Novice Articles For Consideration

sol2

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>*What exactly is the hierarchy problem? *\n\n[image: http://www.esi-topics.com/brane/interviews/DrLisaRandall.jpg]\n\n-The gist of it is that the universe seems to have two entirely\ndifferent mass scales, and we don\'t understand why they are so\ndifferent. There\'s what\'s called the Planck scale, which is associated\nwith gravitational interactions. It\'s a huge mass scale, but because\ngravitational forces are proportional to one over the mass squared,\nthat means gravity is a very weak interaction. In units of GeV\n[billions of electron volts], which is how we measure masses, the\nPlanck scale is 10 to the 19th GeV. Then there\'s the electroweak scale,\nwhich sets the masses for the W and Z bosons. These are particles that\nare similar to the photons of electromagnetism and which we have\nobserved and studied well. They have a mass of about 100 GeV. So the\nhierarchy problem, in its simplest manifestation, is how can you have\nthese particles be so light when the other scale is so big. -\n\nhttp://tinyurl.com/ytazf\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nThis post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com\nTo view this thread with LaTeX images:\nhttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18976\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>[itex]*What[/itex] exactly is the hierarchy problem? *

[image: http://www.esi-topics.com/brane/inte...saRandall.jpg]

[itex]-The[/itex] 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://tinyurl.com/ytazf

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com
To view this thread with LaTeX images:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18976

Moorglade

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>sol2 <sol2@physicsforums.com> wrote in message news:<sol2.14s2ap-100000@timelimit.physicsforums.com>...\n\n> *What exactly is the hierarchy problem? *\n> [image: http://www.esi-topics.com/brane/interviews/DrLisaRandall.jpg]\n>\n> The gist of it is that the universe seems to have two entirely\n> different mass scales, and we don\'t understand why they are so ...\n> http://tinyurl.com/ytazf\n\n[Moderator\'s note: if the reader is not gonna understand the text below,\nshe won\'t be the first person of this type. LM]\n\nSol, Hi! I think there was a post somewhere that relates to the\n\'Hierarchy\', I do believe it relates to Dimensional representation.\nFor instance at a lower dimensional limit (planck-scale) Particle\'s\ncannot exist as geometric whole\'s, they fall away from a\nthree-dimensional framework (background) and their energy disolves\ninto a two-dimensional field, with only two paramiters of action,\npositive or negative. The W bosons have dual charge quantities +\npositive, - negative. Now the importance of Dimensionality can be seen\nthrought the eyes of Neutron transformation, ie when a Neutron\ntransforms into a Proton.\n\nDuring this transformation the Neutron transforms from volume of space\nthat is slightly \'bigger\' in respect to the Proton. The Proton is the\nprecise Volume of the smallest 3-Dimensional space, it has\n\'Three-Quark-Corners? ;)\', now according to current understanding of\nQuark Density, the Neutron and the Proton\nshould have identical Volumes if one was to isolate a single Proton\nand single Neutron, the only difference is deep within the Quark\nConfiguration, or Electric Charge association.\n\nThe difference is of a single Electric Charge quantity of a Down Quark\n(within-Neutron) changes to an Up Quark, thereby transforming into a\nProton. Can you see the process of Stability of Dimensions?..the\nProton is the stable configuration of Three-Dimensional space,\nconfigured by the position of Electrical Charge deep within its\nstructure. Now the Zero Charge Energy, or Zero Point Energy..or to\ngive it its \'proper\' name the Zero-boson is real just a Photon,\nwithout E-M quantities, (a photon has Electro-Magnetic association-In\na 3-D domain ), the Zero-boson,(I like the name Zero-Wave, seems like\nEinstein knew this was so!) configures energy into space..or spacetime\nparamiters.\n\nThe recent observation of \'Cosmic Polarity\' within Galactic planes (I\nmay have this discription slightly misquoted), but anyway..gives the\nHierarchy Problem a deeper and more realistic interpretation.\n\nThe scale for Mass and the Scale for Energy are Dimensionally\ndifferent, as shown by the Authors of :"Cosmological" particle\nproduction in ultracold Bose gases:The role of Dimensionality.\n\nPetr O. Feichev and Uwe R Fischer:cond-mat/0303063\nthis is a later revised paper by the authors from 2003.\n\nSol, the paper by Abhay Ashtekar-Jonathan Engle-Tomasz Pawlowski and\nChris Van Den Broeck titled: Multiple Moments of Isolated Horizons\n:gr-qc/0401114 shows that there can be interpretations of Mass and\nScaled Mass, to quote; Multiple moment play an important role in\nNewtonian gravity and Maxwellian electrodynamics. Conceptually, there\nare two distinct notions of Multiple moments-source multipoles which\nencod thew distribution of mass(or charge-current) , and field\nmultipoles which arise as coeffients in the asymptotic expansion of\nfields. End Quote.\n\nWhat one now need to realize is that when particles are sent around\nCERN, and collided together, the resulting data and observations may\nbe an artifact of the fact that the facility itself is within a 3-D\nspacetime, and this limits the experiments to \'react\'in a dedicated\nfashion?..which is where String theorists think they can help!\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>sol2 <sol2@physicsforums.com> wrote in message news:<sol2.14s2ap-100000@timelimit.p...forums.com>...

