Boltzmann's Brain

There is a new article by Dennis Overbye in the New York Times called, Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs?

It could be the weirdest and most embarrassing prediction in the history of cosmology, if not science.

If true, it would mean that you yourself reading this article are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly star-spangled cosmos. Your memories and the world you think you see around you are illusions.

Source: Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology

Alway part of the process is to find within my own site information that I had collected to help me understand where Ludwig Boltzmann comes into the picture in the above article.

Now of course I go over to Cosmic Variance's version of Boltzmann's Universe where the article above is referred too.

I look at the discussion that is taking place and try and put the exchange and points raised in mind so that I can understand as best I can "the jest" of the problem and the jest of what people are saying.

This isn't an attempt to rewrite the article, but to open the door to a better understanding of what is being portrayed.

Sean:lylebot, this is basically the point of the post — if the universe is a fluctuation around thermal equilibrium, then no matter what you condition on concerning our present state (including literally everything we know about it), it is overwhelmingly likely that it is a random fluctuation from a higher-entropy past. Even if we have memories apparently to the contrary!

The Universe and Irreversibility

Now it is quite loosely put together in my head that I went searching to try and understand the context in which the universe was placed in accordance to the state of equilibrium.

In equilibrium, the entropy of the system cannot increase (because it is already at a maximum) and it cannot decrease (because that would violate the second law of thermodynamics). The only changes allowed are those in which the entropy remains constant.

See: What is the entropy of the universe?

HENRI POINCARE : Mathematics and Science-Last Essays

Jules Henri Poincare (1854-1912)

The scientist does not study nature because it is useful. He studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.

HENRI POINCARE Mathematics and Science:Last Essays

Since we are assuming at this juncture the point of view of the mathematician, we must give to this concept all the precision that it requires, even if it becomes necessary to use mathematical language. We should then say that the body of laws is equivalent to a system of differential equations which link the speed of variations of the different elements of the universe to the present values of these elements.

Such a system involves, as we know, an infinite number of solutions, But if we take the initial values of all the elements, that is,their values at the instant t =(which would correspond in ordinary language to the "present"), the solution is completely determined, so that we can calculate the values of all the elements at any period
whatever, whether we suppose />0, which corresponds to the "future," or whether we suppose t<0, which corresponds to the "past." What is important to remember is that the manner of inferring the past from the present does not differ from that of inferring the future from the present.

Free for all: Dream Come True

As a lay person involved and very interested in the research that in going on in science, anything that speaks to the "openness of science" which will allow me to get information that is not third hand, is a wonderful thing for me.

Even among supportive publishers, there is a fear that the transition to open access could be rough, and might even put them out of business.

Yes indeed, it could change the landscape on magazines, or, it could involve a greater research department to science editing, that will bring a science editors work to a level the public can understand. This is a wonderful aspect of the openness of the internet that I have been after and have sought for a long time.

I have followed blogs who have held this virtue for the publics benefit in helping the public with this responsibility of awareness.

Illustration by Sandbox Studio

Forget about paying for journal subscriptions. If a new proposal takes hold, particle physics journals would get their funding from labs, libraries, and agencies that sponsor research, and readers could peruse them for free.

Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics(SCOAP3)

The Open Access (OA) tenets of granting unrestricted access to the results of publicly-funded research are in contrast with current models of scientific publishing, where access is restricted to journal customers. At the same time, subscription costs increase and add considerable strain on libraries, forced to cancel an increasing number of journals subscriptions. This situation is particularly acute in fields like High-Energy Physics (HEP), where pre-prints describing scientific results are timely available online. There is a growing concern within the academic community that the future of high-quality journals, and the peer-review system they administer, is at risk.

To address this situation for HEP and, as an experiment, Science at large, a new model for OA publishing has emerged: SCOAP3 (Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics). In this model, HEP funding agencies and libraries, which today purchase journal subscriptions to implicitly support the peer-review service, federate to explicitly cover its cost, while publishers make the electronic versions of their journals free to read. Authors are not directly charged to publish their articles OA.

SCOAP3 will, for the first time, link quality and price, stimulating competition and enabling considerable medium- and long-term savings. Today, most publishers quote a price in the range of 1’000–2’000 Euros per published article. On this basis, we estimate that the annual budget for the transition of HEP publishing to OA would amount to a maximum of 10 Million Euros/year, sensibly lower than the estimated global expenditure in subscription to HEP journals.

