How Branes Came To Be? [Archive]

sol2

May27-04, 09:39 AM

How so this:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405188

??;)

Type I bubbles with thin domain walls can be stabilized by the entrapment of various particle modes whose masses become much smaller inside than outside the bubble

As soon as I read this I knew what you were thinking.

For me there is great danger in the metaphorical pictures that one can use, for they have to be consistent with current mathematical constructions?

So where are we going to find such a model?

I would ask then, what about the understanding of geometrodynamics here, and the effects of sonoluminence. We have been defining this action in respect of the casimere plates, but have yet to touch upon the dynamics we see having encapsulated all those dimensions with time. Is this a safe paradigmal model apprehension that we can move forward with?

It is very difficult for me to imagine the boundary walls of the bubble in this sense without knowing that it could contain information from photon accumulation, as in the blackhole.

Assuming the dynamics here might have revealled galaxies in formation, what action would allowed such centers to create new universes if we did not have this center to transform this energy into new possibilities? New suns to be born?

Calculating the amount of energy contained in such bubbles, is a interesting feature when you might apply it to the schwarzchild radius as a energy determnation, yet how would you calculate such universes but by the nature and developement in time( 13.7 billion years?) is how much energy?

So you look at phonon dispersal and translation into bubble morphology(surface tension)(eversions (http://superstringtheory.com/forum/extraboard/messages12/587.html) ), and wonder, okay the bubble size reached these dimensions, so why did it burst? The amount of energy contained was, and immediately such collapse signalled blackhole collapse and interactive abilities, to fission? You see :smile: ?

See Introduction to Geometrodynamics (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@77.zThGbdxA64H.3@.1dde3fed/15)

All the time this bubble world is going on, what is happening outside the bubble? In sonoluminence there is a translation going on with phonon dispersal over the bubbles surface and moved inside?

ds2 = c2(1-2MG/c2r)dt2 - dr2/(1-2MG/c2r) - r2(dq2+sin2qdf2).

For me such visualizations had to contain the information of supergrvaity in the early universe, and reducing it to Einsten eqautions of the metric had to reveal this thinking as well. The gravity of the current universe?:)

I have responded quckly here and will now go through the article.

sol2

May27-04, 11:42 AM

Using the cosmological constant what value is Omega in terms of critical density?

I like to stretch (http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/extraboard/messages10/321.html) people's imaginations?

In the one sense, "psychologically," mass thinking can activate "counter proposals" by its very presence? :smile:

Why not a example here :smile: Peter Woit?

I hope the "humour" is well taken. If you are going to apply the terms of negative energy, then how pervasive can we intend the order of geometries but to have incorporated into life? Fully grokkkkkkkkkked it:)

maddy

Jun7-04, 11:11 PM

Are moduli in stringscape like metrics in general relativity because both determine the shape and size of spaces?

kneemo

Jun26-04, 04:42 AM

I enjoyed the (indirect) superstringtheory.com approach to p-branes (http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic7a.html). One can work through the Maxwell equations via differential forms, say, in Wheeler et al's Gravitation (with nice pictures of diff. forms), and then extend the process to d dimensions with the p+1 form vector potential. Through a simple co-dimensional argument we find that the sources are p-dimensional objects, the p-branes.

Of course we can't *see* the structure of the branes through this approach, but the exercise is instructive, nevertheless.

Tom McCurdy

Jun26-04, 06:02 AM

sol2

Jun26-04, 06:29 AM

The standard Model has to arise from the brane (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=243174&postcount=30)? In strings how shall we define the issues of continuity (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@118.qKIvc7nofIf.1@.1ddf4a5f/17)?

Mike2

Jun28-04, 08:04 AM

sol2

Jun28-04, 08:12 AM

The question for me is how can these geometric objects (p-branes) come to be in the first place? They all are submanifolds of the background spacetime dimensions, the bulk. But what principle sustains their existence? Why don't they immediately dissipate in all directions at the speed of light and thus evaporate into nothingness?

How advanced have we become in the realities of the quantum geoemtry and the relevance ot quantum gravity?

You must know the GR had to be lead too and geometriclaly defined. statistical analysis, a issue in the Probabilities? So how the heck could any geometry come out of it? :smile: So toy models were developed :smile:

We can become quite flexible when we adopt these views of theoretcial models for consideration, but they don't mean a hell of a lot, if they can not speak to the quantum nature? Think gamma rays. We reduced the nature of th ecosmos to geoemtricallly define issues of quantum natures, and at the same time revealled our thinking both classically and quantifically?

Mike2

Jun28-04, 09:04 AM

How advanced have we become in the realities of the quantum geoemtry and the relevance ot quantum gravity?

You must know the GR had to be lead too and geometriclaly defined. statistical analysis, a issue in the Probabilities? So how the heck could any geometry come out of it? :smile: So toy models were developed :smile:
One can at least understand the emergence of the original manifold - at least that it should exist. We still have yet to understand the necessity of its geometry and number of dimensions. But nothing can be described at all without the use of a manifold of some sort. And of course it would have to start out infinitesimally small and grow at some rate. For instant everything violates the causality of its existence.

But then the issue arises as to how the particles within the original manifold came to be and what sustains their structure. It would seem that if these substructures are mere distortions of the original spacetime, then the continuity of the original manifold would require that any disturbance of these structures would dissipate in all directions like any other wave through a medium. But that does not happen, so particles are not disturbance of a medium. So I wonder if they are the places where the original spacetime is absent. That would mean that particles form a boundary of spacetime. And as I understand it, boundaries don't dissipate like disturbances.

Mike2

Jun28-04, 10:44 AM

Mike2

Jun28-04, 11:38 AM

Here's another thought:
It would certainly seem at least that black holes are places were normal spacetime does not exist, that the event horizon is a boundary of spacetime. Now, how is it possible to combine a geometry different from that of black holes to black holes geometry, and how could that combination of differing geometries be additive like the conservation of mass entering the black hole? This suggests that particle geometry is similar to black hole geometry.
Not only that, but it is said black holes evaporate; they become smaller and smaller as they shed more and more particles. I seem to remember that black holes even become the size of a few particles themselves until they shed those last few particles. If so, then this is even more suggestive that black holes share the same geometry as other particles, since you would think that it is even more unlikely that geometry can change between objects of the same order of size.

sol2

Jun28-04, 01:07 PM

Not only that, but it is said black holes evaporate; they become smaller and smaller as they shed more and more particles. I seem to remember that black holes even become the size of a few particles themselves until they shed those last few particles. If so, then this is even more suggestive that black holes share the same geometry as other particles, since you would think that it is even more unlikely that geometry can change between objects of the same order of size.

Or maybe this that in the high energy colliders such blackholes already exist? :smile:

The geometry on a classical level is speaking not only to the cosmo, but to something else as well. Why we have to choose the type of discriptions we want about quantum geometry. LQG or Strings? We know strings will allow contiuity in topological considerations while in disrcete forms thsi is only now being discussed. String have theoretically been there :smile:

Mike2

Jun28-04, 01:58 PM

Or maybe this that in the high energy colliders such blackholes already exist? :smile:

The geometry on a classical level is speaking not only to the cosmo, but to something else as well. Why we have to choose the type of discriptions we want about quantum geometry. LQG or Strings? We know strings will allow contiuity in topological considerations while in disrcete forms thsi is only now being discussed. String have theoretically been there :smile:
If we consider quantized geometry of some sort, then do we not have to consider whether those different geometries can add, interfere, interact with each other? How would a 4D spacetime interact/interfere with say a 7D spacetime in a non-arbitrary manner. 1D paths of a path integral are all the same type of object with the same dimensionality; so it is easy to understand how they can be added constructively or destructively in the path integral. But 4D is not even of the same dimensionality as 7D, so how would such differing spaces be added constructively/destructively?

I suppose a amplitude and phase can be assigned to a differing 2D objects/surfaces that wonder in differing regions and then be integrated to see how they interfere with each other, just as they do with differing paths of a path integral. But if we were going to try to get a 4D object/space to interfere with a 7D object/space, then combinatorics would tell us how many different ways each dimension of the 4D space could interact with each dimension of the 7D space, right? Would every scenario where each dimension of the 4D space is integrated with each dimension of the 7D space have to be considered? Where 2D interacts with 2D, would we have to consider how each dimension interacts with each of the other dimensions? Or is there only one way a 2D object and interfere with a 2D object?

Isn't this the essential question of M-theory where objects of differing dimensionality interact with each other?

sol2

Jun28-04, 02:58 PM

If we consider quantized geometry of some sort, then do we not have to consider whether those different geometries can add, interfere, interact with each other? How would a 4D spacetime interact/interfere with say a 7D spacetime in a non-arbitrary manner. 1D paths of a path integral are all the same type of object with the same dimensionality; so it is easy to understand how they can be added constructively or destructively in the path integral. But 4D is not even of the same dimensionality as 7D, so how would such differing spaces be added constructively/destructively?

I suppose a amplitude and phase can be assigned to a differing 2D objects/surfaces that wonder in differing regions and then be integrated to see how they interfere with each other, just as they do with differing paths of a path integral. But if we were going to try to get a 4D object/space to interfere with a 7D object/space, then combinatorics would tell us how many different ways each dimension of the 4D space could interact with each dimension of the 7D space, right? Would every scenario where each dimension of the 4D space is integrated with each dimension of the 7D space have to be considered? Where 2D interacts with 2D, would we have to consider how each dimension interacts with each of the other dimensions? Or is there only one way a 2D object and interfere with a 2D object?

Isn't this the essential question of M-theory where objects of differing dimensionality interact with each other?

I highlighted your last statement because this is the very question of how any standard model shall arise from the brane? The topological movement has to be smooth. The supersymmetrical brane is smooth from this perspective as well.How would these constituent particles merge from one state to another (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@229.BuTYce3bgPj.0@.1ddf4a5f/17)?

Well from a string perspective they've change the very foundation of our thinking? The questions of background versus non background (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=242056&postcount=10) become very important here, and this is where the grounding factors in my thinking have trouble remaining in defintion, so I needed to understand this(to concretize it). The result, is two ways in which we can percieve the nature of such geometries arising for us in discriptive features of quantum gravity.

What must be realized is that they are both based on geometrical defintions, one albeit, very different from a continuity point of view to one discrete. :smile:

After all we do like structures( we have a long history of it ). :smile: The logic that Smolin put forward for us in Three Roads was extremely helpful in helping me to orientate a view, because it was by his example, that such model in comprehension could help us undertand how three roads could now have formed a new math? If Glast in taken into consideration,this is a summation to me of Smolins goal, as well as a introdcution to a new undertanding of quantum computation.

A certain distilliation had to go on on that might be no different then integrating Venn logic from a quantum perspective into some form of probabilty discription?

If I put Hopf rings into the image of GHZ entanglement what kind of geometry shall we call this? Imagine buiding such psychological determinations from such logic? :smile: Maybe we can reassign these quantum computers in how we shall view AI possibilties :smile: But this is taking it to far, so back down to earth.

Mike2

Jun28-04, 05:07 PM

Isn't this the essential question of M-theory where objects of differing dimensionality interact with each other?
OK, let's try this:
Could it be that M-theory IS quantum gravity? It is said that String Theory is background dependent and M-theory along with it. But it seems like only a matter of perspective between whether we are trying to quantize gravity by considering a "path" integral of every possible spacetime, or considering the interaction of every kind of dimensional brane? At the differential scale one may be no different than the other. Since all the branes at the beginning are no bigger than the universe as a whole. The interaction of all possible branes would be the interaction of all possible spacetimes, right? So the ultimate M-theory may just be a background independent quantum geometry?

kneemo

Jul1-04, 03:50 AM

Not only that, but it is said black holes evaporate; they become smaller and smaller as they shed more and more particles. I seem to remember that black holes even become the size of a few particles themselves until they shed those last few particles.

Let us consider the type II superstring, where we only have closed loops of string. It is possible to have a string connecting two different black holes. When the black holes emit Hawking radiation, becoming smaller and smaller as you say, and finally decaying to their ground state, we are left with two D-branes connected by a string.

See Witten's "Black holes and quark confinement" (http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/CurrentScienceVol81.pdf)

Mike2

Jul4-04, 09:18 PM

OK, let's try this:
Could it be that M-theory IS quantum gravity? It is said that String Theory is background dependent and M-theory along with it. But it seems like only a matter of perspective between whether we are trying to quantize gravity by considering a "path" integral of every possible spacetime, or considering the interaction of every kind of dimensional brane?
I suppose that each dimensional type of p-brane is described as embedded in the bulk. But each could just as soon be described in "p" dimensional parameter space. And if every sort of virtual interaction must be considered, then every sort of dimensional interaction must be considered. And spacetime itself become the result of every possible interaction.

