequently, can actually transmit it through the robot to other members of the hive.

See Bumblebee Wing Rotations and Dancing

Many times people have used Ant world to illustrate their ideas, but the time has come, that the relationship to perspective dynamics at that level should think about the vast literature of Bee people.

The second of five Lagrangian equilbrium points, approximately 1.5 million kilometers beyond Earth, where the gravitational forces of Earth and Sun balance to keep a satellite at a nearly fixed position relative to Earth.

See Second of Five Lagrangian Equilibrium Points

One should not think these people have been disassociated from reality, and that it has only been our ignorance of the economics and flight patterns, that we failed to see the dynamical community that bee propagation goes through, in order to continue it's rich development. The elixir production is coming out of that community.

There are two reasons that having mapped E8 is so important. The practical one is that E8 has major applications: mathematical analysis of the most recent versions of string theory and supergravity theories all keep revealing structure based on E8. E8 seems to be part of the structure of our universe.

The other reason is just that the complete mapping of E8 is the largest mathematical structure ever mapped out in full detail by human beings. It takes 60 gigabytes to store the map of E8. If you were to write it out on paper in 6-point print (that's really small print), you'd need a piece of paper bigger than the island of Manhattan. This thing is huge.

See Solidification of Geometrical Presence

Flower pollination is a interesting thing having considered the world that the Bee people live in. After all, the dynamics and travel used, one could not help being enamoured with the naturalness with which one may try to reproduce in human mechanistic movement, that the Bee people live and breathe.

Humanistic intelligences is a larger format, to what they do in that Bee community?

Cell construction provides for the further propagation of the community, but no where do the Bee people give the particulates of the cell construction? Humanistic intelligences only see the community with regards to the Bee movements :)The Bee people have a greater depth to what is seen.

Observing the community at large, the Bee people have much more to present then thinking just in the way they work. Who is Navier Stokes of the humanistic intelligences to think only he could reveal anomalistic perception in the nature of viscosity, not to think there is relativistic conditions that the Bee people bring to reductionism views in physics?

Worker bees perform a host of tasks from cleaning the hive cells to looking after the larvae

The workers have a variety of tasks to perform – some collect nectar from flowers, others pollen, some are engaged in constructing new combs, or looking after the developing larvae, some perform the duty of cleaning the cells or feeding the larvae on special secretion that they regurgitate from their mouth parts. In these insects the exact task of any individual depends largely on its age, although there is a certain flexibility, depending on the requirements of the hive.

So I've taken a different tack here. If it is so hard for the community at large to comprehend that extra dimensional thinking then there has to be some way in which we as lay people can envision the acrobatics of a busy bee and their flight plans? What the community is all about. Who is doing what?

How many dimensions are there?

Consider ants crawling on a tabletop. In their daily experience, they can explore only 2 dimensions, those of the table surface. They may see a bee up flying, or occasionally landing on the table top, but that 3rd dimension is something they can only see or imagine, not experience. Perhaps we are in an analogous situation. Instead of a tabletop, we live in a 3-dimensional space called 3-brane (a name generalizing 2-brane, i.e., membrane). For some reason, we (i.e., atoms, molecules, photons etc.) are stuck in this 3-brane, even though there are 6 additional dimensions out there. Gravity, like the bee, can go everywhere. We call this the brane world, a rather natural phenomenon in superstring theory. At the moment, physicists are working hard to understand this scenario better and to find ways to experimentally test this idea.

The Bee people had graduated from the world of the ant people, jsut by their evolutionary timeline. They were "much more visionary" then the ant people. Because they could leave their three dimensional world of the table top, and pop into ant world's frame of reference. Ant people were never the wiser. Just that, Bee people existed.

Providing a rigorous theoretical framework that incorporates both recent developments such as Aubrey-Mather theory and established fundamentals like Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser theory, this book represents an indispensable resource for graduate students and researchers in the disciplines concerned as well as practitioners in fields such as aerospace engineering.

See Wolf-Rayet star

Brane theory development needed a boost from the Bee people. Not only now do we understand the "dynamical thinking that goes with the Bee's flight patterns," we are now thinking, hey, "can these things apply" to the current solutions the humanistic intelligences persevere to unfold in their space travels?

Not just "our waist lines" as some might think in regards to "lensing" and the circles we apply in "computerize efforts." The range of territory of the Bee's community is well considered?

Blackhole Horizon, "as a Hill?"

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

You know I have these thoughts about the string landscape. No where do I find a conversation ongoing that speaks to this.