Each SCOAP3 partner will finance its contribution by canceling journal subscriptions. Each country will contribute according to its share of HEP publishing. The transition to OA will be facilitated by the fact that the large majority of HEP articles are published in just six peer-reviewed journals. Of course, the SCOAP3 model is open to any, present or future, high-quality HEP journal, aiming for a dynamic market with healthy competition and a broader choice.

HEP funding agencies and libraries are currently signing Expressions of Interest for the financial backing of the consortium. A tendering procedure will then take place. Provided that SCOAP3 funding partners are ready to engage in long-term commitments, many publishers are expected to be ready to enter into negotiations.

The example of SCOAP3 could be rapidly followed by other fields, directly related to HEP, such as nuclear physics or astro-particle physics, or similarly compact and organized with a reasonable number of journals.

Higgs Mass and Current Issues

For example, theory says that Higgs particles are matter particles, but in most respects the Higgs behaves more like a new force than like a particle. How can this be? In truth, the Higgs is neither matter nor force; the Higgs is just different.

A least-square fit to a number of precisely known data in electroweak physics using the Standard Model as theoretical framework and the Higgs mass as a free parameter yields an expectation value for the Higgs mass around the minimum of the parabola. [Source: Precision Electroweak Measurements and Constraints on the Standard Model by the LEP Collaborations and the LEP Electroweak Working Group, arXiv: 0712.0929v2, Figure 5.]

See Backreaction for explanation. The Higgs Mass

It is an exercise for me coming across different informations on the Higg's for a better understanding of the way things are to happen in reality. I hope to provide for extra links to help one understand the potential realizations that come across as I learn to understand this field better.

I appreciate the clarity given to the writing here that allows this deeper understanding of what is taking place by the different commentors, commenting to Back reactions blog post entry.

At 9:07 AM, January 05, 2008, Anonymous a quantum diaries survivor said...

Hi Stefan,

I wish to pay a tribute to your nice post here and answer the question you pose about the counter-intuitive trend of discovery reach at the LHC versus Higgs mass (for a given integrated luminosity), waiting for Michael's posts on the Higgs.

The problem is that as the Higgs mass changes, the mixture of possible final states it decays into changes dramatically. So, while at 160 GeV the Higgs is best sought in its decay to a pair of real W bosons (which weigh 80 GeV each), and in that case backgrounds are small because the signature is very distinctive, at 115 GeV the Higgs mostly decays to a pair of b-quark jets. Seeing a bump in the jet-jet mass distribution is utterly out of the question because in that case backgrounds are HUGE. So one has to rely on very rare decays such as H->gamma gamma - which still is plagued by large backgrounds.

The Higgs search is not one, but ten different analyses, depending on the unknown parameter M_h. Each analysis has its own problems. The higher the Higgs mass, the smaller the number of produced events; but as M_h changes, the signature varies from invisible to highly distinctive. Above 180 GeV, a Higgs can be seen with no trouble in the ZZ final state, when four muons are a gold-plated signature. It is not by chance that CMS was originally conceived as a compact muon solenoid: muons are all you need, at high mass, for the Higgs.

Cheers,
T.

You can find many more explanations here to help any layman in their understanding as T is always quite help in that direction. Also check out his label of "higgs search" at the top of his page.



See:

The Higg's Boson and Memory?

Alice and the Cosmic Ballet, Now Meet Higgins

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

In a nutshell, what Karim showed was that each time a memory is used, it has to be restored as a new memory in order to be accessible later. The old memory is either not there or is inaccessible. In short, your memory about something is only as good as your last memory about it. Joseph LeDoux

There are a couple of things that are bringing me to speak on "accessing the memories," and, "what people have changed they're minds about."

Plato:

This all has a purpose for me, in that what can be changed according to what our previous assessment was based upon “while remembering.” What it can do to help “readjust our views” based on what we first felt impressed upon us “in reflection?”

You get so many people who view a movie and in "real life?" What has made this movie a tangible bit of information that they would assume in their minds, that it is sufficient, or not, in regards to the basis of scientific procedure, to comment on whether it is just another "white coat scientist with glasses" who defines the scientist in incognito.