Mike2

Jul11-04, 09:42 AM

I suppose that each dimensional type of p-brane is described as embedded in the bulk. But each could just as soon be described in "p" dimensional parameter space. And if every sort of virtual interaction must be considered, then every sort of dimensional interaction must be considered. And spacetime itself become the result of every possible interaction.
As I understand it, space is filled with a "quantum foam" where every sort of virtual particle spontaneously pops into existence and then annihilate each other. The higher the energy of those particles, the less time they spend in existence. But wouldn't those virtual particles have to include every dimensional type of brane/particle? And wouldn't such a foam have to include every type of interaction between every dimensional type of brane? Isn't this the same as saying that the quantum foam is space, and space IS the interaction of every dimension? And isn't the interaction of every type of dimension the same as quantum gravity? Thus, it would seem that M-theory is quantum gravity, right? Or has somebody already gone this route?

sol2

Jul11-04, 04:37 PM

Quantum Geometry must include a limit( I'll post it tomorrow), so from a quantum gravity perspective how would you measure pull, and the dimensional relationship?

The branes perspectives and dimensions are developing in M theory?

Imagine this quark to quark measure, and a relationship to the energy of this metric field (http://cerncourier.com/objects/2000/cernnews5_3-00.gif).

So lets say the graviton(dimension) is now being represented in the bulk. What would this mean to the graviton, and all possible interactions with it?

SR development is going through a revision with LQG? :smile: But still the dynamcis exist in the bulk for consideration and strings has answered this question? So how shall we percieve the nature of those branes, as they develope?

A standard model approach?

It seems one has to be come quite flexible when you engage the two perspectives of LQG and M Theory.

I have been reading papers that Neried and Marcus supplied from a earlier discussion that forced me to look back on the question of Lorentz Invariance.

Those in Strings research are saying something I am not hearing as well, although it is sitting vaguely on the horizon, from what information I have read.

That tomorrow as well.

A fancier way of saying that is that in general, it's okay to model the space around us using the Euclidean metric. But the Euclidean model stops working when gravity becomes strong, as we'll see later.

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/sptmb.html

The complexity at Planck length (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=232021&postcount=213)

sol2

Jul12-04, 05:12 PM

Quantum Geometry must include a limit( I'll post it tomorrow), so from a quantum gravity perspective how would you measure pull, and the dimensional relationship?

I have been reading papers that Neried and Marcus supplied from a earlier discussion that forced me to look back on the question of Lorentz Invariance.

Those in Strings research are saying something I am not hearing as well, although it is sitting vaguely on the horizon, from what information I have read.

If you check out Micho Durdevich's Introduction to Quantum Geometry, he displays the length as a universal constant, he combines them as the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, and the velocity of light, as--

A very interesting potential application of quantum geometry in physics is to provide a mathematically coherent description of the physical space-time, at all scales---in particular at the level of ultra-small distances, characterized by the Planck lenght. This lenght is a universal physical constant, defined as a unique combination of gravitational constant , Planck's constant and the velocity of light c. Explicitly,

http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/mathjpg/planck-lenght.jpg

As we can see, it is an exorbitantly small number! There are many reasons to believe that Planck's lenght marks a boundary for the applicability of classical concepts of space and time in physics.

http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/mbdiag.html

F.W. Stecker, Constraints on Lorentz Invariance Violating Quantum Gravity and Large Extra Dimensions Models using High Energy Gamma Ray Observations

arXiv:astro-ph/o3o8214 v2 21 Aug 2003

Mike2

Jul14-04, 11:36 AM

As I understand it, space is filled with a "quantum foam" where every sort of virtual particle spontaneously pops into existence and then annihilate each other. The higher the energy of those particles, the less time they spend in existence. But wouldn't those virtual particles have to include every dimensional type of brane/particle? And wouldn't such a foam have to include every type of interaction between every dimensional type of brane? Isn't this the same as saying that the quantum foam is space, and space IS the interaction of every dimension? And isn't the interaction of every type of dimension the same as quantum gravity? Thus, it would seem that M-theory is quantum gravity, right? Or has somebody already gone this route?
It may be that the nature of the interation between branes of differing dimension in M-theory is not like the interation of differing dimensions in quantum geometry/gravity. Perhaps the nature of the interaction between different branes in M-theory is that one branes serves to fix the type of boundary conditions of the other. Whereas the nature of the interactions of different dimensions in quantum gravity is more like a path integral where each dimensional object is given its own amplitude and phase, and these mix with the amplitude and phase for objects of different dimension. Comments anyone?

sol2

Jul15-04, 11:55 PM

Brane - Interview with Dr. Michael Duff

http://www.esi-topics.com/brane/interviews/MichaelDuff.jpg

And what's the payoff as far as making progress in string theory?

Hawking wrote down the formula for what that entropy should be. It's a famous formula that says the entropy is one-quarter the area of the event horizon of the black hole. He used a kind of macroscopic thermodynamic argument to reach this conclusion, but if what he was saying is correct, there should also be some microscopic explanation. In the subsequent 20 years, nobody could figure out what this microscopic origin of black hole entropy actually was. Using these new ideas of branes and M theory, that problem has now been solved. Another thing it does, and this may be too early to tell whether it's good or not, is M theory now offers dozens of ways of trying to do a real-world analysis to see how the standard model of particle theory fits into the scheme of things. Depending on how you look at it, that can be good or bad. Now we're left with a different kind of uniqueness problem. How does nature single out the one way of doing things? It also means we have some new avenues of exploration that we didn't think were open to us before. And then there's this large-dimension industry, which is a spin-off from M theory, as well.

http://www.esi-topics.com/brane/interviews/MichaelDuff.html

sol2

Jul16-04, 12:01 AM

Some theorists propose that our Universe exists as a slice through multidimensional space. Could this 'brane-world' concept unify gravity with nature's other fundamental forces?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6841/images/411986ab.0.jpg

Weak link: a simple magnet is all that is needed to overcome the force of gravity.

"Imagine a parallel universe in which the three familiar dimensions of space and one of time are replaced by alternative dimensions beyond our experience. Now imagine that multiple universes exist as membranes, or branes, through a multidimensional hyperspace. These additional dimensions could be the size of atoms, or infinitely large. We would never be able to enter them, yet they could have profound effects on the physics of our Universe."

The leading explanation of how fundamental particles and forces behave is a theory called the standard model. Its main shortcoming is the difficulty of incorporating gravity on an equal footing with the other known forces. "It's remarkable that gravity, despite being the first to be discovered, is by far the most poorly understood force," says Nima Arkani-Hamed of Harvard University, one of the architects of brane-world physics.

The fundamental problem is that, compared with its counterparts, gravity is weak. This can be illustrated by comparing the gravitational attraction between two electrons with their mutual electrostatic repulsion — gravity is weaker by a factor of 1043. Arkani-Hamed uses a more familiar image to drive the message home: "An ordinary magnet can lift a pin off a table, even though the entire mass of the Earth is tugging down on this pin, trying to prevent it from being picked up."

Brane New World:) (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v411/n6841/full/411986a0_r.html) and the Branes Behind (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6841/images/411986aa.0.jpg)

http://www.benbest.com/science/standard.jpg

Strings vibrate in ten dimensions, six of which are tightly coiled in on an unmeasurably small scale and four of which are in conventional space-time. A variant known as membrane theory (M-theory, "branes" -- multi-dimensional membranes) puts gravity in an eleventh dimension and points to an infinite number of solutions -- implying (for some) an infinite number of universes.

http://www.benbest.com/science/standard.html

sol2

Jul16-04, 12:22 AM

http://www.physicspost.com/imageview.php?what=getAuthorPic&authorId=23

This trick is easily extended. For example, if we generalize the theory to N dimensions, then the N dimensional gravitational field can be split-up into the following pieces (see fig. 5). Now, out pops a generalization of the electromagnetic field, called the "Yang-Mills field," which is known to describe the nuclear forces. The nuclear forces, therefore, may be viewed as vibrations of higher dimensional space. Simply put, by adding more dimensions, we are able to describe more forces. Similarly, by adding higher dimensions and further embellishing this approach (with something called "supersymmetry), we can explain the entire particle "zoo" that has been discovered over the past thirty years, with bizarre names like quarks, neutrinos, muons, gluons, etc. Although the mathematics required to extend the idea of Kaluza has reached truly breathtaking heights, startling even professional mathematicians, the basic idea behind unification remains surprisingly simple: the forces of nature can be viewed as vibrations in higher dimensional space.

http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=140&page=8

Which of course brings us to the quantum harmonic oscillator (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=256943&postcount=36).

sol2

Jul16-04, 12:49 AM

http://physics.nyu.edu/people/dvali.georgi.jpg

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/susy_c99/dvali/oh/02.gif

Further extensions to the above picture here (http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/susy_c99/dvali/oh/02.html)

Mike2

Jul17-04, 07:34 PM

I have a problem with particles being lesser dimensional objects (branes) in an n-dimensional space. For it would then seem that you would have the ability to transverse the defining hypersurface of the particle and there would be a sudden instantaneous change in tension or force or something as you crossed the brane of the particle. This presents a discontinuity, doesn't it? I get the sense that nature abhors discontinuities.

I suppose the only way around such a discontinuity is for particles to be the n-1 boundary of n-dimensional space so that there is no crossing the boundary since there is no space there to travel across to. Any thoughts?

sol2

Jul18-04, 01:40 AM

LQG is discrete and Strings are continuos.

There is no tearing in Strings.

How would you descrbe each particle if it has a energy value (http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/kktower.gif)?

How would we ever really know if there were extra dimensions and how could we detect them if we had particle accelerators with high enough energies? From quantum mechanics we know that if a spatial dimension is periodic the momentum in that dimension is quantized, p = n / R (n=0,1,2,3,....), whereas if a spatial dimension is unconstrained the momentum can take on a continuum of values. As the radius of the compact dimension decreases (the circle becomes very small) then the gap between the allowed momentum values becomes very wide. Thus we have a Kaluza Klein tower of momentum states.

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/extradim.htm

Mike2

Jul18-04, 07:46 AM

I have a problem with particles being lesser dimensional objects (branes) in an n-dimensional space. For it would then seem that you would have the ability to transverse the defining hypersurface of the particle and there would be a sudden instantaneous change in tension or force or something as you crossed the brane of the particle. This presents a discontinuity, doesn't it? I get the sense that nature abhors discontinuities
In other words, such a discontinuity would violate causality, right? There would seem to be no cause for the sudden impulse experienced by transversing the brane.

sol2

Jul18-04, 11:00 AM

LQG is discrete and Strings are continuos.

There is no tearing in Strings.

How would you descrbe each particle if it has a energy value (http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/kktower.gif)?

No Tearing, how is this possible?

Topology is more general than geometry, being simply the study of CONNECTIONS (while geometry is the study of CONNECTED systems with specific SHAPE and SIZE). More specifically, TOPOLOGY STUDIES CLASSES OF SHAPES SUCH THAT ANY SHAPE IN A CLASS CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO ANY OTHER SHAPE OF THAT CLASS WITHOUT TEARING OR RIPPING. (Thus, a circle can be topologically transformed into a square; a sphere into a pyramid; etc.)

http://ccins.camosun.bc.ca/~jbritton/totopology3.htm

http://ccins.camosun.bc.ca/~jbritton/animcup.gif

http://scholar.uwinnipeg.ca/courses/38/4500.6-001/cosmology/donut-coffeecup.gif

http://scholar.uwinnipeg.ca/courses/38/4500.6-001/cosmology/wormhole.jpg

Topology is the branch of mathematics concerned with the ramifications of continuity. Topologist emphasize the properties of shapes that remain unchanged no matter how much the shapes are bent twisted or otherwise manipulated.

So now that we understand this effect of no tearing in brane theory how the heck are we ever suppose to understand the dynamics on the brane? What do fermions represent and what do bosons represent? What is held to the brane and what is allowed to roam?

If we had considered fermions held to the brane what effect would em consideration have in the world of gausssian curvatures, yet not remove it from its source? What does red or blue shifting tell us from the source and is held to the brane?

If we had understood the road develped from GR to gravitational wave production what is this wave when quantized, but to have revealled, that such graviton was a evolution that geometrically had to remain consistant through a whole host of geometrical considerations. This statement might seem contradictory inthe recognition of a variance in this evolution.