I am directing our views back to the origins of the universe so that while the geometrics of Smolin's is speaking to what manifests in our universe, the propagation there holds a vast difference to what is being implied in the geometrical topology to other possible expressions asking for clarification "in tunnneling" with the string theory landscape

With regards to the matrimonial issues of the science and quantum gravity, any perspectives with differing views would help elucidate the problems. So one may help indicate "the network" to which each is thinking and thus reveal the attributes encoded in that marriage. This is a well balanced approach to facing the future in regards to science in my view? :)

Hurricane tree © by Jocke Berglund See " A tree in the forest"

Without continuing debate one may come to a dead end, whilst the "opening to diversity" had already been implied in quantum gravity research. Which part of the elephant are you grabbing on too?

Plato:

I know most have moved on.

String Theory Landscape

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.

See here

AS a layman I needed to understand the differences of String theory Landscape and Fitness landscape? Are others having the same problem?

Fitness landscape

In evolutionary biology, fitness landscapes or adaptive landscapes are used to visualize the relationship between genotypes (or phenotypes) and reproductive success. It is assumed that every genotype has a well defined replication rate (often referred to as fitness). This fitness is the “height” of the landscape.

See here

Always still a puzzle to me. :) Thanks for your patience.

[Published in: Chains of Affection: The Structure of Adolescent Romantic and Sexual Networks, Bearman, Moody and Stovel, American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1 (July 2004) 44-91.] See "Sexual Network."

It was important that I distinguish between positions currently adopt by the String community and what is proposed in argument by Lee Smolin's perception? You had to know that regardless of the views extolled by each of them, they must each have some "geometrical basis" that allows us to understand what the "bubble nucleation" is talking about. The false vacuum and it's movement to the true.

You had to identify the mechanism used here to extol the points being made.

Some may have designs of networks that speak to the propagation of what this Fitness landscape is about, and people would not be all the wiser if they had understood the geometrical inclination described in the quote above placed at Clifford's ongoing conflict of representation about string theory to have it further announced at Cosmic Variance as String Theory loosing some kind of battle?

Using Boltzman's brain as a recall of what is happening in the blackhole is part of the discussion I had been trying to move forward without any help from those that should be standing front and centre, regarding their respective fields. Why I have hung around Clifford's continued efforts to answer this supposed Conflict? In face of proponents who would like to bury string theory for what ever reason.

I have to include this post so that you understand the relationship of

If one cannot see "the mechanism being used" then of course it won't make sense.

String Theory Landscape

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.

Some maybe happy with the propagation of the species :) but one would have to draw their attention to the geometrical basis of these two differing views on the landscape brought forward?

I am invoking "Boltzmann's brain" here. :) While it may ensue from "first principles" I am still referring to quantum gravity in both regards.

If this is not done, then the debate will continue, "in the land of babble" and "Pink Elephants." Us lay people are not happy about this.

See here for link.

So without identifying the "physics involved" and the "geometrical basis" what use is there to continue the debate while it had been thought that the layman were disrupting the process while the supposed educational level was being somehow more responsible?

It required that we indentify the markers from which to progress and in doing this, one then gets a fothold on the ensuing debate about string theory landscape versus Smolin's Fitness landscape? Hope I got this right?

Great Pyramid was built inside out, Frenchman says

Man ponders shadow, or shadow ponders itself?

Great Pyramid of Giza was the world's tallest building from c. 2570 BC to c. 1300 AD.†

For me, this has always been somewhat of an interest of mine. I'll tell a little bit of why this is so as well. Give you some ideas about what the pyramid represents to me and then of course you can add your own theories like anyone one else does, who has a similar interest.

Great Pyramid of Giza. From a 19th century stereopticon card photo

Given the "artifact of the structure," we like to inject our own ideas about things. Stand amazed, as if "on the site" we are some how transported back in time to the history that must be recorded some place?

I would just as soon turn on the television of the event linked in some "physics way" then on the psychometry subjectively induced perceptions that can be held. We would have to remove "our bias" in place of "the connection" not understood.


Will We Travel Back (Or Forward) in Time? by RICHARD GOTT III

Einstein proved we can travel forward by moving near light speed. Backward requires a wormhole, cosmic string and a lot of luck
Do the laws of physics permit time travel, even in principle? They may in the subatomic world. A positron (the antiparticle associated with the electron) can be considered to be an electron going backward in time. Thus, if we create an electron-positron pair and the positron later annihilates in a collision with another, different electron, we could view this as a single electron executing a zigzag, N-shaped path through time: forward in time as an electron, then backward in time as a positron, then forward in time again as an electron.

When I think of Ronald Mallet and the time travel issue, I like to think of what history can show in it's most intimate moments. That it could place a spell upon us as "a window" to that past. You must know of my attempts at the cosmology used to discern gamma ray detection and the depth perception "enhanced" using that method.

The Window to our past becomes much clearer as time in science also progresses.