> [itex]*What[/itex] exactly is the hierarchy problem? *
> [image: http://www.esi-topics.com/brane/inte...saRandall.jpg]
>
> 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 ...
> http://tinyurl.com/ytazf

[Moderator's note: if the reader is not gonna understand the text below,
she won't be the first person of this type. LM]

Sol, Hi! I think there was a post somewhere that relates to the
'Hierarchy', I do believe it relates to Dimensional representation.
For instance at a lower dimensional limit (planck-scale) Particle's
cannot exist as geometric whole's, they fall away from a
three-dimensional framework (background) and their energy disolves
into a two-dimensional field, with only two paramiters of action,
positive or negative. The W bosons have dual charge quantities +
positive, - negative. Now the importance of Dimensionality can be seen
throught the eyes of Neutron transformation, ie when a Neutron
transforms into a Proton.

During this transformation the Neutron transforms from volume of space
that is slightly 'bigger' in respect to the Proton. The Proton is the
precise Volume of the smallest 3-Dimensional space, it has
'Three-Quark-Corners? ;)', now according to current understanding of
Quark Density, the Neutron and the Proton
should have identical Volumes if one was to isolate a single Proton
and single Neutron, the only difference is deep within the Quark
Configuration, or Electric Charge association.

The difference is of a single Electric Charge quantity of a Down Quark
(within-Neutron) changes to an Up Quark, thereby transforming into a
Proton. Can you see the process of Stability of Dimensions?..the
Proton is the stable configuration of Three-Dimensional space,
configured by the position of Electrical Charge deep within its
structure. Now the Zero Charge Energy, or Zero Point Energy..or to
give it its 'proper' name the Zero-boson is real just a Photon,
without E-M quantities, (a photon has Electro-Magnetic association-In
[itex]a 3-D[/itex] domain ), the Zero-boson,(I like the name Zero-Wave, seems like
Einstein knew this was so!) configures energy into space..or spacetime
paramiters.

The recent observation of 'Cosmic Polarity' within Galactic planes (I
may have this discription slightly misquoted), but anyway..gives the
Hierarchy Problem a deeper and more realistic interpretation.

The scale for Mass and the Scale for Energy are Dimensionally
different, as shown by the Authors of :"Cosmological" particle
production in ultracold Bose gases:The role of Dimensionality.

Petr O. Feichev and Uwe R Fischer:http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0303063
this is a later revised paper by the authors from 2003.

Sol, the paper by Abhay Ashtekar-Jonathan Engle-Tomasz Pawlowski and
Chris Van Den Broeck titled: Multiple Moments of Isolated Horizons
:http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401114 shows that there can be interpretations of Mass and
Scaled Mass, to quote; Multiple moment play an important role in
Newtonian gravity and Maxwellian electrodynamics. Conceptually, there
are two distinct notions of Multiple moments-source multipoles which
encod thew distribution of mass(or charge-current) , and field
multipoles which arise as coeffients in the asymptotic expansion of
fields. End Quote.