They each have to be connected. Klein's ordering of geometries is one way, but there is more to it. This I will have to find and place here for considerations. Texture(?), smooth or rough, on that supersymmetrical brane? :smile:

sol2

Jul18-04, 12:01 PM

Imagine that such brane worlds are hidden?

The question might be then as to why and how such a developement of brane world coud have ever departed from GR, yet included it, in the gravitons?

The question would be that if gravitons could go through branes and exist in the bulk, then how would we use these gravitons to describe the quantum geometry in quantum gravity? If we can scale gravitons in relation to energy released from the events, then using the quantized version of these gravitatons to describe movement in the cosmo would have to be very telling.

One thing that is clear is the use of photon interaction spoken to in Glast has run into limits in regards to TEV measures. This limit in glast is 2 to 20 TEV, but the graviton must be spoken too, at about 1? Any corrections here would be appreciated.

The hidden-dimension mystery features a cast of characters known as branes, objects that occupy the unseen extra dimensions. The term is a play on ``membrane'' -- a two-dimensional surface, or two-brane. Three-dimensional spaces -- such as the known universe -- are called three-branes. Physicists therefore refer casually to the universe as ``braneworld.''

``All the standard particles -- photons, quarks, leptons -- live on a three-dimensional subspace, a three-brane, or our brane,'' says Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford.

Branes reside in the hidden dimensions, known as ``the bulk.'' While matter and light stick to the branes, gravity traverses both branes and bulk. The hidden dimensions cannot be seen because only gravity can go there.

The current frenzy over extra dimensions began with an analysis appearing on the Internet a year ago in March. Dr. Dimopoulos and Nima Arkani-Hamed of Stanford, with Gia Dvali of the International Center for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, proposed a new explanation for why the standard unit of mass in subatomic physics is surprisingly huge (by atomic standards) -- about the mass of a speck of dust. That mass would be much smaller, they found, if some hidden dimensions were millimeter-sized.

http://fnth37.fnal.gov/lykken/dallas.html

sol2

Jul18-04, 12:09 PM

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:92-O1SQz5oIJ:ls.berkeley.edu/images/news/02/ps-horava.jpg

My research interests are focused on string theory, as a leading candidate for the quantum theory of gravity and unification. In recent years, string theory has been going through a revolutionary period, whose results changed our understanding of the theory and created new paradigms in other fields, ranging from pure mathematics, to quantum field theory, to particle phonomenology and cosmology.

As a result of this "string revolution" we now understand that string theory is a unique theory: all the apparently distinct string theories are manifestations of a single structure, related to each other by a web of new quantum symmetries known as dualities. These dualities also relate string theory to a new theory without strings, known as M-theory, whose structure remains somewhat mysterious.

String theory represents a systematic modification of general theory of relativity, so that it is compatible with quantum mechanics. Therefore, we can address some of the long-standing puzzles of quantum gravity in the string theoretical framework, such as the statistical interpretation of the thermodynamic Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of black holes. In a class of stringy black holes amenable to analysis, the entropy has been explained as counting of stringy states. This result further confirms that string theory is indeed on the right track to describe the microscopic physics of quantum gravity, as the correct degrees of freedom have already been identified.

The question of correct degrees of freedom for quantum gravity is related to the "holographic principle," according to which the number of degrees of freedom of any quantum gravitational system should scale as the area of the surface surrounding the system. Thus, it should be possible to completely describe the system by a finite density of states on a "holographic screen." We have indications that string theory is indeed holographic, although this fact is far from manifest -- holography is a "secret" property of string theory.

http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/faculty/horava.html

sol2

Jul18-04, 12:12 PM

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/www/jh/research/Steinhardt.jpg

Colliding Branes (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ngt1000/branes_max.gif)

make sure you let it load

I wanted to help people try and visualize what is going on and from the work of Steinhardt I like the way such visualization once incorporating some of the previous information allowed me to speculate futher, and introduce analogies that would have seemed holographical in nature.

More information from Paul Steinhardt can be gotten from here (http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/)

Mike2

Jul19-04, 02:53 PM

I suppose the only way around such a discontinuity is for particles to be the n-1 boundary of n-dimensional space so that there is no crossing the boundary since there is no space there to travel across to. Any thoughts?
What about a particle being a vector or scalar field defined on some space? It would seem that if a field could come into existence where before it was not, then space has some sort of elastic property to allow those fields to form on that space where before it was not. This elastic ability would then seem to be the property that would cause such a change to propagate away in all directions so that the particle would immediately dissipate away in all direction. Or there would have to be something other than the fields holding the field in place and preventing it from dissipating. That something holding the field would have to be something other than space, fields, or particles, in other words, something that cannot be defined by fields. Does anyone know of any self-sustained local arrangement of fields that does not propagate away?

sol2

Jul21-04, 04:38 PM

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/stringbh.gif

How the heck did you get to D5? You had to be able to determine the gravtion scalable feature in terms of these branes? From weak to strong. Certain particle situations then become realistic under such considerations.

From a one dimension recognition weak field gravitational measure would have satifsied the particle nature at it's minimum energy consideration? This would be distinctive?

One of the most dramatic recent results in string theory is the derivation of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula for black holes obtained by counting the microscopic string states which form a black hole. Bekenstein noted that black holes obey an "area law", dM = K dA, where 'A' is the area of the event horizon and 'K' is a constant of proportionality. Since the total mass 'M' of a black hole is just its rest energy, Bekenstein realized that this is similar to the thermodynamic law for entropy, dE = T dS. Hawking later performed a semiclassical calculation to show that the temperature of a black hole is given by T = 4 k [where k is a constant called the "surface gravity"]. Therefore the entropy of a black hole should be written as S = A/4. Physicists Andrew Strominger and Cumrin Vafa, showed that this exact entropy formula can be derived microscopically (including the factor of 1/4) by counting the degeneracy of quantum states of configurations of strings and D-branes which correspond to black holes in string theory. This is compelling evidence that D-branes can provide a short distance weak coupling description of certain black holes! For example, the class of black holes studied by Strominger and Vafa are described by 5-branes, 1-branes and open strings traveling down the 1-brane all wrapped on a 5-dimensional torus, which gives an effective one dimensional object -- a black hole.
http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/bholes.htm

D5 considerations would have asked us to consider four of space and one of time?

sol2

Jul26-04, 09:46 PM

http://www.space.com/images/h_space_membranes_010412_02.gif

"The [Ekpyrotic] scenario is that our current universe is [a] four-dimensional membrane embedded in a five-dimensional 'bulk' space, something like a sheet of paper in ordinary three-dimensional space," Turok told SPACE.com. "The idea then is that another membrane collided with ours, releasing energy and heat and leading to the expansion of our universe."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

Branes reside in the hidden dimensions, known as ``the bulk.'' While matter and light stick to the branes, gravity traverses both branes and bulk. The hidden dimensions cannot be seen because only gravity can go there.

sol2

Jul27-04, 11:35 AM

This question was once asked?

Intersection is a strange word if you do not consider it in light of the photon?

The finding announced today supports a theory of gamma-ray production posed by Prof. Avi Loeb of Harvard University and Prof. Eli Waxman of the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel. Not unlike a black hole, the sheer mass of a cluster serves as a gravitational drain, drawing in matter at speeds of up to a thousand miles per second. Electrons in this flow are accelerated, with an additional boost from magnetic fields, to near light speed and collide with microwave light, the afterglow from the big bang known as the cosmic microwave background.

These microwave light particles, or photons, are bumped up to the gamma-ray photon energy level. The gamma rays form a halo around the galaxy clusters. Other scientists, however, have suggested that the bulk of the gamma-ray background is produced not by this mechanism but by quasar-type galaxies, called blazars, each powered by a supermassive black hole. This background was discovered by NASA's second Small Astronomy Satellite (SAS-2) in the early 1970s.

Scharf and Mukherjee's new research compared a catalog of 2,469 galaxy clusters with the Compton database. Using sophisticated statistical techniques, they showed that the sky surrounding the most massive clusters was systematically brighter in gamma rays than other regions.

"The more massive the cluster (and greater the gravitational potential), the brighter the gamma-ray halo," said Mukherjee. "The enhancement observed was very similar to that predicted by the Loeb-Waxman theory."

The result announced today also supports the theory of the cosmic web. Scientists say that matter in the Universe forms a cosmic web, in which galaxies are formed along filaments of ordinary matter and dark matter like pearls on a string. Clusters form at the intersection of these filaments. The electrons that fuel the gamma-ray production rush into clusters along these rivers or filaments of matter connecting galaxies and clusters. Thus, gamma rays serve as probes to the early structure-forming epoch of the Universe.

Gamma ray halos around clusters also provides a means to measure intergalactic magnetic fields. Two of the three variables to measure magnetic fields are known: the mass of galaxy clusters and the distribution of the microwave background. The third variable is electron efficiency, which can now be measured by virtue of gamma-ray production.

The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), scheduled for launch in 2006, should resolve gamma-ray haloes around galaxies with unprecedented clarity. GLAST could measure intergalactic magnetic fields and watch the formation of structure in the universe through its gamma-ray eyes, the scientists said.

For more information, go to:

http://www-glast.sonoma.edu/news/08_13_02.html

So what if this energy is all spread out in the CMB at a early stage?

How would you tell and not consider the significance of the spaces inbetween as we look? So there is no supersymmetry? :smile:

Heaven forbid, what shall we cal this Window on the Universe (http://www-glast.sonoma.edu/index.html) WE all know very well we had been taking a serious look at describing how the formation of the universe from then to now, and look how wonderfull we have built this view of reality. Imagine, it's all wrong? :rofl:

sol2

Jul27-04, 10:37 PM

I needed it to be a little clearer so I went for a definition.

Special relativity and Lorentz invariance

In order to account for the structure of space and time at the Planck scale, LQG breaks Lorentz invariance and posits that certain well known effects of special relativity such as length contraction and time dilation cannot occur below the threshold of the Planck scale. It also predicts that the speed of photon propagation in vacuum may be dependent on the photon's wavelength, and not constant as demanded by special relativity (where it is denoted by c). It is not clear whether an approximate Lorentz invariance can be recovered in LQG at long distances and whether LQG can explain the plethora of successful experimental tests of special theory of relativity. LQG proposes a privileged reference frame associated with the spin foam, and therefore it is natural to expect that it may suffer from the usual problems of the old-fashioned theories of luminiferous aether. Nevertheless, LQG is formally a local gauge theory of the self-dual subgroup of the Lorentz group.

Time

Additionally, in LQG, time is not infinitely continuous but discrete and quantized, just as space is: there is a minimum moment of time, Planck time, which is on the order of 10−43 seconds, and shorter intervals of time have no physical meaning. This carries the physical implication that relativity's prediction of time dilation due to accelerating speed or gravitational field, must be quantized, and must consist of multiples of Planck time units. (This helps resolve the time zero singularity problem: see subsection "Big Bang")

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Loop_quantum_gravity

sol2

Jul28-04, 10:19 AM

A couple of things popped into my mind about the issue of time and space.

In LQG Time is counted as discrete and space is counted a discrete also. I understand that LQG is doing work in speical relativity, and see where the Glast work might be of sigificance.

At the same time M theory has moved past SR to GR and accepted these measures in a cosmological way, and further have accepted features of time that allow this continous nature to be expressed.

So we see the differences here, about how we can interpret the nature of reality from discreteness and from a continous point of view in M theory, that if you accept the graviton nature of quantization of those gravity waves, you accept certain features about brane world.

I have looked at Glast and see where the potential exists now, and it is pretty clear, but we had not ventured into Brane world, and further attempts a dismantling brane world theories would have to speak to supersymmetry as it has been attacked here in this forum and other places.

We would have to have a responsible discussion, in light of the features Smolin points out that can falsify the brane world logic, so how shall we do this to save us all from delusional states :smile:

So what is the nature of the geometry in brane world? Will such intersection points allow us to speak to the theoretical graviton as we do with the issue of gamma ray radiation?

Are there such intersections in brane world that would have spoken to the holographical reality? It might be easier for some to visualize these hidden dimensins and such points arising from a intersection point?