There would have to be a question of the reality of who is being defined as a scientist and some relationship and feelings "about the nerdy guy," and his stature as a scientist? Why do they feel this way?

But there is something vastly more important from the aspect of "this blog post entry" that has been part of my blog for some time. The issue about "memories."

Now before I get to the bottom of this posting, an inference to the basis of any thinking has some derivative to the expansionist valuation of more postings, then what can be said in a simple line? :) Ah, it never that easy to say something simple and then not show the examples being used to further the thoughts within one's own regime.

"Recollection of Dreams," while we try and remember yesterday?

I show the EDge site link and question for a purpose, and highlight a paragraph Sean Carroll listed in his blog entry called,"What Have You Changed Your Mind About?"

He paragraphs Joseph LeDoux.

Neuroscientist, New York University; Author, The Synaptic Self

Like many scientists in the field of memory, I used to think that a memory is something stored in the brain and then accessed when used. Then, in 2000, a researcher in my lab, Karim Nader, did an experiment that convinced me, and many others, that our usual way of thinking was wrong. In a nutshell, what Karim showed was that each time a memory is used, it has to be restored as a new memory in order to be accessible later. The old memory is either not there or is inaccessible. In short, your memory about something is only as good as your last memory about it. This is why people who witness crimes testify about what they read in the paper rather than what they witnessed. Research on this topic, called reconsolidation, has become the basis of a possible treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, drug addiction, and any other disorder that is based on learning.

It is also important that I show the thought held while commenting on the movie script, so one gets the sense of where I am coming from.

Plato:

"If it was a consistent effort on your part how would it be any different then remembering what happened yesterday? Depends on “what you want to remember?”

I still find “the change” intriguing and how it would change “current thinking?”

So there you have it. I am using a "current situation" to help think about what is now changed in the mind of Joseph LeDoux. What has confronted by my own mind on how I had thought about memories. What and how they are accessed. This would incur some additional research throughout my site on what was first established, and how I came to believe what I do. That might be unimportant to a lot of you, so, bon voyage!

The Spotless Mind

Psychology professor Karim Nader is helping sufferers of post-traumatic stress disorder lessen debilitating symptoms—and in some cases, regain a normal life.Owen Egan See also: The Trauma Tamer

IC: Why is this research so important?

Karim Nader: There are a lot of implications. All psychopathological disorders, such as PTSD, epilepsy, obsessive compulsive disorders, or addiction—all these things have to do with your brain getting rewired in a way that is malfunctioning. Theoretically, we may be able to treat a lot of these psychopathologies. If you could block the re-storage of the circuit that causes the obsessive compulsion, then you might be able to reset a person to a level where they aren’t so obsessive. Or perhaps you can reset the circuit that has undergone epilepsy repeatedly so that you can increase the threshold for seizures. And there is some killer data showing that it’s possible to block the reconsolidation of drug cravings.

The other reason why I think it is so striking is that it is so contrary to what has been the accepted view of memory for so long in the mainstream. My research caused everybody in the field to stop, turn around and go, “Whoa, where’d that come from?” Nobody’s really working on this issue, and the only reason I came up with this is because I wasn’t trained in memory. [Nader was originally researching fear.] It really caused a fundamental reconceptualization of a very basic and dogmatic field in neuroscience, which is very exciting. It is the first time in 100 years that people are starting to come up with new models of memory at the physiological level.

Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind



Homer now considers his life to be worthless and decides to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. While falling, Homer's life flashes before his eyes, and he sees the full memory of the previous night.

What is Dark Energy?

I am recreating this post in accordance with other viewers who are currently looking at the subject of Dark Energy. Also some resources for further reading.

All events shown here (except KEK test detector) were generated by Monte-Carlo simulation program, written by Clark. The visualizing software which produced the detector images was written by Tomasz.

While the sun was easily recognizable building "monte carlo" patterns in computer technology developed from SNO work made such views easily discernible?

Imagine putting all that information through a single point? That "point" is important in terms of the energy perspective. It reveals something very interesting about our universe.

If such experiments as listed here are to be considered in the "forward perspective" then what do you think we have gained in our understanding of supersymmetry? Yes indeed, the undertanding is amazing with the reading of what is given to us below in the Interaction.org links.