What one now need to realize is that when particles are sent around
CERN, and collided together, the resulting data and observations may
be an artifact of the fact that the facility itself is within [itex]a 3-D[/itex]
spacetime, and this limits the experiments to 'react'in a dedicated
fashion?..which is where String theorists think they can help!

sol

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>> What one now need to realize is that when particles are sent around\n> CERN, and collided together, the resulting data and observations may\n> be an artifact of the fact that the facility itself is within a 3-D\n> spacetime, and this limits the experiments to \'react\'in a dedicated\n> fashion?..which is where String theorists think they can help!\n\nSavas Dimopoulos:\n\n"Our new ideas say nature has only one mass scale - the scale of the\nweak interactions. From this flows the idea that gravity is weak\nbecause the particle mediating the gravitational force, the graviton,\nlives far away from us in new extra spatial dimensions. The relative\nstrength of the forces was formerly understood in terms of separation\nin energy space, but what we are now saying is the extreme weakness of\ngravity follows from its separation in new positional space having\nreal extra dimensions.\n\nOur new picture is that the 3-D world is embedded in extra\ndimensions. Gauge forces and their particles are confined to this 3-D\nplane, but the graviton lives mostly outside this plane in the extra\ndimensions. That means the graviton exists mainly away from us, and\nhence its interaction with us, the force, is weak.\n\nWhat\'s the size of this space? Note that gravity is very weak,\nwhich tells us the graviton spreads into extra space for interaction.\nTo account for the observed weakness of gravity, the scale length of\ntwo new dimensions has to be about a millimeter, which is gigantic!\nFor three or more dimensions the size becomes smaller than 1 mm.\n\nThe basic notion underlying our work is to explain the observed\nseparation in energy levels by separation in real space. This gives us\na totally new perspective for addressing theoretical and experimental\nproblems."\n\nhttp://www.sciencewatch.com/may-june2001/sw_may-june2001_page4.htm\n\n\nI understand the perspective you are using. One thing I would bring up\nhere is the ideas in terms of String Cosmology and how the standard\nmodel might arise from the brane?\n\nThe dimensional significance, of the one dimensional aspect of the\nstring is apparent in terms of how the standard model might be looked\nat? I am not sure?\n\nGood thing we under the Novice heading:) From a cosmological\nstandpoint and a warm fire, Andrey Kravtsov\'s computer models are\nextremely interesting.\n\nhttp://astro.uchicago.edu/~andrey/soft/p3d/p3d_evol.gif\n\n\nDo you see the application here in terms of what you are saying? If\nthe dimensional perspective is given to the cosmo for considration,\nthen what we see of the discrete nature of the universe, might be an\nartifact of those dimensions?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>> What one now need to realize is that when particles are sent around
> CERN, and collided together, the resulting data and observations may
> be an artifact of the fact that the facility itself is within [itex]a 3-D[/itex]
> spacetime, and this limits the experiments to 'react'in a dedicated
> fashion?..which is where String theorists think they can help!

Savas Dimopoulos:

"Our new ideas say nature has only one mass scale - the scale of the
weak interactions. From this flows the idea that gravity is weak
because the particle mediating the gravitational force, the graviton,
lives far away from us in new extra spatial dimensions. The relative
strength of the forces was formerly understood in terms of separation
in energy space, but what we are now saying is the extreme weakness of
gravity follows from its separation in new positional space having
real extra dimensions.

Our new picture is that the 3-D world is embedded in extra
dimensions. Gauge forces and their particles are confined to this 3-D
plane, but the graviton lives mostly outside this plane in the extra
dimensions. That means the graviton exists mainly away from us, and
hence its interaction with us, the force, is weak.

What's the size of this space? Note that gravity is very weak,
which tells us the graviton spreads into extra space for interaction.
To account for the observed weakness of gravity, the scale length of
two new dimensions has to be about a millimeter, which is gigantic!
For three or more dimensions the size becomes smaller than 1 mm.

The basic notion underlying our work is to explain the observed
separation in energy levels by separation in real space. This gives us
a totally new perspective for addressing theoretical and experimental
problems."

http://www.sciencewatch.com/may-june...2001_page4.htm

I understand the perspective you are using. One thing I would bring up
here is the ideas in terms of String Cosmology and how the standard
model might arise from the brane?

The dimensional significance, of the one dimensional aspect of the
string is apparent in terms of how the standard model might be looked
at? I am not sure?