Warped Geometry of Brane WorldGary N. Felder, Andrei Frolov, Lev Kofman

We study the dynamical equations for extra-dimensional dependence of a warp factor and a bulk scalar in 5d brane world scenarios with induced brane metric of constant curvature. These equations are similar to those for the time dependence of the scale factor and a scalar field in 4d cosmology, but with the sign of the scalar field potential reversed. Based on this analogy, we introduce novel methods for studying the warped geometry. We construct the full phase portraits of the warp factor/scalar system for several examples of the bulk potential. This allows us to view the global properties of the warped geometry. For flat branes, the phase portrait is two dimensional. Moving along typical phase trajectories, the warp factor is initially increasing and finally decreasing. All trajectories have timelike gradient-dominated singularities at one or both of their ends, which are reachable in a finite distance and must be screened by the branes. For curved branes, the phase portrait is three dimensional. However, as the warp factor increases the phase trajectories tend towards the two dimensional surface corresponding to flat branes. We discuss this property as a mechanism that may stretch the curved brane to be almost flat, with a small cosmological constant. Finally, we describe the embedding of branes in the 5d bulk using the phase space geometric methods developed here. In this language the boundary conditions at the branes can be described as a 1d curve in the phase space. We discuss the naturalness of tuning the brane potential to stabilize the brane world system.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0112165

sol2

Jul30-04, 02:20 PM

Brane World Cosmology Comes Down to Earth

How many dimensions are there? That’s not easy. Sure, we have three spatial dimensions plus time. And the physics of the four-dimensional framework of space-time is all encapsulated in Einstein’s general theory of relativity, a hugely successful paradigm. But cosmology raises many questions that go beyond the textbook presentation of general relativity. For example, when we run the universe backwards we reach a state of extreme matter and energy density right after the big bang. What theory can we use to describe the universe at the earliest times, when gravity needs folding into quantum theory? And at low energies, when the universe has expanded dramatically due to inflation, how can we account for the puzzles of dark energy and dark matter that weigh in at 97% of the rest mass of the universe?

In the low-energy limit these correspond to the textbook Einstein equations. Coauthor Misao Sasaki (Osaka University) had this comment for Science Watch: "We’ve derived the gravitational equations as seen by an observer on the brane. They look like the Einstein equations but they have two additional terms, which arise from the fifth dimension. One of these terms contains all the information on five-dimensional gravity, and that’s what has excited the interest of the researchers who are citing our work. If this term could be proved experimentally it will give us clear evidence that we are living in a brane-world.

http://www.sciencewatch.com/july-aug2002/sw_july-aug2002_page6.htm

sol2

Jul30-04, 02:51 PM

Additional spatial dimensions may seem like a wild and crazy idea at first, but there are powerful reasons to believe that there really are extra dimensions of space. One reason resides in string theory, in which it is postulated that the particles are not themselves fundamental but are oscillation modes of a fundamental string.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/randall03/images/randall200.jpg

In cosmology, for instance. Alan Guth's mechanism whereby exponential expansion smooths out the universe works very well, but another possibility has been suggested: a cyclic universe, Paul Steinhardt's idea, wherein a smaller amount of exponential expansion happens many times. Such a theory prompts you to ask questions. First of all, is it really consistent with what we see? The jury's out on that. Does it really have a new mechanism in it? In some sense, the cyclic idea still uses inflation to smooth out the universe. Sometimes it's almost too easy to come up with theories. What grounds your theories? What ties them down? What restricts you from just doing anything? Is there really a new idea there? Do we really have a new mechanism at work? Does it connect to some other, more fundamental theoretical idea? Does it help make that work? Recently I have been exploring the implications of extra dimensions for cosmology. It seems that inflation with extra dimensions works even better than without! What's so nice about this theory is that one can reliably calculate the effect of the extra dimension; no ad hoc assumptions are required. Furthermore, the theory has definite implications for cosmology experiments. All along, I've been emphasizing what we actually see. It's my hope that time and experiments will distinguish among the possibilities.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/randall03/randall03_p6.html

Mike2

Jul30-04, 05:47 PM

As I understand it, space is filled with a "quantum foam" where every sort of virtual particle spontaneously pops into existence and then annihilate each other. The higher the energy of those particles, the less time they spend in existence. But wouldn't those virtual particles have to include every dimensional type of brane/particle? And wouldn't such a foam have to include every type of interaction between every dimensional type of brane? Isn't this the same as saying that the quantum foam is space, and space IS the interaction of every dimension? And isn't the interaction of every type of dimension the same as quantum geometry? Thus, it would seem that M-theory is quantum geometry, right? Or has somebody already gone this route?

Originally Posted by Mike2

It may be that the nature of the interation between branes of differing dimension in M-theory is not like the interation of differing dimensions in quantum geometry/gravity. Perhaps the nature of the interaction between different branes in M-theory is that one branes serves to fix the type of boundary conditions of the other. Whereas the nature of the interactions of different dimensions in quantum geometry/gravity is more like a path integral where each dimensional object is given its own amplitude and phase, and these mix with the amplitude and phase for objects of different dimension. Comments anyone?
But now that I thing of it, as I recall, it is the boundary conditions that create the quantum levels. So the intersection of branes serving to set boundary conditions for other branes may be equivalent to to the interaction of differing dimensions as in quantum geometry. So M-theory may still be equivalent to other approaches to quantum geometry.

sol2

Jul30-04, 10:24 PM

Look
deeper......deeper....

.......deeper.....

I wanted to make sure I did not confuse the name of Andrey Krasnov with Kirrill Krasnov that Baez is related to in literature.

Why I wanted to add this here has to do with above posted, and how the intersection of photons held in regard to LQG's attempt at discribing the issues of Glast. from the SRian approach.

BULK SOURCE OF UNIVERSE'S GAMMA RAYS IDENTIFIED, SCIENTISTS SAY (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@92.YyIIcXeLrlD.0@.1ddf4a5f/57)

:smile: (http://www.sandlotscience.com/Moire/images/moire_intro.gif)

I wanted to add this animation (http://astro.uchicago.edu/~andrey/soft/p3d/p3d_evol.gif) to help people recognzie the similarity that has made me aware of how this intersection is a vital recognition of how we can see the evolution of the early universe to now.

We talk about cosmic strings here in the animation as a way of seeing the consolidation of event and structure in that uinverse. What was important for me was to recognize how supersymmetry might arisen from brane realizations, and again, the moire effect was most strange if we had considered this "intersection," of the graviton, as if the photon was to travel through these waves.

to here and touch the smile.

down.....

the way......

all.....

Look

pelastration

Aug5-04, 05:15 PM

sol2

Aug6-04, 12:09 AM

Intersections (like cutting properties) is imo the main problem. Ask yourself: Why would there be a Universal Sissor cutting everything in pieces?
A unifying approach needs to be: Unifying! Not separating.

If you are interested you can download my powerpoint presentations at ANPA (Cambridge UK). There were two presentations.
1. 3.6 Mb: http://www.mu6.com/ANPA/pelastration1.ppt
2. 1.2 Mb: http://www.mu6.com/ANPA/pelastration2.ppt

I will be looking at your presentations. Can you put links to site presenting these two ppt presentations, as they did not download for me

I am bringing you to the very top post of this thread. Would you not agree that such scissors would have meant discrete pieces?

Topology is the branch of mathematics concerned with the ramifications of continuity. Topologist emphasize the properties of shapes that remain unchanged no matter how much the shapes are bent twisted or otherwise manipulated.

Imagine the membranes doing all kinds of things but never tearing.The bubbles should be able to do this in bubble eversions? :smile:
Twisting in Differiential structures (http://oldsite.vislab.usyd.edu.au/gallery/mathematics/diffeo/diffeo.html)

Greg Egan is very helpful here (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/21/21.html) As well, Helicoid visualizations.

From the planck epoch to now the standard model has to assume that such a path(model) would materialize? What do two complete rotations mean? :smile:

http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/ax_3.gif

Planck Epoch to Grand UNification (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@208.lWSbctOOtqi.20@.1ddf4a5f/69)

pelastration

Aug6-04, 05:27 AM

I will be looking at your presentations. Can you put links to site presenting these two ppt presentations, as they did not download for me

Sol, I put them as webpages.
Here are the links (images contain some black dots):

First day: http://www.mu6.com/ANPA/pelastration1.htm

Second day: http://www.mu6.com/ANPA/2/pelastration2.htm. Here some pages are repeated + reactions added on questions during the first presentation. Some images (i.e. QM box eperiments) were explained verbally and not eplained on the slide. For the Alain Aspect experiment I had not the time to make an image.

pelastration

Aug6-04, 05:41 AM

I am bringing you to the very top post of this thread. Would you not agree that such scissors would have meant discrete pieces?

Imagine the membranes doing all kinds of things but never tearing.The bubbles should be able to do this in bubble eversions? :smile:
Twisting in Differiential structures (http://oldsite.vislab.usyd.edu.au/gallery/mathematics/diffeo/diffeo.html)

Greg Egan is very helpful here (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/21/21.html) As well, Helicoid visualizations.

From the planck epoch to now the standard model has to assume that such a path(model) would materialize? What do two complete rotations mean? :smile:

Thanks for the links.

Sure, Universal Scissors would create discrete pieces but they would loose history. If cut what would connect them gravitational?
Don't you think conservation of history (information) is essential?

Yes the 720° belt trick can be done with pelastrated holons. Lou Kauffmann showed the trick during the ANPA meeting. Fun. Lou looks into a special algebra for pelastrations.

sol2

Aug6-04, 09:11 AM

Thanks for the links.

Sure, Universal Scissors would create discrete pieces but they would loose history. If cut what would connect them gravitational?
Don't you think conservation of history (information) is essential?

Yes the 720° belt trick can be done with pelastrated holons. Lou Kauffmann showed the trick during the ANPA meeting. Fun. Lou looks into a special algebra for pelastrations.

If cut what would connect them gravitational? Don't you think conservation of history (information) is essential?

The information is always there in the bulk. You never lose it. It just gathers in spots, sometimes stronger then other locations, and we see where all these holes start to look like swiss cheese universe.

Might Lou looked at math of topos theory (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/topos.html)?

sol2

Aug6-04, 09:20 AM

Sol, I put them as webpages.
Here are the links (images contain some black dots):

First day: http://www.mu6.com/ANPA/pelastration1.htm

Second day: http://www.mu6.com/ANPA/2/pelastration2.htm. Here some pages are repeated + reactions added on questions during the first presentation. Some images (i.e. QM box eperiments) were explained verbally and not eplained on the slide. For the Alain Aspect experiment I had not the time to make an image.

You work very quickly and thank you for putting into html pages.

Your mention of Alain Aspect is a good sign to me that you are headed in the right direction. My little story (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=278005&postcount=48) will bring together a lot of what you are doing and seeing. Your framework will be complete as far as I see it, once you incorporate the final information.

From light to dark, and back again, and what begins and ends is very interrelated and contain seeds of each other. If you have a shadow and light and inbetween, a line, how shall we describe this line? For you, I know the image will materialize :smile: Good work. Maybe, you can give the image a complete rotation? :smile:

pelastration

Aug6-04, 10:29 AM

If cut what would connect them gravitational? Don't you think conservation of history (information) is essential?
The information is always there in the bulk. You never lose it. It just gathers in spots, sometimes stronger then other locations, and we see where all these holes start to look like swiss cheese universe.

You mean ALL information? Holons contain ALL information of all previous combinations. Each particles has it's own history. I.e. each electron in the universe has a different layer-history than the other electrons, since it's origin is different. I don't believe such topological information of each particle is conserved in the traditional 'bulk'. And where would it be stored?

sol2

Aug6-04, 02:24 PM

You mean ALL information? Holons contain ALL information of all previous combinations. Each particles has it's own history. I.e. each electron in the universe has a different layer-history than the other electrons, since it's origin is different. I don't believe such topological information of each particle is conserved in the traditional 'bulk'. And where would it be stored?

Prior Geometry and Holons One membrane peak (active) penetrates a passive peak. Since the membrane is non-breakable a new double layered area is created.

We call this local zone a HOLON. A holon contains history of the parents.

Slide('7')Piror Geometry and Holons
http://www.mu6.com/ANPA/pelastration1.htm

Holons (Koestler) may be: galaxies, stars, planets, humans, animals, plants, cells, DNA, genes, molecules, atoms, nuclei, particles.

Slide 14

I needed to understand how you were seeing. There were other defintions you had?

It would indeed be hard to see from a path integral approach. From a LQG perspective, and discreteness, how would you separate the coverings from the parent........hmmmm. I have to think about how you are relating history to parents.

One thing that immediately strikes me is that you have given boundaries with shape and color. The penetration and covering of other possibilties, in terms of the growth potential of families is a psychological relationship you have mathmatically developed into a wonderful creation.