The complexity of the information seems well, like, "ligo information" being transcribed into a working image of the cosmos? Complexity of all that information/energy is being processed through the LHC experiment. Consider it's energy values, and all that is being produced as "particle constituents" and yes, there is more.

Cosmic particle collision understanding in this correlation of experiment at LHC, we learn much about the universe.

Quantum physics has revealed a stunning truth about “nothing”: even the emptiest vacuum is filled with elementary particles, continually created and destroyed. Particles appear and disappear, flying apart and coming together, in an intricate quantum dance. This far-reaching consequence of quantum mechanics has withstood the most rigorous experimental scrutiny. In fact, these continual fluctuations are at the heart of our quantum understanding of nature.

The dance of quantum particles has special significance today because it contributes to the dark energy that is driving the universe apart. But there’s a problem: the vacuum has too much energy. A naive theoretical estimate gives an amount about 10¹²⁰ times too large to fit cosmological observations. The only known way to reduce the energy is to cancel contributions of different particle species against each other, possibly with a new symmetry called supersymmetry. With supersymmetry the result is 10⁶⁰ times better—a huge improvement, but not enough. Even with supersymmetry, what accounts for the other 60 orders of magnitude is still a mystery.

Physics theory predicts that one of the most important particles in the quantum vacuum is the Higgs particle. The Higgs pervades the vacuum, slowing the motion of particles, giving them mass, and preventing atoms from disintegrating. Since it fills the vacuum, the Higgs itself contributes to the embarrassing factor of 10¹²⁰.

The next accelerators are opening a window on the pivotal role of symmetry in fundamental physics. New discoveries will teach us about the role of the Higgs particle and supersymmetry in defining the vacuum. Such discoveries are key to understanding what tames the quantum vacuum, a topic that is fundamental to any real understanding of the mysterious dark energy that determines the destiny of our cosmos.

It took me a long time to get to the very point made in terms of the supersymmetrical valuation by understanding what existed "before" was transform from to being by presented another possibily on the other side.

"In fact, these continual fluctuations are at the heart of our quantum understanding of nature."

The only known way to reduce the energy is to cancel contributions of different particle species against each other, possibly with a new symmetry called supersymmetry.

It had to be taken down to a reductionistic point of view in order for this to make any sense. You needed experiments in which this was made possible. Without them, how could we be "lead by science?"

Conclusions

Particle physics is in the midst of a great revolution. Modern data and ideas have challenged long-held beliefs about matter, energy, space and time. Observations have confirmed that 95 percent of the universe is made of dark energy and dark matter unlike any we have seen or touched in our most advanced experiments. Theorists have found a way to reconcile gravity with quantum physics, but at the price of postulating extra dimensions beyond the familiar four dimensions of space and time. As the magnitude of the current revolution becomes apparent, the science of particle physics has a clear path forward. The new data and ideas have not only challenged the old ways of thinking, they have also pointed to the steps required to make progress. Many advances are within reach of our current program; others are close at hand. We are extraordinarily fortunate to live in a time when the great questions are yielding a whole new level of understanding. We should seize the moment and embrace the challenges.

A new LHC experiment is born, is an effect from what existed before? What come after.

Yes, the idea is that universe was not born from colliding particles, but from the supersymetical valuation that existed in the universe in the very beginning. You had to know, how to get there. That such events are still feasible, and are being produced cosmologically as we see evidenced in the "fast forward" experiment.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy: from the Universe to the Laboratory-Conclusion

Donut, W/hole in Space:The Structure of Consciousness and the Universe

The innermost and outermost psychological 'space' (which is here a metaphor for 'concentrated attention' and 'diffused attention') are recognized as indeed the same, continuous.

For explanations of these images see here

It is important to understand the way in which inner/outer have come together for me.

As a mathematical exercise viewing the most "basic consideration" while of thought, what does this equal too? Our assessment of the universe. A Mathematical framework?

I looked at people who use this thought and worked with it and found various comments enlightening when place with the observations being made aware of by John Fudjack here. Look at the previous post and see how they work with what has been demonstrated in this post.

By 'dilating' and 'expanding' the scope of our attention we not only discover that 'form is emptiness' (the donut has a hole), but also that 'emptiness is form' (objects precipitate out of the larger 'space') - to use Buddhist terminology. The emptiness that we arrive at by narrowing our focus on the innermost is identical to the emptiness that we arrive at by expanding our focus to the outermost. The 'infinitely large' is identical to the 'infinitesimally small'.The Structure of Consciousness John Fudjack - September, 1999

The Tree of Enlightenment?