Signal Travels Farther and Faster Than Light By MALCOLM W. BROWNE

Another deep quantum mystery for which physicists have no answer has to do with "tunneling" -- the bizarre ability of particles to sometimes penetrate impenetrable barriers. This effect is not only well demonstrated; it is the basis of tunnel diodes and similar devices vital to modern electronic systems.

Tunnelling is based on the fact that quantum theory is statistical in nature and deals with probabilities rather than specific predictions; there is no way to know in advance when a single radioactive atom will decay, for example.

The probabilistic nature of quantum events means that if a stream of particles encounters an obstacle, most of the particles will be stopped in their tracks but a few, conveyed by probability alone, will magically appear on the other side of the barrier. The process is called "tunnelling," although the word in itself explains nothing.

So anyway, many theories arise as to how it was constructed. That is not my concern at this time, although, I show the latest in the news. It is more about the geometry that exists, and what I think this model is used for?

Great Pyramid was built inside out, Frenchman saysBy Tim Hepher, Reuters Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:20PM EDT

PARIS (Reuters) - A French architect said on Friday he had cracked a 4,500-year-old mystery surrounding Egypt's Great Pyramid, saying it was built from the inside out.

Previous theories have suggested Pharaoh Khufu's tomb, the last surviving example of the seven great wonders of antiquity, was built using either a vast frontal ramp or a ramp in a corkscrew shape around the exterior to haul up the stonework.

But flouting previous wisdom, Jean-Pierre Houdin said advanced 3D technology had shown the main ramp which was used to haul the massive stones to the apex was contained 10-15 meters beneath the outer skin, tracing a pyramid within a pyramid.

Map of the Giza Pyramid complex

So of course in order to get close to what I want to show it is important that I show a map of the Giza Pyramid complex so you understand what it is that I propose.

It was important that I show dominate features of the history of the thinking. That it helps to display what the purpose was and how the Giza Plateau was marked according to a Calendar.

Yes a calender, You heard it here for the first time and going back to my early research I will show what I drew then and what this calendar is of. As well, how it was used to demonstrates key locations on that Giza Complex.

Map of Giza pyramid complex.

Models built for thought progression were important features in understanding what any theory does for us as we want to progress our views of the world we live in. No matter how abstract the idea, if it can lead one to new perceptions and bring new perspective to the way in which we see the world then it is not the illusions with which we wish to further perpetuate, but the understanding of our place in the world.



Plato- Book VII of The Republic-The Allegory of the Cave

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

See here as well.

So to get to the points I make it is important to understand some of Plato's writings in order for you to get the jest of the influences of that Egyptian culture. As well, I was lead to believe, this is the beginning of the work for those in science who begin their education.

I go back to this because of what is needed to be place in mind. What I gather from that culture, and what I perceive is influencing science deep within it's consciousness, as humanity, struggles to become clear about it's place in the universe.

The Landscape and Quantum Tunnelling

Quantum tunnelling (or tunneling) is the quantum-mechanical effect of transitioning through a classically-forbidden energy state. It can be generalized to other types of classically-forbidden transitions as well.

Consider rolling a ball up a hill. If the ball is not given enough velocity, then it will not roll over the hill. This scenario makes sense from the standpoint of classical mechanics, but is an inapplicable restriction in quantum mechanics simply because quantum mechanical objects do not behave like classical objects such as balls. On a quantum scale, objects exhibit wavelike behavior. For a quantum particle moving against a potential energy "hill", the wave function describing the particle can extend to the other side of the hill. This wave represents the probability of finding the particle in a certain location, meaning that the particle has the possibility of being detected on the other side of the hill. This behavior is called tunnelling; it is as if the particle has 'dug' through the potential hill.

The landscape presents the idea of tunnelling which I had been thinking about. I showed the link again in a the previous post discussing the "elephant and the horizon" to demonstrate that the "question of time" by Smolin. That it may undergo some features, while talking about the issues of quantum gravity? How were we to measure this knowing Planck Time? So you need ways in which to measure this. At Planck length how are you to do this?



Substituting this mass back into one of the length expressions gives the Planck length




and the light travel time across this length is called the Planck time:



Keep in mind that this is a characteristic time, so its order of magnitude is what should be noted. Sometimes it is defined with the wavelength above divided by 2π, so don't worry about the number of significant digits.


I draw attention to the plasmatic events demonstrated by the Quark Gluonic perception. How is this perceived and measured at this level? So you are sending measure to reductionistic views. Lee Smolin accepts this I think? While we understand the comparative view of all particles associated to a energy valuation, I wanted immediate results in the colour of our thinking for it to incur some understanding of the nature of gravity at the energies involved.

It had to be immediate, and the discrimination of the photon in it's colour was a necessary feature of knowing the particle energies as well in the nature of the gravity. You had to move to a "fifth dimensional perspective" electromagnetism plus gravity, in order to follow what I am saying.