Let's look at Bohr's atom. If we use liminocentric structures like you have when you partition your penetrations, to circles then what has this told you about these penetrations? Help me here :smile:

One of the interesting things to me is that if we have a enornmous amount of energy, something must happen, if energy is released. Now how might we look at this? In two ways. One in which you see just energy pervading the universe, or another, in how you might percieve the graviton in that bulk?

You might see something "pinching off" and with that, correllations of graviton association? The "point" as a boson, would leave the 3 brane reveal itself, as a wavelength of spectrum. Still the parent is at the core? And the parent connected to pervading bulk by its history.

Does this make sense?

pelastration

Aug6-04, 05:50 PM

It would indeed be hard to see from a path integral approach. From a LQG perspective, and discreteness, how would you separate the coverings from the parent........hmmmm. I have to think about how you are relating history to parents.
The parents are the history. They are inside the child.
The slide 8 (First powerPoint: Holons and Duality) shows that. Two different parts of the membrane are joined in the holon B(A). Slide 11 shows the further holon C(ba). That contains the original B(a). That's layering history. Whatever more combinations are made by C(ba) in larger - more complex - towers, there will be always C(ba) involved. Call C(ba) an electron. So wherever that electron goes ... i.e. being part of a Cu-atom inside a molecule - it will contain the topological history of the membrane parts by which it was created. Another electron may be for example: D(ac), etc.

Let's look at Bohr's atom. If we use liminocentric structures like you have when you partition your penetrations, to circles then what has this told you about these penetrations? Help me here :smile:
Surely I want to help but I don't get the question. You mean the circles? These are a traverse cutting of the holon so you can see the layers from another side.
These local topological penetrations (creating holons like electrons ) will circle around the nucleus of an atom, not really different from Bohr's atom, only they are still attached (like by a belt) to the membrane. The 720° rule plays here.

One of the interesting things to me is that if we have a enornmous amount of energy, something must happen, if energy is released. Now how might we look at this? In two ways. One in which you see just energy pervading the universe, or another, in how you might percieve the graviton in that bulk?.
Let's simplify and say that the membrane is spacetime (although the membrane is pre-geometry, timeless).
To me the spacetime membrane is the interconnective elasticity which is observed as "gravity".
Everything (holons) is restructured membrane. Everything, so what we call: energy and what we call: matter. It's just a different level of layering. We can say here that the curvature of spacetime creates matter: which confirms Einstein's idea that spacetime influences matter (indeed it creates matter). And when spacetime moves also matters moves with it (since it's on the spacetime brane).

In powerpoint 2 (slide: 14 ) you can see the dynamics: How membrane layers in a holon can be deformed.
The bold red lines are first levels of sub-holons (complex), the blue lines are the next level (more complex), and the purple line symbolize the three level (more, more complex). There can be much more levels.
The higher holon-towers become, the more the basic membrane 'feels' 'heaviness' = matter-like. That implies that there is more rigidity but also that the membrane 'bends' (like Einstein's rubber sheet). Matter curves spacetime.

We can see here that indeed everything is vibration, like Kaku and other string physicists say, but it's the fundamental membrane that vibrates (the fundamental hollow string). Combined vibrations create particles (various energy types and matter types).

You might see something "pinching off" and with that, correllations of graviton association? The "point" as a boson, would leave the 3 brane reveal itself, as a wavelength of spectrum. Still the parent is at the core? And the parent connected to pervading bulk by its history.
Pinching off is a nice human interpretation. ;-). But it's all on-the-brane. Nothing can leave the brane since everything is made by the brane and still part of the unbreakable membrane. Indeed holons will vibrate in a very specific way (depending of their internal structure), meaning: how the parent parts of the membrane are structured inside each holon.

sol2

Aug7-04, 10:18 AM

I am giving you this post (http://superstringtheory.org:8080/forum/stringcosmo/getpost.jsp?post=18) to direct your attention to the method, in which my attempts are to move forward concept building, and list the structure with how I am approaching this. People in this forum are unknowing partners in the continued developement. I appreciate the interaction and hope I am reciproicating what I am learning.

Now to me, if you present me with the Planck epoch, you have to understand what this means, and where "emergent realities" might come from.

In the last post I supply a thread, I deal specifically with what is called pearls and chains, because it reveals the cosmic string developement effects from planck epoch. So this leaves you with a taste in one's mouth of the era and the manifestation that arises to our current universe and realization.

So I traced the "history," back to Parent/Child, and here I am speaking to the effects produced by the cosmic strings, and the "cooling nature" in that universe, as a consistent feature.

You have to understand what the bulk means. It is "history" and represents the gravitons. This is a fourth dimensional(all of space) result of the 3 brane world. The history remains consistent throughout all the epochs and universe to now. The Fifth dimenison, is with time.

What we want to know then, is if the M really stands for membrane, or Mother ? :smile:

You see if you look at the planck epoch, and the idea of pure energy, how do bubbles form? There is a leading thought here in terms of the creation of the universe and it is all encapsulated in the bubble M theory.

Yet alongside of this developing universe(child) the mother still exists in this (graviton)Sea, from which it too was born. So no matter how weak the graviton is in our current universe, it is still connected to the mother's embryonic womb from which the children came.

It has to have a "basis" from which to develope, and conceptually, this would have to have a vibratory nature(quantum harmonic oscillator?), and the only thing that I know that can show this is "energy".

If there are no gravitational waves, the spacetime fabric is flat.

The KK tower then becomes specific for me about particle identification.

This is about the duality that emerged, and it's logic. Line of shadow or line of light. For me then your examples of became features of solidity and sound.

I developed the lines and they can be broken or unbroken, yang and Yin respectively.

I will stop here, as it leads into other things.

Your model would have to be consistent with the history?

How can "energy" be born out of the complete blackness? Is it as simple as going to sleep(darkness) and waking up on the other side? :smile:

But it's all on-the-brane. Nothing can leave the brane since everything is made by the brane and still part of the unbreakable membrane

Yes, one thing can leave the brane. The EM spectrum is the face of the brane which can't leave. Yet the face, has to exist by it's definition, by what is in the bulk.

sol2

Aug7-04, 05:17 PM

Imagine for one moment that a bubble arises out of dirac's sea. This bubble is a summmation of brane worlds?

The Dirac sea is an interpretation of the negative energy states that comprises the vacuum In physics, a vacuum is the absence of matter (molecules, atoms...) in a volume of space. A partial vacuum is expressed in pressure units. The SI unit of pressure is pascal (Pa). It can also be expressed as a percentage of atmospheric pressure using the bar or barometer scale.

Degrees of vacuum
atmospheric pressure = 760 torr or 100 kPa
vacuum cleaner = around 300 torr or 40 kPa
mechanical vacuum pump = around 10 millitorr or 1.3 Pa
near earth outer space = around 10-6 torr or 130 μPa
pressure on the Moon = around 10-8 torr or 1.3 μPa
interstellar space = around 10-10 torr or 13 nPa

The Dirac sea of particles and antiparticles is part of the foundation of modern quantum theory.

Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac
Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac, (August 8 1902 - October 20 1984) was a physicist and a founder of the field of quantum physics.

BiographyDirac was born in Bristol, Gloucestershire, England. In 1926 he developed a version of quantum mechanics, which included “Matrix Mechanics” and “Wave Mechanics” as special cases.

In 1928, building on Pauli's work on nonrelativistic spin systems, he derived the Dirac equation, a relativistic equation describing the electron. This allowed Dirac to formulate the Dirac sea and predict the existence of the positron, the electron's anti-particle; the positron was subsequently observed by Anderson in 1932. Dirac explained the origin of quantum spin as a relativistic phenomenon.

The "sea" has an infinite background charge and may play a role in the perceptions of spacetime

In special relativity and general relativity, time and three-dimensional space are treated together as a single four-dimensional manifold called spacetime (alternatively, space-time). A point in spacetime may be referred to as an event. Each event has four coordinates (t, x, y, z); or, in angular coordinates, t, r, θ, and φ. structures.
Dirac studied the electron in complex spacetime

In special relativity and general relativity, time and three-dimensional space are treated together as a single four-dimensional manifold called spacetime (alternatively, space-time). A point in spacetime may be referred to as an event. Each event has four coordinates (t, x, y, z); or, in angular coordinates, t, r, θ, and φ.
, Dirac published the Dirac equation. With the Dirac formalism, electron description is a particle to the proton. After others (including Hermann Weyl, Robert Oppenheimer, and Igor Tamm) disproved this possibility, Dirac predicted a new particle, the positron. If negative energy is transformed into a positive energy state, the energy is perceived as a positron. Positron is the antiparticle of electron. Positrons are produced through pair production (bipolar coupling).

In relativistic quantum mechanics, Dirac's equation admits both positive and negative energy states. So, what is there to prevent a fermion from constantly radiating away energy, resulting in lesser and lesser energy, resulting in a huge instability? Dirac proposed almost all the negative energy states are filled by a sea of negative energy fermions. In modern treatments of quantum field theory, the Dirac sea is subtly introduced by having different definitions for the occupation number for positive and negative frequency decompositions.

The model of a negative energy "sea" of electrons has critics.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Dirac%20sea

This bubble encloses all possible dimensions? M stands for mother, and out of the waters of this world, the children(universes) are born? :smile:

I stumbled upon the words of Sakharov in relation to Dirac's Sea.

For some of us who had gather at a earlier time, the effective electron-positron questions all of a sudden presenrted other solutions as to how we could percieve dynamical movement.

On that point we can only conjecture. Sakharov suggested accounting for the effects of general relativity by introducing the concept of an "elasticity of space," analogous to the well-known curvature of space-time. The answer could also lie in the proper treatment of the so-called Dirac sea of particle-antiparticle pairs. The question of general relativistic effects, however, is a valid concern that legitimately challenges the interrelated ZPF concepts of gravity and inertia.

http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/sciences.html

Link was added from a post of Self Adjoint's here (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0403/0403052.pdf).

sol2

Aug7-04, 05:41 PM

Beyond Einstein seems a catching phrase to me too. :smile: Yet we find a lot of evidence of this thinking all over the place. What do the new ideas espouse? Have we really grasped the significance?

BEYOND E=mc2

A first glimpse of a postmodern physics, in which mass,
inertia and gravity arise from underlying electromagnetic processes

Even if our approach based on stochastic electrodynamics turns out to be flawed, the idea that the vacuum is involved in the creation of inertia is bound to stay. Perhaps even bolder than the concepts themselves are their implications. If inertia and gravity are like other manifestations of electromagnetic phenomena, it might someday be possible to manipulate them by advanced engineering techniques.

http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/sciences.html

Sometimes we might need visual aids. So, I thought I would add this in relation to the question, on how would we see these dimensions, if we accept the gravitons in the bulk?

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/featuredmicroscopist/deckart/images/soap01small.jpg

Karl E. Deckart

sol2

Aug7-04, 06:15 PM

Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation,
the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios

Both of the approaches above (together called the RHP approach for convenience) assume classical electrodynamics
operating in flat spacetime. Einstein’s field equations for general relativity (GR)
Gµ = 8Tµ (7) describe how curved spacetime geometry (Gµ ) is produced by the presence of matter or energy as described by the energy-momentum tensor (Tµ). Nickisch and Mollere have considered the possibility that electromagnetic fields, including that of the zero-point fluctuations, can be treated as a distortion in the spacetime of the charge. A massless charge would behave like a photon, following a null geodesic, but in a spacetime
defined by electromagnetic fields. A photon, in the absence of any energy or matter other than the zero-point fluctuations, will follow an unperturbed flat spacetime trajectory. However unlike the spacetime of a photon,
the spacetime of the massless charge is defined by the distortions of the zero-point fluctuations, producing a geodesic description of zitterbewegung. Additional electromagnetic fields may produce a non-zero-mean drift
of the zitterbewegung that is also accounted for in the geodesic motion. These non-zero-mean effects “accumulate” into a stretching of the particle’s spacetime, and this stretching is perceived by external observers
to be inertia.

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0209/0209016.pdf

Mike2

Aug9-04, 07:25 AM

selfAdjoint

Aug9-04, 08:33 AM

This is Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff, a way-out team of physicists trying to get new physics from the ZPE. Not even Sarfatti takes them seriously.

sol2

Aug9-04, 10:32 AM

[QUOTE=sol2]Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation,
the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
If mass is due to this acceleration against thermal photons, then where does that leave the calculation of mass as vibrations in string theory?