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

If one was to see the "tree structure as circles that formed the branches" one would get the sense of what begins as a seed, arose from that one part and successfully leaves to itself, identified, as an evolutionary process of growth. The tree rings encapsulate a lot about the year of it's growth.

But that's not the tree I am talking about. I'm talking about another one mathematically.



Also see the following:

Hermetic Ties: Art to Esoteric Form

Raphael the Painter

Enlightenment of a Kind

Mathematical Enlightenment

The center and the whole-what it means?

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

Part of the understanding here is that in having "touched that centre," realize that it is the source from which any theory will begin it's emergence into the reality of our modelled and wakeful world.

Now Peter LYnd makes talk of the Black/White hole. It is part of my understanding for such a thought to occur, realizing from a source it could manifest into our daily world, why not that "this creation" impel any thought construct into manifestation as well? The universe the same?

From the Buddhist perspective there are at least two senses that we can give to this phrase 'being with creation' that Von Franz uses in this context. First, according to the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, if we have developed the requisite skill in meditation, at the moment of death we are presented with a unique opportunity to connect with this 'central hole where creation takes place' - that is, with the 'emptiness' or 'plenum' or 'fullness' that is at the center of things. According to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it manifests at that time as a 'clear light'. If we are capable of realizing what is going on at that moment we also gain control over the creative process in which emptiness manifests in form, and conscious reincarnation becomes possible. But, secondly, we can also take all of this in a less literal, more figurative, PSYCHOLOGICAL sense - as a description of what must take place within the individual in order for her to become a conscious participant in her own inner creative processes, an agent of personal change, and skilled at what is sometimes called 'paradigm shifting'.

I mean how many in science have this standard by which they must work? Have this other side to them and their life? The "questioning and wanting know" of this other mystery to life? What is this mystery I am talking about?

Well to me I have this "indirect way of answering" that reveals this uncertainty, yet, I have this innate sense of "knowing without knowing how I know." That's not really a good answer is it?:) Some will attach themselves to this previous statement. I have seen it before, and I know they will answer accordingly.

I've talked about the centre many times on this site.

I've open up this post with the information that lead me along never really knowing the direction, yet fully confident that in time it would fall into place.

Visual Imaging.

I can't go into a whole lot here other to say that the source of these images are intriguing to say the least.

I am presented with a "paradoxical situation" that is confusing for me, until, I seen this process in action. The "inner/outer" somehow being explained within the confines of our beings. So while I see things happening on the outside, they were first implemented within. I don't feel happy with what I just wrote. Ihave to show you what I mean by way of images that show this paradoxical situation.

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

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

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

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

It would not be complete without introducing another paradoxical situation that Brian Greene himself presented. But before I do that I wanted to write here something else for consideration. It will speak to the Garrett Lisi's and their idea about imaging that comes deep from within them. How they organize a "whole structure of creation" from within themself. Model it, outside themself. It's more then just a fingerprint.

One harmonious possibility is that string enthusiasts and loop quantum gravity aficionados are actually constructing the same theory, but from vastly different starting points. That each theory involves loops-in string theory, these are string loops; in loop quantum gravity, they're harder to describe non-mathmatically, but, roughly speaking, they're elementary loops of space-suggests there might be a connection. This possibility is further supported by the fact that on a few problems accessible to both, such as blackhole entropy, the two theories agree fully. And on the question of spacetime's constituents, both theories suggest that there is some kind of atomized structure. Page 490, Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene

Take note on that last part of Greene' statement Garrett. The paradox as follows,

Greene:

it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-³³ centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ... (CSPAN Archives Videotape #125054)

Well not to be undone, and more explicit in this example,

In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above? (Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

So I am not sure if this hits home for any of you? I will push on here in a bit. Life is calling me here.

"Lego Block" Galaxies in Early Universe

Witten:

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

n this image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, several objects are identified as the faintest, most compact galaxies ever observed in the distant universe. They are so far away that we see them as they looked less than one billion years after the Big Bang. Blazing with the brilliance of millions of stars, each of the newly discovered galaxies is a hundred to a thousand times smaller than our Milky Way Galaxy.