Good thing we under the Novice heading:) From a cosmological
standpoint and a warm fire, Andrey Kravtsov's computer models are
extremely interesting.

http://astro.uchicago.edu/~andrey/soft/p3d/p3d_evol.gif

Do you see the application here in terms of what you are saying? If
the dimensional perspective is given to the cosmo for considration,
then what we see of the discrete nature of the universe, might be an
artifact of those dimensions?

Moorglade

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>sol <cshan64@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4adf30fa.0404200619.6548ea35-100000@posting.google.com>...\n\n> ... The basic notion underlying our work is to explain the observed\n> separation in energy levels by separation in real space. This gives us\n> a totally new perspective for addressing theoretical and experimental\n> problems."\n\nSol, this paper:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0402024\n\nIs currently a frontrunner in \'new-physics\'? The linked paper has\ncontinued the Brane models (Randall-included!), it proposes that our\nGalaxy (spacetime) is embedded/immersed within a \'bulk-spacetime\'.\nNot unlike my proposal given in a number of forums for the last couple\nof years!\n\nThe ekpyrotic scenario is about to be confugured into real-time\nphysics!\n\n> ...Do you see the application here in terms of what you are saying? If\n> the dimensional perspective is given to the cosmo for considration,\n> then what we see of the discrete nature of the universe, might be an\n> artifact of those dimensions?\n\nYes I see the significance, as I stated in P-Forums (I am banned by\nthe way so I cannot reply there), the 3-D spacetime of our Galaxy is\nshrouded by a 2-D E-M-Vacuum field, which obviously contracts. The\nbulk is where 2-D intersects with 3-D (which happens to be around\nGalaxies) in fact my favorite team working on such scenarios is Linde,\nin a recent paper: http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0403001\n\nhere is the abstract, :We study quantum effects on moduli dynamics\narising from the production of particles which are light at special\npoints in moduli space. The resulting forces trap the moduli at these\npoints, which often exhibit enhanced symmetry. Moduli trapping occurs\nin time-dependent quantum field theory, as well as in systems of\nmoving D-branes, where it leads the branes to combine into stacks.\nTrapping also occurs in an expanding universe, though the range over\nwhich the moduli can roll is limited by Hubble friction. We observe\nthat a scalar field trapped on a steep potential can induce a stage of\nacceleration of the universe, which we call trapped inflation. Moduli\ntrapping ameliorates the cosmological moduli problem and may affect\nvacuum selection. In particular, rolling moduli are most powerfully\nattracted to the points with the largest number of light particles,\nwhich are often the points of greatest symmetry. Given suitable\nassumptions about the dynamics of the very early universe, this effect\nmight help to explain why among the plethora of possible vacuum states\nof string theory, we appear to live in one with a large number of\nlight particles and (spontaneously broken) symmetries. In other words,\nsome of the surprising properties of our world might arise not through\npure chance or miraculous cancellations, but through a natural\nselection mechanism during dynamical evolution.\n\n\nThis paper really needs to be given a couple of reads, its also pretty\ngroundbreaking intuitive(with calculations)work.\n\nBut I disagree with the Linde statement:Given suitable assumptions\nabout the dynamics of the very early universe, this effect might help\nto explain why among the plethora of possible vacuum states of string\ntheory?\n\nThere is a constant of possible Vacua,(I state there are only TWO\npossible states), and string theory has evolved along certain lines of\nmathematical reasoning, which is where there are such a vast pool of\nderived Vaucuum Solutions. But as it is 2005 next year, I am willing\nto bet that the \'real\' solutions will come once the Higgs potential is\ndirectly coupled to the Quark-Condensate for the early Universe!..darn\nI was going to extrapolate this in the Questions to Prof Nima\nArkani-Hamed!..well He has been leaning towards a solution to Higgs\n(ghost-condensate)..the new \'field equations\' extended, or altered\nfrom Einstens field equations, and I do believe the Prof has stated\nthat there are indeed only TWO PARAMITERS,its just slotting them into\na proper catagory?\n\nThe consequence for string theory will be that the Vacua will be\nmapped in certain configurations, a lot less work for some aspects,\nbut it will mean string theorists can give\n\'single-solutions-accurately\' to enfolding evolving worldlines?\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>sol <cshan64@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4adf30fa.0404200619.6548ea35-1...google.com>...