For me just trying to grasp the significance of the brane theories is really quite a feat, but one thng is known within that theory, and that is the photon as a boson, is connected to the brane/branes.

If we change around the question in regard to glast, how photon interactions are showing us discrete features by the path integral approaches in regards to gamma ray detectors, how would you measure the photons interaction with the bulk/gravitons?

Do you accept the feature of the energy as telling you, by its' very existance that the history sits along side of the mass features, as signs of what had existed before. What indicators allow you to decide, what matters could become from those signature particles?

So even in the planck epoch, what signatures would tell the universe to become the way it is?

You know I have a lot of questions also and they help me to focus. Becuase you asked a question yourself, other factors, detail the responds. Not always direct I know. I am sorry, but I too am learning.

How has Science helped us to see? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=38773)

Specifically elemental considerations on the moon cannot help us see what signatures can arise from the planck epoch? Yet things end up the way they do, and we have to ask ourselves? Why iron?

So we have detailled the beginning in the planck epoch to now. What in that history to now, is consistent?

If you accept the continuity and flow of time in regrads to 4 dimensional spacetime, we are lead to see in other ways, then the way the world allows us to see just the moon.

Acceptance of the unification of electromagnetism with gravity, how would you approach seeing?

The bubbles arise out of this sea and low and behold, everything we need is within that bubble. It encapsulates everything. So some like to extend this vision of bubble dynamics like Pelastrian does, and if we prodcue certain commentators in the links we supply, how would you, in accepting certain conditions, see what they are sayng, above and beyond Einstein, with these bubble technologies? :smile:

The Higher Sphere (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=279076&postcount=55) is choosen then not just for detailing casimere dynamics or bubble pressures outside influenced by boudaries, but the dynamcis of the geometry, is very telling then? You see?

Early universe detectors in gamma rays help us much closer to the temperature of that early universe, but is still a long ways from the essence of the planck epoch. So we have to look at it in other ways :smile:

Being more then the pure antagonist, we look for ways in which we can use that light switch in producing more neuron synapse connectors, like those pearl and chains, in the cosmic strings. Who knows, this might be God's brain we are seeing inthe cosmos? :rofl: The chemistry would be very musically inclined.

sol2

Aug9-04, 10:59 AM

This is Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff, a way-out team of physicists trying to get new physics from the ZPE. Not even Sarfatti takes them seriously.

Go with me here for a minute.

Thrown a blanket over all of them(Sarfartti included), and what the heck are they doing? The blanket( a part of the bubble) saids, there are different shapes evolving from what they propose.

You have to apply this to all thinking. It is a paradigmal/model grokked? :smile:

If you take everything out of space, what is left? The blanket saids something would it not, as you are doing this?

selfAdjoint

Aug9-04, 03:23 PM

Whenever I hear the phrase paradigm change, I reach for my textbooks.

sol2

Aug9-04, 07:24 PM

Whenever I hear the phrase paradigm change, I reach for my textbooks.

As you should.

Strings, loop, and twistors all of are new paradigms, right? Or maybe my definition is different then yours? :smile:

Because you do no accept Kuhn, does not make the issue of paradigms go away. If you like, lets call them models. You accept models, and it changes the way you see? Is that better? :uhh: :smile:

selfAdjoint

Aug9-04, 10:22 PM

From the Kuhn POV, strings, twistors, and even LQG are "normal science". Theory continuously connected to existing theory. The paradigm is quantization and both strings and LQG are within it. C[sup]* algebras on Hilbert spaces. Closure of the algebra. A paradigm shift would be at right angles to quantization. Many fakers and many cranks have claimed it, but not one has brought it off.

sol2

Aug9-04, 10:43 PM

If you noticed, my post previous to yours was #63 (http://superstringtheory.com/forum/metaboard/messages12/33.html)

Its all in the "timing"? :smile:

Time and memory shape our perceptions of our own identity. We may feel ourselves to be at history's mercy, but we also see ourselves as free-willed agents of the future. That conception is disturbingly at odds with the ideas of physicists and philosophers, however, because if time is a dimension like those of space then yesterday, today and tomorrow are all equal.

http://www.sciam.com/singletopicissue/

What's normal science when you find numbers that arise, that are the same in other places? Coincidence? :confused: A cosmic wormhole that connects the same numbers and time? :smile: So what would be different of Self Adjoint from the person he was before?

Sol,

I don't think Kuhn is ever more in error than in this description of what he calls normal science. Either there is no normal science in his sense, or he just doesn't have any grasp of how real science goes along.

In real life physicists, both theorists and experimenters, are hungry for "physics beyond the standard model". The media hype over misundrstood "FTL" experiments and muom magnetic moment is just the tip of an iceberg of intense hunting for new facts and theories.

I don't know what world Kuhn is describing, but it's not this world.

Regards,

Yes I see what you mean. What's Normal?

Sol,

Let's see..
It is like, in some sense of developing the logic would you not say and we recognize the procedures then to the validation of things. I believe I have shown that even amidst the constants, there is always room for a mystery, or we would not have those who forge ahead.:)

This is a statement of faith, a faith that most present day physicists would subscribe to. Most of them would believe that "lateral thinking" will be necessary to move beyond the present unsatisfactory situation (The Standard model with its 19 or so arbitrary parameters and General Relativity, with its problems and neither of them having anything to do with the other).

I do not believe you will find the new physics on these boards. Most of the folks who post new theories do not have enough knowledge or mathematical skill. Like it or not, to know which crazy idea is the right one takes a lot of training.

Common sense isn't any help either. It's just the high mass, low speed approximation, and the fact that it's the physics we grew up with doesn't count.

Of course we are talking about something almost two years ago.

You see it is very difficult for me to express something mathematically yet I know, it is the substance of discerning the hills from the valleys:) You know like talking about some sub structure to space. Why things gravitate?:)

What is the organizing principle amidst the matters? So I say a String is Energy, and then I say, a String Curves,

Olias asks the question about the "Higgs"(a professor crosses the room?) in string theory.

We know this fundamental question is looming on the horizon in terms of experimentation. So how much closer are we to the planck epoch and "what lies beneath." So what is this organizing principal and low and behold, we have to accept certain fundamental theories, about the existing theories and gravitational waves, have yet to be proven?

There is a paradox that arises for me.

From the early universe, if such plasmatic conditions existed, and the bubbles formed from this epoch, would we recognize supergravity?

If energy is suppose to reveal this feature in terms of high energy consideration ,in terms of the gravitons in the bulk, then how "thick" indeed, is the gravitons in the bulk period. So you see, we have to assume something about the gravitational collapse?

Olias, has a very keen eye for such anomalies, like that card(six of red spades) he did not miss it the first time:)

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/taleyarkhan.r.jpg
Rusi Taleyarkhan

They haven't given up, and it might provides answers as long as this process continues to work? Energy in, energy out(graviton one of its forms) so how would we use this feature? Gravitational collapse maybe?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1570000/images/_1573450_mast150.jpg

Controlling the eddies and whirls of the writhing plasma so that it can burst into life as a miniature Sun has been a formidable, and so far only partially met, engineering challenge.

"If we follow the Mast idea and not the Jet one, we could imagine a string of medium-scale fusion reactors instead of a few very big ones," said Dr Sykes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1573450.stm

Sort of reminds of a show that I went looking for, that had Keenu Reeves and Morgan Freeman who had created this new energy device? :smile: It had to have just the right note to initiate. :smile:

So indeed, we walk a fine line :smile:

selfAdjoint

Aug10-04, 08:53 AM

There are two ways of testing new theories, one of course is experiment. The other is connection to present day science. This connection would be expressed mathematically, just as the calculations to predict experiments have to be mathematical. Strings, twistors, and LQG all are missing the experimental test so far, but they all pass the connection test; read Rovelli's book, or Zwiebach's first course in string theory or from what I've heard Penrose's new book, and you will see the author's pet theory DERIVED FROM KNOWN PHYSICS. From quantum mechanics and relativity and electromagnetism, in fact.

Now when I said that physicists hunger for the new breakthrough, I didn't mean a breakthrough that simply ignores present day physics. If we have to break the quantization paradigm (I don't at all imply that we do!) then we have to explain why and how we do that. This is bound to be an argument like the one over Thiemann's LQG approach to string theory, all about technicalities that the general population can't follow. Even if somebody came up with an easily understood principle that gave a valid way out of quantization, it would have to be explained on the basis of existing mathematical models of the universe.

Kuhn's two examples of paradigm shift that he produced professional histories of are Copernicus' revolution and Planck's introduction of quantized emission and absorption of radiation. In both cases they justified their new ways with traditional math. Copernicus showed that the diameters of the planetary deferents always passed through the sun, in terms of the epicycle theory. And Planck showed that the quantum followed form 19th century mathematical idealizations of the black body.

sol2

Aug10-04, 09:17 AM

There are two ways of testing new theories, one of course is experiment. The other is connection to present day science. This connection would be expressed mathematically, just as the calculations to predict experiments have to be mathematical.

I am often reminded of the road to validation, and it has not past my attention that such devlopements have there roads to follow.

I am reminded of those like Peter Woit who hold firmly to the validation process, even though the mathematical routes are being established. My discussions with you over the years have reiterated this stance you yourself have held to in terms of, listen we'll wait and see what comes, yet nothng conclusive had been reached.

We talked about the creation of math, whether it was natural or invented? Yet the roads too,are always a interesting assesssment? I speak of Smolin here again and his mode of operandi. A new math emerges? What the heck does this mean?

Strings, twistors, and LQG all are missing the experimental test so far, but they all pass the connection test; read Rovelli's book, or Zwiebach's first course in string theory or from what I've heard Penrose's new book, and you will see the author's pet theory DERIVED FROM KNOWN PHYSICS. From quantum mechanics and relativity and electromagnetism, in fact.

You run for the books, yes I heard you the first time. :smile:

Now when I said that physicists hunger for the new breakthrough, I didn't mean a breakthrough that simply ignores present day physics. If we have to break the quantization paradigm (I don't at all imply that we do!) then we have to explain why and how we do that.

Well I am going to give you a example, and you can tell me if they did not find something weird. Anomalistic you might say. One sec.

Einsteins position on EPR, and what did John Bell do for us? Now we have these crazy people who talk about quantum entanglement? And now imagine.......teleportation

Theoretical positions change the way we percieve things, although indeed, must be grounded in some reality? In order to delve into those theoretcial positions it mght be a philosophy that begins the creation of this math or that math? There had to be some logical reasoning applied to the pursuate of any of these directions.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=277080&postcount=18

But that's not what I wanted to show you, so I'll get right to it.

Peter or Jeff can answer with "credibitly" as to what is being done in the colliders. String theory developed out of the need to comprehend where this energy was going, and pushing for great energy requirments, found limitations

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=277026&postcount=13
.

Now why would I ask such stupid questions? And finally we are back to the point.

Kuhn's two examples of paradigm shift that he produced professional histories of are Copernicus' revolution and Planck's introduction of quantized emission and absorption of radiation. In both cases they justified their new ways with traditional math. Copernicus showed that the diameters of the planetary deferents always passed through the sun, in terms of the epicycle theory. And Planck showed that the quantum followed form 19th century mathematical idealizations of the black body.

Well lets not forget the ideas that have developed the roads to general relativity. Leading perspective changes, in regards to Mecuries orbits or Taylor and Hulse, is "not" the point of Quantization? It is to explain what is happening with the energy produced from one, the orbit and two, the rotational binary stars. Each one of these processes is leaving us with "information" in the bulk.

Now what does that "information" consist of?

You see where A Matter of Time (http://www.sciam.com/singletopicissue/) has a really interesting angle here?

The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones

Now imagine being in a sea of gravitons where every graviton is describing one part of the GR wave. Would gravitons of one part of the wave, be similar to another grvaiton describing the same wave in another location? Are these two location actually connected in terms of dimensions?

What is the organizing principle amidst the matters? So I say a String is Energy, and then I say, a String Curves,
How the heck did they get to branes? :smile:

selfAdjoint

Aug10-04, 10:22 AM

Now imagine being in a sea of gravitons where every graviton is describing one part of the GR wave. Would gravitons of one part of the wave, be similar to another grvaiton describing the same wave in another location? Are these two location actually connected in terms of dimensions?

Not if those are stringy gravitons and the two locations are spacelike related. String theory respects relativity, as I said.

Originally Posted by sol2
What is the organizing principle amidst the matters? So I say a String is Energy, and then I say, a String Curves

Exactly the problem. A string is not "energy", they are two different things. And as for curving, the point of strings is that they vibrate, and we are in a sea of that, vibrating strings so small they can't be seen with our equipment, but the vibrations making the particles that we see.