The bottom row of pictures shows several of these clumps (distance expressed in redshift value). Three of the galaxies appear to be slightly disrupted. Rather than being shaped like rounded blobs, they appear stretched into tadpole-like shapes. This is a sign that they may be interacting and merging with neighboring galaxies to form larger structures.

The detection required joint observations between Hubble and NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. Blue light seen by Hubble shows the presence of young stars. The absence of infrared light from Spitzer observations conclusively shows that these are truly young galaxies without an earlier generation of stars.

I always like to think that while we refrain from the actual Lego Building block that a child may use, the infancy in our views of the universe, are principles and terms that a condensed matter theorist might use.

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.Robert Laughlin

See:Welcome to ICAM-I2CAM



Update:

Emergence

Zombie Central

Peter Woit:Hopefully Nature won’t take its place as Zombie-central…

December 30th, 2007 at 11:10 am if link deleted(yep! it sure has:) see here

Plato said,

"I have never deviated from the name I use, so you get the sense of who I am.

I do not see how "pushing back the physics and energies involved" would have made these issues abut cosmology inept or classed as fantasy in the making.

Tim May, some things helped toward our understanding whether they are in the kitchen "to help gain in conceptual understanding, what others are less then able to explain in their opinion biased.

Gabe:I really don’t have any knowledge of this, but: What exactly are they trying to say about liquid helium phases and extra dimensions?

Has anyone has sufficiently answered Coin or Gabe in their questions to have offered a conclusion?

Thanks Bee for challenging what would have otherwise been a chorus of the same ole, same ole."

Now what choice do I have, if I were to comment on anything that had to do with what "String theory is doing?" Now, I would have supposedly worn out the title of any string theory article as coming from Zombie central.

Now you know the title of this post and it's origination. The source of inspiration that allows me to comment and let stand, as to the substance of Peter Woit's post. The comments that come along as well.

Zombies

What more can I say, that by putting out front the reasons why this process is not just some fantasy woven for illusionists Peter seems to qualify. To all those who may speak toward the topic of string theory or not.

Will media just leave it "to the expert" to speak for them and not challenge what is the highest opinion Peter has for the topic of string theory? I guess if you are not willing to do the work, then like Scientist, it is better to not write an article and let it die a quick death.

The Articles in Question?

Since I too cannot gain access to the Nature article without paying, I can only go by the "press releases" that Peter has been kind enough to show us. So these are directed to the Nature article.



ow-temperature physicists at Lancaster University may have found a laboratory test of the ‘untestable’ string theory.

The test – which uses two distinct phases of liquid helium - is reported online this week in Nature Physics (published 23 December). Their paper will also be published as the cover article in the paper edition of Nature Physics in January.

String theory is a multidimensional theory based on vibrating strings, as opposed to the point particles described in the Standard Model.

Second Article

DOI: 10.1038/nphys815-Richard Haley, George Pickett and co-workers have taken a lateral step to address this barrier. They cool helium-3 isotope to a superfluid state — that is, a quantum fluid with non-classical properties such as completely frictionless flow. Adding a magnetic field creates a second superfluid phase, and the interface between these two phases behaves like a two-dimensional brane. Indeed, the collision of a brane–antibrane pair leaves traces of a stringy residue of defects: a tangle of vortices.

Third article

Can you model what happened after the Big Bang in your lab?

Helium-3 experiment replicates colliding-brane theory of cosmology.

Yes, according to one group of physicists. A team at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom has used liquid helium and a magnetic field to build a finger-sized representation of the early cosmos. Their findings, published today in Nature Physics 1, could help string theorists to refine their models.

Fourth Article

Again it is one that has to be purchased from nature. All I can do it "re-quote" the selections Peter has made, and direct you to the quotes in question. You have to take my word for what is represented and how it is used by Peter. Sorry. See source of quotes here

The subject of string cosmology is a hot one these days, with theoretical advances in understanding string dynamics riffing with recent precise observations of the cosmic microwave background

The quality of the details of the comparison between 3He and cosmology is not really the point. Like a tap-dancing snake, what is amazing is not that it is done well, but that it is done at all.

Contribution to Zombie Central?

I can only assume that the example given is none other then what Peter has classified?

Does one of these test tubes hold a baby Universe?

The test tube, the size of a little finger, has been cooled to a fraction of a degree above the lowest possible temperature, absolute zero, which is just over 273 degrees below the freezing point of water.