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.

Beyond the 3+1 of Spacetime

So we have moved to the holographic principle and the understanding about the shadows? Again, I return to the context of the pyramid here in this post. I am also revealing an aspect of this geometrical feature that sits at the basis of my thinking when it come to geometrical interpretation.

While the "pyramid is a solid," there is a Sun that shines, and shadows cast from that pyramid we become aware of the "rays of that Sun." The Sun is a very important feature of Plato's Cave, as well as seeing it's use in the Giza Complex.

So I gave you a map above.

I would like you all to know that "carbon dating" is a science in itself.

Carbon dating was developed by a team led by Willard Libby. Originally a carbon-14 half-life of 5568±30 years was used, which is now known as the Libby half-life. Later a more accurate figure of 5730±40 years was determined, which is known as the Cambridge half-life. However laboratories continue to use the Libby figure to avoid inconsistencies when comparing raw dates and when using calibration curves to obtain calendrical dates.

But in this model, I am assuming that the "time clock" assigned to the archaeology of the Pyramid is much different then the one we currently see in current literature. Just from this point alone you could depart. But please, stay around a little bit, so I can show how the model of the pyramid was used as a Sun Dial. How the structures were following "the times" in progression? An interesting story nonetheless?

I have the issues of the meme's in people's experiences to draw upon. How mankind's development in it's observation were gained from what the sun could do to the objects of our world. Given in our youth, a compass of Einstein or a License plate revealing symmetry, or a lamp shade that sends it's line, as a shadow across one's living room. Dust particles that announce themselves once the "ray of light" is invoked?

Hi Q9

Plato:

If you "step back from the article" I am placing a lot of things for consideration.

I am trying to give one "the flavour" of the past, which we know is very difficult at best to describe, as any taste incurred from consuming and digesting foods.

Current issues on the landscape? Tunnelling? Time travel? Tunnelling in faster then light?

I include this response in this post article so that I could answer you immediately. It seems Haloscan is not working?

Hi Q9

Great Pyramid was built inside out, Frenchman says-Post

The term "landscape" comes from evolutionary biology (see Fitness landscape) and was first applied to cosmology by Lee Smolin in his book.[11] It was first used in the context of string theory by Susskind.[12] There are several popular books about the anthropic principle in cosmology.[13] Two popular physics blogs are opposed to this use of the anthropic principle.[14]

See String theory landscape

Dumbo is a 1941 animated feature film produced by Walt Disney and first released on October 23, 1941 by RKO Radio Pictures. The fourth film in the Disney animated features canon, Dumbo is based upon a children's book of the same name by Helen Aberson and illustrated by Harold Perl based on true events. The main character is Jumbo Jr., a semi-anthropomorphic elephant who is cruelly nicknamed Dumbo. He is ridiculed for his big ears, but it turns out that he is capable of flying by using them as wings. His only friend is the mouse Timothy, parodying the stereotypical animosity between mice and elephants. Dumbo was a deliberate exercise in simplicity and economy for the Disney studio, and is today considered one of its finest films.

See "Pink Elephant"

A reference to pink elephants occurs in the 1941 Disney animated classic Dumbo. Dumbo, having taken a drink of water from a bucket spiked with moonshine, begins to hallucinate singing and dancing "Pink Elephants on Parade."

One should not assume that heighten perception refers to "some state of being" other then what is normal? :)

Some see non euclidean geometries at work, does not make you special?

Although such an attribute discovered to me was exceptional. It has it's history though, that cannot be overlooked.

Yet, it is relevant to "projective geometries" and how these arose. So Hilbert saids a list of 23 problems and one of them is "continuity?" What kind of geometry is that? :)

Yet too, should we move so far from what is "solidified in our world," to have said, there cannot exist the designs of geometry that describe this object? Some model? Reveals, aspect of the sociological side of our interactions, that we could have excelled to become better human beings?

Imagine some people draw mountains when in class and are bored with the lecture, or others, dream of some far off places in thought. Why not that such a gravity be included in all peoples thought to have them colour their lives accordingly?

The hard example supplied is Susskind's elephant and entanglement in relation too, what is in the blackhole and what is outside, by describing the horizon. It's colour.

Surely the colour of the gravity can be revealed by such entanglement? You may think a "blackhole in technology" while I am thinking, that by it's very nature, the history of that time allowed us to view it? How so?

Rocket Science

I am having problems trying to respond in Haloscan Q9. So what's that saying, "It's not Rocket Science?"

Now look here:) We now know that Susskind's elephant is "not Pink" and it is not "Dumbo." :) The elephant we are talking about, while still held to "blind men" holding parts of the reality, there is a serious question here about what quantum gravity is. So I have given perspective to what we shall see in terms of colour and the blackhole. All the while I was still speaking about Quantum Gravity.