The point is that what I just said can be developed coherently, mathematically, from QM, EM, and SR, plus the string Lagrangian, and what you said cannot.

sol2

Aug10-04, 10:28 AM

Exactly the problem. A string is not "energy", they are two different things. And as for curving, the point of strings is that they vibrate, and we are in a sea of that, vibrating strings so small they can't be seen with our equipment, but the vibrations making the particles that we see.

See, I am speaking also of the windings. I just asume that this is understood. Not only are we holding a magnefying glass to the cosmos, we are holding it to the energy consideration we currently use in our colliders. Sometimes we have to hold it to the fine print :smile:

I am looking at this situation from two standpoints. One the gravitonic one, and the other, from a energy consideration. Yet I recognize the layering that is going on. I see the electromagnetic field and outside of that :smile:.

Of course I reocgnize the history to this developement. Remember that T-shirt those college students like to wear, and Then There Was Light?

So we take it a step further. You know what this means right? :smile:

Obvious though this commonsense description may seem, it is seriously at odds with modern physics. Albert Einstein famously expressed this point when he wrote to a friend, "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones." Einstein's startling conclusion stems directly from his special theory of relativity, which denies any absolute, universal significance to the present moment. According to the theory, simultaneity is relative. Two events that occur at the same moment if observed from one reference frame may occur at different moments if viewed from another.

The most straightforward conclusion is that both past and future are fixed. For this reason, physicists prefer to think of time as laid out in its entirety--a timescape, analogous to a landscape--with all past and future events located there together. It is a notion sometimes referred to as block time. Completely absent from this description of nature is anything that singles out a privileged special moment as the present or any process that would systematically turn future events into present, then past, events. In short, the time of the physicist does not pass or flow.

Scratch scratch! Hmmmmmm.......I move my hand through the thickness of these gravitons and they just seem to fall in behind :confused:

Continuity and topology (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=241140&postcount=16), have there place in the roads of projective geometry do they not? It has to be consistent.

The point is that what I just said can be developed coherently, mathematically, from QM, EM, and SR, plus the string Lagrangian, and what you said cannot.

What I did say is that there is a distilling going on and the information that I present in response has to be consistent. I am observing, and gathering perspective thoughts.

Although, I might think that the world in which we live has a direct relation to the consciousness we hold, I have never shown this position? :smile:

Time (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=32068)

sol2

Aug15-04, 12:14 PM

Moving to non euclidean perspectives, are very important features of moving from the fifth postulate of Euclid. I wonder, about those like Saccherri, Gauss and Reimann. It is a new way seeing beyond what we are accustom too, and these gentlemen are very instrumental in this process. Exploring the realm here then one can also point to Kaku and ask how could any mind project itself into the eyes of the carp and then look to the surface of the water? :smile:

Many of the theorems found in today's non-Euclidean geoemtry textbooks ultimately are derived from the theorems proven in Jerome Saccheri's 1633 book - and this usually without crediting Saccheri. Here are presented a few of his theorems illustrated by using the Poincaré model.

By use of similar triangles and congruent parts of similar triangles on the Saccheri quadrilateral, ABDC with AC = BD and ‚A = ‚B = p/2, he establishes his first 32 theorems. Most are too complicated to be treated in a short paper, but here some examples are merely stated, some are illustrated and some are proven. For those proofs which are brief enough to show here, the main steps are indicated and the reader is invited to fill in the missing details of the argument. A century after Saccheri, the geometers, Lobachevsky, Bolyai and Gauss would realize that, by substituting the acute case or the obtuse case for Euclid's postulate Number V, they could create two consistent geometries. In doing so they built on the progress made by Saccheri who had already proven so many of the needed theorems. They were able to create what we recognize today as the "elliptical" and "hyperbolic" non-Euclidean geometries. Most of Saccheri's first 32 theorems can be found in today's non-Euclidean textbooks. Saccheri's theorems are prefaced by "Sac."

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/sacflaw/sacther.htm

So we look for other ways in which to interpret the curvature parameters and to get a feel for the dynamics in the realm of non-euclidean perspective. Looking at gaussian fields help as well as the metric fields

Helmholtz was the first to advocate the idea that human beings, living in a non-Euclidean world, would develop an ability of visualization which would make them regard the laws of non-Euclidean geometry as necessary and self-evident, in the same fashion as the laws of Euclidean geometry appear self-evident to us. (308)

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/RonHelmholtz.html

Things get more complicated when we graduate from space to spacetime. Remember that the Minkowski metric has a spacetime distance function dS2 that can be negative, positive or zero, whereas the distance functions in space dL2 can only be positive.

The means we have to separate our geodesics on the basis of whether the distance function dS2 is positive, negative or zero. Goedesics with dS2 < 0 are called spacelike geodesics. Goedesics with dS2 = 0 are called null geodesics. Goedesics with dS2 > 0 are called timelike geodesics. The behavior of timelike and null geodesics are the most important for understanding time travel.

Timelike geodesics behave the opposite from geodesics in space. They actually represent the longest spacetime distance between two spacetime events.

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/grelb.html

Non-Euclidean Geometry

Since the bounding circle is "infinitely far away", the motion of the picture does not exactly parallel the mouse drag motion, but instead moves about the same non-Euclidean distance as the Euclidean distance moved by the mouse. So the picture will appear to lag behind the mouse.

http://www.math.umn.edu/~garrett/a02/H2.html

Further to understanding these dynamics the ideas of this flat universe concide nicely from what I see, relevant to the CMB temperature our universe is now holding. If we look back to the temperature values of our perspective looks we soon learn to see what a supermicroscope the colliders are in helping us in undertanding the first moments of the universe and it's compacted shape.

http://physicsweb.org/objects/world/13/11/8/pw1311084.gif

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, the gravitational potential due to an isolated source is proportional to rho + 3P, where rho is the energy density and P is the pressure. For non-relativistic matter the pressure is negligibly small, whereas for radiation P = rho/3. Therefore, for the same value of the energy density, radiation produces a deeper and more attractive gravitational potential (left) than non-relativistic matter (centre). If rho + 3P is negative, as in the case of quintessence * in this example P = *2rho/3 * the sign of the gravitational field is transformed from attractive to repulsive (right).

http://physicsweb.org/box/world/13/11/8/pw1311084

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/sacflaw/B1.GIF

It came down to the question of using the triangle on different surfaces. By adding up the degrees it was easy then to assume the shape with which these surfaces spoke of themself.

So now we see where this universe having assumed such a large spherical extension of a early expansive form, has reached the flatness of today?

You have to remember the direction the temperatures values are leading us in its cooling function. Look back to the beginning of the universe and what do you see? If particle discriptions, are becoming evident and the energy values climbing, what has been revealed?

Reductionistic views, have paved the way for extraordinary energies and what is happening in the cosmos. You have made a exchange, from a reductionsitic one, to a energy one. :smile:

Of course we are assuming that your are developing your geometry along the way much like Einstein did with help from Grossman(Where has projective geometry lead us?). Does this road end?

Of course not and why all of sudden we have this topic about Quantum geometry explaining quantum gravity.

But there is a problem with relativistic views explaining, and integrating with the small word of the colliders. You had in this exchange a realization that geometrically forced you to consider the strength of those gravitational fields?

I am of course open to corrections.

sol2

Aug15-04, 12:22 PM

It is not always easy for people to follow the development in thinking that helps to orientate the visualization capabilites we have from instruction?

I give a case in point I and ask you, what allowed us to develope such thinking?

So all of a sudden one accepts paradigmal changes?

I do not expect people to run, once they accept the idea expressed, as a function of turning visualization capabilties into another realm of thinking? All of a sudden you see from a different perspective?

Will this help you look at earth (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=280158&postcount=1) differently or the moon (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=280170&postcount=2)? :smile:

You combine the information into a consistent model, assuming this extra feature of visualization?

What has happened to society as it changes the way it thinks? A global perspective? A Cosmological view now within the grasp of minds thinking? It still goes further then this. With one eye it turns to the cosmo, while with the other, the nature of all energy? These are never to far apart :smile:

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)

Olias

Aug15-04, 05:15 PM

sol2

Aug15-04, 08:18 PM

Hi Sol, Geometry invokes an inquisitive quest on all who can think in abstract arena's, Einstein was one such man who tread upon the Path of Shape and form.

I have been deluded by some intricate Geometric anomolies lately, so I needed a Teacher, more so than a preacher!...thus:http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/webseminars/stokes/2003/03/18/atiyah/

Look, listen and learn! :smile:

I appreciate the link.

You have to understand Olias I pulled the two links from other threads today because they did not seem appropriate there. So yes, it might indeed seem like preaching with no context.

One was here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39185)to the first post today in this link, and the second post, to the other here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=34922)

For obvious reasons I brought them back here for prepping the mind, and of course, what illusions we might be under, could indeed ask oneself what delusions of grandeur we were perpetrating? :smile:

I always ask for corrections so that mathematical minds, in regards to the geometry, can respond? IN this effort, I have gone to great lengths to see how this geometry is working.

I have found a "wall" that I will reveal to you shortly :smile: I'll post it here.

Is spacetime fundamental?

Note that there is a complication in the relationship between strings and spacetime. String theory does not predict that the Einstein equations are obeyed exactly. String theory adds an infinite series of corrections to the theory of gravity. Under normal circumstances, if we only look at distance scales much larger than a string, then these corrections are not measurable. But as the distance scale gets smaller, these corrections become larger until the Einstein equation no longer adequately describes the result. In fact, when these correction terms become large, there is no spacetime geometry that is guaranteed to describe the result. The equations for determining the spacetime geometry become impossible to solve except under very strict symmetry conditions, such as unbroken supersymmetry, where the large correction terms can be made to vanish or cancel each other out.
This is a hint that perhaps spacetime geometry is not something fundamental in string theory, but something that emerges in the theory at large distance scales or weak coupling. This is an idea with enormous philosophical implications.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh4.html

That last paragraph in bold saids quite a bit too. :smile: I think there is a constant affirmation of the brane here to consider. How shall we "see" this?

What kind of geometry?

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

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

So, there is a certain realization that goes along with accepting this new geometry called Quantum geometry. What is it that must be realized?

There is lots and I have been speaking to it in regards to the planck epoch :smile:

More preaching here I guess eh? :smile:

Olias

Aug16-04, 04:13 AM

sol2

Aug16-04, 08:00 AM

Sol, when I said:so I needed a Teacher, more so than a preacher!

I was refering to the Seminar I had sought, not 'meaning' that anyone on these forums are preaching?

It was meant to reflect the feeling I had after watching/lietening to the said seminar, I had learned a lot from it.

I know. :smile:

This statement had some effect from what my own children would say when they were younger. I imagine, if the interest was not there and you had a professor sitting at the head of the class, the attraction would wane, because the deeper meaning would not of been there to help. For some the impatience might had some effect, when they had been far past the curriculum? Pursuing their own thing? :smile:

So we see where personal motivation, like your own would say, I had to look at what I had been seeing all the time. This is also a point I raise in regards to Smolin, where he gathers his forces(information) and brings out a modified view about the reality we are currently dealing with. I find this an admirable trait :smile: But we have too, as you acknowledge, make sure we have the right information.

Thanks for your patience to respond :smile:

sol2

Aug16-04, 08:11 AM

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/images/particle_main.gif

Some physicists attempting to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces have come to a startling prediction: every fundamental matter particle should have a massive "shadow" force carrier particle, and every force carrier should have a massive "shadow" matter particle. This relationship between matter particles and force carriers is called supersymmetry. For example, for every type of quark there may be a type of particle called a "squark."

No supersymmetric particle has yet been found, but experiments are underway at CERN and Fermilab to detect supersymmetric partner particles.

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/supersymmetry.html

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/string.html"

String Theory, one of the recent proposals of modern physics, suggests that in a world with three ordinary dimensions and some additional very "small" dimensions, particles are strings and membranes. Yes, membranes in extra dimensions are weird and hard to visualize. And what are "small dimensions?"

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/string.html"

So what does particle reduction mean in terms of the colliders?

The move to understand the cosmo has taken us on a interesting journey of venturing to the early cosmos and here, General Relativity works very nice. But if we look at the early universe where we have joined GR with the quantum world, what shall this same universe look like from a microscopic view?

So now imagine that we are looking at the cosmo with a magnifying glass (http://www-glast.sonoma.edu/index.html), and that with this glass, we are able to see the universe's history, just by standing still here on earth.