Inside the tube an isotope of helium (called helium three) forms a "superfluid", an ordered liquid where all the atoms are in the same state according to the theory that rules the subatomic domain, called quantum theory.

What is remarkable is that atoms in the liquid, at temperatures within a thousandth of a degree of absolute zero, form structures that, according to the team at Lancaster University, are similar those seen in the cosmos.

"In effect, we have made a universe in a test tube," says Richard Haley, who did the work with Prof George Pickett and other members of the "Ultra-low Temperature Group."

Now, just hold your horses here while we consider not only the context of this article by Richard Highfield, but of the very questions I myself have asked that we might consider the context of the Telegraph article other then contributing to Zombie Central.

Warning to Viewers

It is true that there has been a lot of debate about how information currently being dealt within in science articles are giving concern to people at the forefront of science. So in this effort I see what Peter is saying. Scientists are indeed asking for this responsibility, and not just of the media themself , but of the individual in their "pursuit of the truth" of what is being portrayed out there in the science media's global vision.

I do not sanction "the classifications" that have been drummed up by Peter Woit, from intelligent design theorists, to Zombies.

The View of the Cosmos?

Now why is it that we would look to the cosmos and ask ourselves about the views that would happen in the context of universal display, as having some relevances to the microsomal world that surrounds us.

Over and over again, we are directed to applications of what happens in that cosmos as experimental processes which reveal the origins of the universe in that microcosm view? So they use a test tube. The origins of life has it's basis in that tube on a simplistic level, whether you'd like to think so or not.

Would it have been better to use the "image of the tube" and an emergent image of the colliders over top of it, as a better view of the microscopic view of the world we live in?

Powers of Ten

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

Many of us understand the powers of ten, Qui?

See: Perspectives on the Power of Ten

So to get from the cosmos pallet of investigation, to one of drawing analogical
views of the vortices, is not so uncommon that we can see such vortices out there in the cosmos and not draw some conclusion to the "relativistic interpretation" that may arise in some super fluid?

I can understand Tim May's "bubble in the test analogy in the kitchen," but I would have drawn a better parallel to sonofusion(you can find examples of this on this site) as an example about reduction to the "principals of the early universe." While I see such collapse dynamically related to "gravitational collapse" this is my view with regards to the increase in temperature values that may have been attributed to the ideas about the energy increase in blackhole development and motivation for providing the routes for cosmological expansion rates. An analogy, yes.

The escape pathway for that "extra energy" to loose itself, while the computations of the values of particle creations are left for inspection. Where did that extra energy go? Is it such a "bad question" to have when looking at the microscopic view of particle creation in the birth of our cosmos? To have the universe being in such a cosmological state, that the variance of speed of expansion shall vary? Explained, with such a idea?

Relativistic Fluid Dynamics: Physics for Many Different Scales-Nils Andersson and Gregory L. Comer

In writing this review, we have tried to discuss the different building blocks that are needed if one wants to construct a relativistic theory for fluids. Although there are numerous alternatives, we opted to base our discussion of the fluid equations of motion on the variational approach pioneered by Taub [108] and in recent years developed considerably by Carter [17, 19, 21]. This is an appealing strategy because it leads to a natural formulation for multi-fluid problems. Having developed the variational framework, we discussed applications. Here we had to decide what to include and what to leave out. Our decisions were not based on any particular logic, we simply included topics that were either familiar to us, or interested us at the time. That may seem a little peculiar, but one should keep in mind that this is a “living” review. Our intention is to add further applications when the article is updated. On the formal side, we could consider how one accounts for elastic media and magnetic fields, as well as technical issues concerning relativistic vortices (and cosmic strings). On the application side, we may discuss many issues for astrophysical fluid flows (like supernova core collapse, jets, gamma-ray bursts, and cosmology).

In updating this review we will obviously also correct the mistakes that are sure to be found by helpful colleagues. We look forward to receiving any comments on this review. After all, fluids describe physics at many different scales and we clearly have a lot of physics to learn. The only thing that is certain is that we will enjoy the learning process!

So you understand that the views of the string theorist is not limited to the microcosmic view, but endorses the cosmological one as well.:) See the Lagrangian views supplied on this site to understand how gravity has been incorporated in the cosmological view.