There’s a place from which nothing escapes, not even light, where time and space literally come to end. It’s at this point, inside this fantastic riddle, that black holes exert their sway over the cosmos … and our imaginations. See Breakthrough Propulsion Physics?

There are different processes out there to which Quantum gravity is being model according to other perspectives. What comes of those persepctives if they have been consumed by their modelled approaches, that they say, "I have the tail" or, "I have the ear." We are still all blind as hell. But it's fun to create the language, new models, new perspectives to help understand our place in the world. Not to continue to perpetuate illusions we all like to create, but ways in which to speak to what is most troubling.

The Blind Men and the Elephant-John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

So this brings me back to the Pyramid.

So what is the calendar in this particular place and I would like to think that I could immerse myself in this windowed view of reality as to what once was. Say, that this television, is based on the nature of the Colour of gravity and that while we watch it. We had to take into consideration the quantum dynamical world that is trying to be spoken to in General Relativity, not just at the classical level, but at the quantum one as well.

Lest I had taken you now to Banchoff and his wonderful 5d explanations of a 2d screen?

Knowing the Giza Complex and the requirement of the Sun, it is now apparent that I will make a subtle exposure to the valuation of how the pyramid was orientated to the sociological aspects of Egyptian thinking.

The Egyptians believed that a person's essence or soul was composed of several elements that at the point of death would become separate entities:

The "ka"

Should we be so foolish to think that the subtle aspect of our humanity could not operate on levels, other then the physical? I give you colour as a consequence of what transpires in life, and holds any person to the realm of their thinking. If they did not know that the gravity associated to every thought manifests as some colour in the disposition of the human body what becomes of the disposition of the soul?

See the Name and Shadow

Time as a Measure

SuperCosmologists Think Out of the Box, by Clifford at 1:13 am, August 3rd, 2005

From what we have learned so far about string theory, the natural starting point for doing physics which makes contact with our world seems to be to start in 9+1 dimensional spacetime. A modern perspective tells us to go further: Strings are not the only important objects in the game, but extended objects of more dimensions called “branes” are also important. (The term comes from starting with “membrane” which is a two dimensional object, calling it a “2-brane” and then having the idea of a “3-brane”, “4-brane” etc. Or just “brane” when you want to be non-specific.) It turns out that we need to consider these objects too. Fully non-perturbative considerations also encourage us to consider “M-theory”, which (at least at low energy) appears as an eleven dimensional (10+1) theory with no strings at all, just branes of a couple of sorts.

Do we suspect we had gone so far from reality to think about science we had somehow left our thought processes out of the loop, for what is demanded from science? I still like to think that with what ever process that one like Lee Smolin would want to talk abut on a philosophical level had it's counterpart in some process that I am speaking about below.

It's only fitting that while one could deal with the "abstractness spoken by Clifford" that we could have of course said the same thing with Lee Smolin's philosophical sojourns. In regards to "time," as an element of where we had taken reductionism too. To the depths of perception that speak to the very early universe. The microseconds of our universe spoken too, settled here to the 3+1 world of matter constituents.

So you see it began someplace else in dimensional perspective that is not so disconnected from the reality with which we like to work.

Experimentalists probe the structure of the proton by scattering electrons (white line) off quarks which interact by exchanging a quantum of light (wavy line) known as a photon.

See Compton and Graviton Scatterings?

How did one get to that level with which to discern the nature of the energy in relation to the photon? I have assume a certain position, in terms of what the photon represents as it speak to the very colouring of the gravitational field.



So how was one to look at the landscape without understanding that there is a measure to the nature of the gravitational field represented by that Photon?

IN relation to the landscape. This is not what stood out when I went to look at Lee Smolin’s reference to chapter 5 with regards to comment #148 I hope this shift is okay for posting?

Just drawing attention to the dates of publication and comparison of views. I was thinking of “Benchmarks” in terms of the progressions, that could have been marked as successes, and help one to realize that there was still a process unfolding?

I thought these two views countering one another?

A second obstacle arises from the theory’s reliance on the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking to explain why each of the elementary particles we see in the world has different properties. While this is a beautiful idea, there is a certain ad hoc quality to how it is realized. To this date, no one has so far observed a Higg’s particle and we have only a very imprecise idea of their properties. Page 61, The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin ISBN 0-19-510837-x 1997

As a Lay person I was thinking of the word “ad hoc” in Lee’s statement, and wonder if this is still reflected in his views of today. This was a build up and precursor to the statement about string theory in question according to Lee’s book statement??

Unravelling String Theory,by Edward Witten 29 Dec 2005

String theory is the only known generalization of relativistic quantum field theory that makes sense. The framework of special relativity plus quantum mechanics is so rigid that it practically forces quantum field theory upon us. The tightness of the modern framework is one of the main reasons why physicists were able to discover what has become the standard model of elementary particles.