What am I saying?

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/images/KipDraw2.jpg
Drawing by Glen Edwards, Utah State University, Logan, UT

For Kip Thorne, this, Window on the Universe , amounted to trying to understand the "depth" of this history, and is like a Father, along with John Wheeler, who is a Father before him, to help us shape a view, on the reality of this cosmos.

Kip Thorne's research has focused on Einstein's general theory of relativity and astrophysics, with emphasis on relativistic stars, black holes and gravitational waves. He was co-founder of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory. Thorne also authored the award-winning book for non- scientists, Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy, as well as the textbook, Gravitation, from which most of the present generation of scientists have learned general relativity theory.

Probing the Universe with Gravitational Waves

Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space and time produced by cosmic violence, such as the the universe's big-bang creation and collisions of black holes. These waves carry information about the "dark side" of the universe that cannot be learned in any other way. The high-frequency gravitational-wave window onto the universe will be opened soon by LIGO (NSF's earth-based Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, which is now in operation and searching for waves). A lower-frequency window will be opened in ~2012 by LISA (the NASA/ESA Laser Interferometer Space Antenna). This lecture will describe LIGO, LISA, and what they may teach us about the universe and about warped spacetime

http://www.aaas.org/meetings/MPE_01_PlenLec.shtml#kip

One of the early recognitions on my part was the value sound might have. This does not make sense until you consider the work of this man:

Joseph Weber 1919 - 2000

Joseph Weber, the accomplished physicist and electrical engineer, has died at the age of 81. Weber's diverse research interests included microwave spectroscopy and quantum electronics, but he is probably best known for his investigations into gravitational waves.

In the late 1950s, Weber became intrigued by the relationship between gravitational theory and laboratory experiments. His book, General Relativity and Gravitational Radiation, was published in 1961, and his paper describing how to build a gravitational wave detector first appeared in 1969. Weber's first detector consisted of a freely suspended aluminium cylinder weighing a few tonnes. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Weber announced that he had recorded simultaneous oscillations in detectors 1000 km apart, waves he believed originated from an astrophysical event. Many physicists were sceptical about the results, but these early experiments initiated research into gravitational waves that is still ongoing. Current gravitational wave experiments, such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) and Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), are descendants of Weber's original work.

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/4/10/4

Now it is interesting that we are presented with two different perspectives going back to the early universe, that first found it's inception in the comprehension of gravitational waves as a product of General Relativity.

The road here is well documented and further understood from understanding the oscillations created from mercuries orbit or rotation binary star systems in that spacetime fabric. Here the exploration into Taylor and Hulse is a interesting value addition to the projection of these gravitational waves.

How Would I Tell My Eight Year Grandson about the World? (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@21.LDOQcReQxm9.12@.1de0d666)

sol2

Aug16-04, 08:44 AM

I expect that some who have known me for sometime will have a thought form in their minds as to what is coming next? :smile:

Well for sure for every Father there should be a Mother?

When you look back far enough, and come to Planck Epoch, you come to certain realizations?

The thought, that I am guessing might materialize for some , is who is this Mother? Maybe, another name for membrane? Why you ask? :smile:

If we consider that the early formation of this universe began from that planck epoch, then you have to accept certain considerations materializing in the expansive mode of this same universe.

Who is this shadow partner? Hmmmmmm........

sol2

Aug17-04, 12:47 PM

I do not know if this will help you. Hopefully others will respond.

You have to know where the planck epoch exists. Planck Epoch to Grand Unification?

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/images/bb_history.gif

What exactly is the hierarchy problem?

The gist of it is that the universe seems to have two entirely different mass scales, and we don't understand why they are so different. There's what's called the Planck scale, which is associated with gravitational interactions. It's a huge mass scale, but because gravitational forces are proportional to one over the mass squared, that means gravity is a very weak interaction. In units of GeV [billions of electron volts], which is how we measure masses, the Planck scale is 10 to the 19th GeV. Then there's the electroweak scale, which sets the masses for the W and Z bosons. These are particles that are similar to the photons of electromagnetism and which we have observed and studied well. They have a mass of about 100 GeV. So the hierarchy problem, in its simplest manifestation, is how can you have these particles be so light when the other scale is so big.

http://www.esi-topics.com/brane/interviews/DrLisaRandall.html

Theories of LEDs(large extra dimensions) are quite elegant, and in fact solve a number of problems such as the hierarchy problem. They shrink the "energy desert" between electroweak and Planck scales, making the Planck scale accessible at the high GeV / low TeV level.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=193339&postcount=9

sol2

Aug17-04, 05:28 PM

In particular if we take a path around in a loop, then the frames will twist around and perhaps will be something different when we get back! So the loop tastes something about the geometry inherent in the connection.

"Symmetry," would ask that you return to your starting point? This would retain it's particle dnature, as an energy value?

Would the ole Quark to Quark measure, as an old view, still retain some of the features of this metric field with regards to the energy consideration in its distance function?

http://cerncourier.com/objects/2000/cernnews5_3-00.gif

The Function of the Metric? (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/2.gif)

Hyperspace, by Michio Kaku Page 84 and 85,
"To see higher dimensions simplify the laws of nature, we recall that any object has length, width and depth. Since we have the freedom to rotate an object by 90 degrees, we can turn its length into width, and its width into depth. By a simple rotation, we can interchange any of the three spatial dimensions. Now if time is the fourth dimension then it is possible to make "rotations" that convert space into time, and vice versa. These four-dimensional "rotations" are precisely the distortions of space and time demanded by special relativity. In other words, space and time have mixed in a essential way, governed by relativity. The meaning of time as being the fourth dimension is that time and space can rotate into each other in a mathematical precise way. From now on, they must be treated as two aspects of the same quantity: space-time. Thus adding a higher dimension helped to unify the laws of nature."

If you move to the planck epoch, the geometry has to change Relativity in precise ways?

If I have strayed afar it was to see what these loops were doing. Also to understand the complete rotations (http://oldsite.vislab.usyd.edu.au/gallery/mathematics/diffeo/diffeo.html).

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/21/21.html and this one as well, http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/15/15.html

http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/ax_3.gif

sol2

Aug27-04, 08:33 PM

The Green lines in picture help you to understand the nature of the gravitons, as they would extend into those extra spatial dimensions.

http://cerncourier.com/objects/2000/cernnews5_3-00.gif

Of course, if this third dimension were infinite in size, as it is in our world, then the flatlanders would see a 1/r2 force law between the charges rather than the 1/r law that they would predict for electromagnetism confined to a plane. If, on the other hand, the extra third spatial dimension is of finite size, say a circle of radius R, then for distances greater than R the flux lines are unable to spread out any more in the third dimension and the force law tends asymptotically to what a flatlander physicist would expect: 1/r. However, the initial spreading of the flux lines into the third dimension does have a significant effect: the force appears weaker to a flatlander than is fundamentally the case, just as gravity appears weak to us. Turning back to gravity, the extra-dimensions model stems from theoretical research into (mem)brane theories, the multidimensional successors to string theories (April 1999 p13). One remarkable property of these models is that they show that it is quite natural and consistent for electromagnetism, the weak force and the inter-quark force to be confined to a brane while gravity acts in a larger number of spatial dimensions."

http://cerncourier.com/main/article/40/2/6/1

sol2

Sep1-04, 08:34 PM

If only I could see :cry:

A. Classical stability and the gravitational back reaction
The general feature that branes of spherical geometry can exist stably in a background of some anti-symmetric tensor field strength is quite similar to the mechanism of dielectric branes discussed by Myers [7], but there is one critical difference.

In AdS, the r = 0 solution is classically stable. In Myers' analysis, r = 0 solution is classically unstable. In this appendix, we will explain that even in Myers' example, r = 0 solution is classically stable when the effect of gravitational back reaction of the stress-energy of the background Ramond-Ramond field strength is taken into account.

Myers' analysis assumes a flat space-time in a background of constant RR 4-form field strength, giving rise to a potential of the form (see [7, equation (87)].)

Figure 5: Energy of spherical brane in the background Ramond-Ramond eld neglecting the back reaction (A.1) and including the back reaction (A.6). These curves are only valid locally near r = 0. When the back reaction is taken into account, r = 0 is classically stable.

However, it does not determine if this point is a global minimum or not.
The relevant energetic consideration comes from the r3 term which has a negative coefficient, and the r4 term which has a positive coefficient. Since the leading small r ffect is negative, there is a classical instability (see figure 5).

The essential difference between Myers' flat space analysis and our analysis in AdS is that in AdS, there is a term in E(r) which grows quadratically, thereby dominating over the cubic term which is the leading contribution in Myers' analysis.

Closer examination reveals that the quadratic term arises from the r dependence of g00 which enters into the Nambu-Born-Infeld action. g00 has non-trivial r dependence because the space-time is curved in response to the stress energy generated by the cosmological constant in the AdS space

http://ej.iop.org/links/q66/kvdwXsGK6lhQfbMsUaCWjw/jhep082000051.pdf

arivero

Sep2-04, 01:24 AM

with the additional dimension totalling 11 when Witten Unifited the 5 different versions of String Theory into M-theory the extra dimension allowed for single strings to strech to the size of an entire univerese or large creating membranes or branes for short.

I missed this. Has Witten unifyed the 5 different versions? I thought it was a -by now- long standing conjecture.

sol2

Sep2-04, 08:17 AM

I missed this. Has Witten unifyed the 5 different versions? I thought it was a -by now- long standing conjecture.

Of course we would all would like to undertand how such models emerged.

String theory's development has come primarily because of an extremely important problem that has faced physics for almost 100 years. The problem is that general relativity, the theory developed by Albert Einstein that explains things on very large or cosmological scales, is irreconcilable with Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model, which describe the Universe on the small subatomic scale. Additionally, there are problems with the Standard Model: it has around 20 free parameters that must be plugged in by hand, and has a large number of particles it declares fundamental (there are three copies of every particle organized in what are termed as "families" whose only difference from one another is mass). Also, because it can't be reconciled with General Relativity, it lacks a description of gravity, the most familiar of the four fundamental forces.

It turns out that using 1-dimensional objects instead of point particles solves many of these problems. The number of free parameters in the theory drops from 20 to one (a parameter that corresponds to the size of the strings), and there is hope that details of the theory will explain why the three families of particles exist. Most importantly, string theorists were delighted to find that string theory necessarily contains gravitons, the particle that causes gravity. This has led Edward Witten, the founder of M-theory, to joke that string theory does have the remarkable experimental evidence that gravity exists all around us. Thus, string theory successfully unites General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

But in leading this thinking, as one reads, how could such claims be made as something being all around us when it is hidden? Some are more adept at spotting an ssue more abstractually centered, and onced ventured into , appearances seem totally devoid of reason?

But you had pointed out "degrees of freedom" that many would question in regards to dimensional relevance. Could you expand on that point please in a general way and then tree it mathematically, so I could follow. :smile:

The parameters for this link (http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Parameter&action=edit) have yet to be written, so hopefully somebody reading will move to correct this.

T-duality is probably the most easily explained of the dualities. It has to do with the size, denoted by R, of the curled up dimensions of the string theories. It was discovered that if you take a Type IIA string theory that has a size R and change the radius to 1/R then you will end up getting what is equivalent to a Type IIB theory of size R. This duality, along with the others, creates connections between all 5 (or 6, if you count supergravity) theories

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

It is therefor very important to understand how concepts emerge from the ideas of string theory.

When I raised the issue of Liminocentric structure (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38764), the conceptual framework had already been established.

Whether we consider it as significant or not, I went further to develope this concept, although from the perspective of dynamcial situations, revealled in consicousness. It is hit hard by the statement of QM. But the following post should help one realize how the abstractiveness is pushing the mind to further incoporate a view of reality containing the cosmological and quantum view together as a form of dualism. This partially answers Lubos question in regards to Nima (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=301223&postcount=1).

We had to identify what Lubos was abstractually doing in the configurations he was using.

The familiar extended dimensions, therefore, may very well also be in the shape of circles and hence subject to the R and 1/R physical identification of string theory. To put some rough numbers in, if the familiar dimensions are circular then their radii must be about as large as 15 billion light-years, which is about ten trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (R= 1061) times the Planck length, and growing as the universe explands. If string theory is right, this is physically identical to the familiar dimensions being circular with incredibly tiny radii of about 1/R=1/1061=10-61 times the Planck length! There are our well-known familiar dimensions in an alternate description provided by string theory. [Greene's emphasis]. In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above? (Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)