Have we moved past this today and “all” in agreement?

Of course being the layman I am it is important that information that is given on Clifford's board is correct. One can quickly swipe out any statement quite easily without understanding the historical aspect of what Lee Smolin is suggesting. What is he suggesting?

Lee Smolin Mar 27th, 2007 at 8:23 am

For one thing the existence of the string landscape has been, at least for me, a great stimulus to revising the notion of time in quantum cosmology. Beyond that the context in which the role of time in quantum cosmology has to be discussed is that of attempts to formulate background independent theories, to the extent that efforts are made to construct a manifestly background independent framework for string theory in the compact case-with no asymptotic symmetries or boundary conditions, the problem of time has to be confronted.

Now of course after this I had been thinking when Lee Smolin made his statement in the selected paragraph above, some things that I had been thinking about.

Gravitational Mass for a Photon

The relativistic energy expression attributes a mass to any energetic particle, and for the photon



The gravitational potential energy is then



When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency




Since it is reduced in frequency, this is called the gravitational red shift or the Einstein red shift.

Escape Energy for Photon

If the gravitational potential energy of the photon is exactly equal to the photon energy then



Note that this condition is independent of the frequency, and for a given mass M establishes a critical radius. Actually, Schwarzchilds's calculated gravitational radius differs from this result by a factor of 2 and is coincidently equal to the non-relativistic escape velocity expression

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

For the longest time I have tried to understand what could be used to answer Lee's statement above. While I have no substituted I looked at what the physics had to say and what we may learn from the horizon.

The elephant and the event horizon by Amanda Gefter

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

See here for article.

This process itself. Would it not instigate the position of Lee to ask what can be revealed in the nature of the photon? While there is calorimetric measures designed in Glast, was it not with the understanding that "high energy" photons could exist? We are using the "escape velocity of the photon" to discern the nature of the blackhole?

This is Lee's current measure of time in any discussion?

See this link for what was deleted from Clifford's blog and I will try and expand and clear up what was quick to be discarded. You had to follow the comments in that section, to get the idea of what "entanglement may mean" for what we see of what exists on the boundary of the blackhole,as a indicator represented by the colour of that photon. Now of course I have exceeded the perspective limited by the 3+1 as a Relativity, yet I go as far as implement the fabric of the spactime as a correlate of what we see of that photon.

Heralded from the 21st Century: String Theory

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

It is sometimes important to know what race of rebels had been raised to realize that such a revolution in the making had started from a place of thinking that many others
began to think about as well?

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

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?"

See here for more information.

It is important to know where such models began to influence the idea to generate theoretical model for an apprehension of how we view this universe? Given the study at hand here are the following people for consideration.

Whence began this journey and revolution?

LEONARD SUSSKIND:

And I fiddled with it, I monkeyed with it. I sat in my attic, I think for two months on and off. But the first thing I could see in it, it was describing some kind of particles which had internal structure which could vibrate, which could do things, which wasn't just a point particle. And I began to realize that what was being described here was a string, an elastic string, like a rubber band, or like a rubber band cut in half. And this rubber band could not only stretch and contract, but wiggle. And marvel of marvels, it exactly agreed with this formula.
I was pretty sure at that time that I was the only one in the world who knew this.

So we have to take stock of the movements that change democratic societies. To have found such governments will change and fall according to the plight of it's citizens in science. As it goes with "theoretical positions?"

Working to understand the development of the model in consideration was needed in order for one to understand why Lee Smolin methodology to work science from a historical perspective is one I favour as well. It is sometimes necessary to list these developmental phases in order to get to a position to speak with authority. Find that "with certainty" we can make certain comments? Find, we must be confronted again, to say, any progress will go from There.

The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

I first read Thomas Kuhn's famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions a quarter-century ago, soon after the publication of the second edition. I had known Kuhn only slightly when we had been together on the faculty at Berkeley in the early 1960s, but I came to like and admire him later, when he came to MIT. His book I found exciting.

Evidently others felt the same. Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science. Soon after Kuhn's death in 1996, the sociologist Clifford Geertz remarked that Kuhn's book had "opened the door to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge" into the study of the sciences. Kuhn's ideas have been invoked again and again in the recent conflict over the relation of science and culture known as the science wars.

So we know where the idea of science wars began do we not? What instigates conflict as a healthy perspective to progress of the sciences. We will see the story unfold within this blog.

For some reason people might of thought my views were just held to Lee Smolin and the work that I had been accumulating with regards to his views of the Universe. While I had shown the cover of his book countless times, I would like to say that I have accumulated "other books," like those of Brian Greene as well.

Does this make me an expert on the subject in question or what ever Lee Smolin has written? Of course not.

But the work I have been doing, has not been limited to what the authors themself have given to the public in their outreach writing books. I have been at this a few years now, so I would like people to think this is not just a jaunt of journalism, that has been given to the public in it's books but has been a labour of love to understand my place in the universe.

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (ISBN 0-375-70811-1) is a book by Brian Greene published in 2000 which introduces string theory and provides a comprehensive though non-technical assessment of the theory and some of its shortcomings.

Beginning with a brief consideration of classical physics, which concentrates on the major conflicts in physics, Greene establishes an historical context for string theory as a necessary means of integrating the probabilistic world of the standard model of particle physics and the deterministic Newtonian physics of the macroscopic world. Greene discusses the essential problem facing modern physics: unification of Einstein's theory of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Greene suggests that string theory is the solution to these two conflicting approaches. Greene uses frequent analogies and mental experiments to provide a means for the layman to come to terms with the theory which has the potential to create a unified theory of physics.

The Elegant Universe was adapted for a three hour program in two parts for television broadcast in late 2003 on the PBS series NOVA.

Thanks Q9 for the link to "Elegant physicist makes string theory sexy." I was going to posted it the day when you gave it to me, but instead seeing that Clifford of Asymptotia had it (same day), I thought I wouldn't. But as fate has it I must.

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (2004) is the second book on theoretical physics, cosmology and string theory written by Brian Greene, professor and co-director of Columbia's Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP).[1]

Greene begins with the key question: What is reality? Or more specifically: What is spacetime? He sets out to describe the features he finds both exciting and essential to forming a full picture of the reality painted by modern science. In almost every chapter, Greene introduces its basic concepts and then slowly builds to a climax, which is usually a scientific breakthrough. Greene then attempts to connect with his reader by posing simple analogies to help explain the meaning of a scientific concept without oversimplifying the theory behind it.

In the preface, Greene acknowledges that some parts of the book are controversial among scientists. Greene discusses the leading viewpoints in the main text, and points of contention in the end notes. Greene has striven for balanced treatment of the controversial topics. In the end notes, the diligent reader will find more complete explanations relevant to points he has simplified in the main text.

Once you get this view of the gravitational connection between everything, the form of graviton, you get this preview of the bulk and what lensing may mean. It is hard not to think of "dimensional perspectives in relation to the energy" describing the particles of science in some way. Witten below in his "Strings Unravel" lets you know what string theory has accomplished.

Warped Passages is a book by Lisa Randall, published in 2005, about particle physics in general and additional dimensions of space (cf. Kaluza-Klein theory) in particular. The book has made it to top 50 at amazon.com, making it the world's first successful book on theoretical physics by a female author. See Where are my keys?

It's alway nice having one's own blog and nice that I can retained my dignity under the name of Plato. It keeps my personal life from being treated with disrespect at the whim of the stroke of a delete key. Of course I am willing to take my lumps understanding such a role as "older student." After being expose to the exchange between people in the tribe, it's thinking can do all kinds of damage to each other? But I would like to think that all sides remain cool to positions they hold in society

A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down by Robert B. LaughlinFrom the Publisher:

Why everything we think about fundamental physical laws needs to change, and why the greatest mysteries of physics are not at the ends of the universe but as close as the nearest ice cube or grain of salt.

Not since Richard Feynman has a Nobel Prize-winning physicist written with as much panache as Robert Laughlin does in this revelatory and essential book. Laughlin proposes nothing less than a new way of understanding fundamental laws of science. In this age of superstring theories and Big-Bang cosmology, we're used to thinking of the unknown as being impossibly distant from our everyday lives. The edges of science, we're told, lie in the first nanofraction of a second of the Universe's existence, or else in realms so small that they can't be glimpsed even by the most sophisticated experimental techniques. But we haven't reached the end of science, Laughlin argues-only the end of reductionist thinking. If we consider the world of emergent properties instead, suddenly the deepest mysteries are as close as the nearest ice cube or grain of salt. And he goes farther: the most fundamental laws of physics-such as Newton's laws of motion and quantum mechanics -are in fact emergent. They are properties of large assemblages of matter, and when their exactness is examined too closely, it vanishes into nothing.

See Laughlin, Reductionism, Emergence

Out of all this uncertainty that exists at the level with which we think about in "those dimensions" what value any constructive diagram if it did not lead you to the understanding of the building blocks that a condense matter theorist may describe as manifesting in our reality?

The Year is 2020 and that's our Eyesight

Columbia physicist Brian Greene inhabits a multiple-perspective landscape modeled after M.C. Escher's artwork in a scene from "The Elegant Universe," a public-TV documentary based on Greene's book.

Q: Hawking has said that there could be a “theory of everything” produced in the next 20 years, or by 2020. Do you get that same sense? Or will there ever be a theory of everything?

A: Well, I always find it difficult to make predictions that are tied to a specific time frame, because as we all know, one of the exciting things about science is that you don’t know when the big break is going to happen. It could happen tomorrow, it could happen 10 years from now, it could happen a century from now. So you just keep pressing on, making progress, and hope that you reach these major milestones — ideally in your own lifetime, but who knows? So I don’t know if 2020 is the right number to say. But I would say that string theory has a chance of being that unified theory, and we are learning more and more about it. Every day, every week, every month there are fantastically interesting developments.

Will it all come together by 2020, where we can actually have experimental proof and the theory develops to the point that it really makes definitive statements that can be tested? I don’t know. I hope so. But hope is not the thing that determines what will actually happen. It’s the hard work of scientists around the world.

But anyway onto what I wanted to say and "being censored" I couldn't.

Clifford is defending his position on how Lee Smolin and Peter Woit have assigned a "perspective view" to string theory as a modelled approach. As a theoretical discovery of science, Clifford from my view, had to show that this process is still unfolding and that any quick decision as to giving String theory such a final vote of opinion from Lee Smolin was premature. I have supported Clifford in this view because of where we had been historically in the past years that the formulation of string theory has been given.

D-Branes by Clifford V. Johnson

D-branes represent a key theoretical tool in the understanding of strongly coupled superstring theory and M-theory. They have led to many striking discoveries, including the precise microphysics underlying the thermodynamic behaviour of certain black holes, and remarkable holographic dualities between large-N gauge theories and gravity. This book provides a self-contained introduction to the technology of D-branes, presenting the recent developments and ideas in a pedagogical manner. It is suitable for use as a textbook in graduate courses on modern string theory and theoretical particle physics, and will also be an indispensable reference for seasoned practitioners. The introductory material is developed by first starting with the main features of string theory needed to get rapidly to grips with D-branes, uncovering further aspects while actually working with D-branes. Many advanced applications are covered, with discussions of open problems which could form the basis for new avenues of research.

While Clifford's book I do not have, I understand that the "second revolution" was necessary to help us move to consider where string theory was to take us. It was progressing in the theoretics as a model to help us see science assuming the ways in which such models adjust us to possible new views in science. Clifford may not of liked the implication of a Grokking of a kind that would refer to consuming model approaches and then becoming what you eat?

Clifford:

I’ve found that different people have different takes on what it means to have a “theory of everything”. There is a popular idea (perhaps the most common) that this somehow means that this theory will describe (at least in principle) all known basic physical phenomena (constituents and their interactions, if you like) once and for all. Others mean something less ambitious, a theory that consistently describes the four fundamental forces and the things that interact with them, achieving a unification of all the forces and phenomena that we currently understand. I personally think that the first idea of a theory of everything is rather naive, and my personal hunch (and bias from what I’ve learned about the history of science) is that there is simply no such thing.

So of course entertaining the idea of a "theory of everything" leaves a bad taste in some peoples mouth, and having them to reason that it is the naivity of such a thought, that I immediately felt insulted. Clifford saids,"this theory will describe (at least in principle) all known basic physical phenomena (constituents and their interactions, if you like) once and for all" and may have been the case for those less then spending the time and effort, would have probably been insulted as I was. I of course came to recognize the positive aspect of the second position Clifford assumes.

Bench Marks of theoretical Progress

Anyway there are positions that we can take when we look back and reassess everything that we have been doing in reading the public outreach, like so called "bench marks" to see if such progressions still have have a evolutionary way to go.

Edward Witten-Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime

Unravelling String Theory

But what is string theory? It may well be the only way to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics, but what is the core idea behind it? Einstein understood the central concepts of general relativity years before he developed the detailed equations. By contrast, string theory has been discovered in bits and pieces — over a period that has stretched for nearly four decades — without anyone really understanding what is behind it. As a result, every bit that is unearthed comes as a surprise. We still don’t know where all these ideas are coming from — or heading to

See more here



So what shall we use to measure what had first seem so abstract in Susskind's mind as a "rubber band," or the start of Veneziano views on such strings at inception? We've come a long way.

Something that I perceived back in 2004 help to "shape my views on the way I speak" "today" allows for us to consider that strings take it's rightful place within the building blocks of matter, that following Robert Laughlins lead, it was that we shifted our times from the first three seconds of Steven Weinberg, to the "First three Microseconds" of strings within the process of the unfolding universe.

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.

See How Particles Came to be?

While Laughlin may have not seen the continued relevance of particle reductionism it was leading to some amazing insights. I now wonder now, if held to the comparisons of this superfluid, how it would have appealed to him? I think Witten in last plate above recognized what had to be done.