> ... The basic notion underlying our work is to explain the observed
> separation in energy levels by separation in real space. This gives us
> a totally new perspective for addressing theoretical and experimental
> problems."

Sol, this paper:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.a...hep-th/0402024

Is currently a frontrunner in 'new-physics'? The linked paper has
continued the Brane models (Randall-included!), it proposes that our
Galaxy (spacetime) is embedded/immersed within a 'bulk-spacetime'.
Not unlike my proposal given in a number of forums for the last couple
of years!

The ekpyrotic scenario is about to be confugured into real-time
physics!

> ...Do you see the application here in terms of what you are saying? If
> the dimensional perspective is given to the cosmo for considration,
> then what we see of the discrete nature of the universe, might be an
> artifact of those dimensions?

Yes I see the significance, as I stated in P-Forums (I am banned by
the way so I cannot reply there), the 3-D spacetime of our Galaxy is
shrouded by [itex]a 2-D[/itex] E-M-Vacuum field, which obviously contracts. The
bulk is where 2-D intersects with 3-D (which happens to be around
Galaxies) in fact my favorite team working on such scenarios is Linde,
in a recent paper: http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.a...hep-th/0403001

here is the abstract, :We study quantum effects on moduli dynamics
arising from the production of particles which are light at special
points in moduli space. The resulting forces trap the moduli at these
points, which often exhibit enhanced symmetry. Moduli trapping occurs
in time-dependent quantum field theory, as well as in systems of
moving D-branes, where it leads the branes to combine into stacks.
Trapping also occurs in an expanding universe, though the range over
which the moduli can roll is limited by Hubble friction. We observe
that a scalar field trapped on a steep potential can induce a stage of
acceleration of the universe, which we call trapped inflation. Moduli
trapping ameliorates the cosmological moduli problem and may affect
vacuum selection. In particular, rolling moduli are most powerfully
attracted to the points with the largest number of light particles,
which are often the points of greatest symmetry. Given suitable
assumptions about the dynamics of the very early universe, this effect
might help to explain why among the plethora of possible vacuum states
of string theory, we appear to live in one with a large number of
light particles and (spontaneously broken) symmetries. In other words,
some of the surprising properties of our world might arise not through
pure chance or miraculous cancellations, but through a natural
selection mechanism during dynamical evolution.

This paper really needs to be given a couple of reads, its also pretty
groundbreaking intuitive(with calculations)work.

But I disagree with the Linde statement:Given suitable assumptions
about the dynamics of the very early universe, this effect might help
to explain why among the plethora of possible vacuum states of string
theory?

There is a constant of possible Vacua,(I state there are only TWO
possible states), and string theory has evolved along certain lines of
mathematical reasoning, which is where there are such a vast pool of
derived Vaucuum Solutions. But as it is 2005 next year, I am willing
to bet that the 'real' solutions will come once the Higgs potential is
directly coupled to the Quark-Condensate for the early Universe!..darn
I was going to extrapolate this in the Questions to Prof Nima
Arkani-Hamed!..well He has been leaning towards a solution to Higgs
(ghost-condensate)..the new 'field equations' extended, or altered
from Einstens field equations, and I do believe the Prof has stated
that there are indeed only TWO PARAMITERS,its just slotting them into
a proper catagory?

The consequence for string theory will be that the Vacua will be
mapped in certain configurations, a lot less work for some aspects,
but it will mean string theorists can give
'single-solutions-accurately' to enfolding evolving worldlines?

*sol2*

> The consequence for string theory will be that the Vacua will be
> mapped in certain configurations, a lot less work for some aspects,
> but it will mean string theorists can give
> 'single-solutions-accurately' to enfolding evolving worldlines?

Mooreglade,

"We have provided models of the braneworlds that admit topology change and signature change in a smooth Lorentzian bulk. We also gave models of oscillating and spinning brane universes by generalising Lorentzian catenoid and helicoid. Our braneworld models obey the Dirac-Born-Infeld equations of motion, but their selfgravity was neglected so as to allow a simple model."

http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.a...hep-th/0402024

There is no doubt, that the visualizations as a novice, we see where
the intricaies of brane dynamics would have followed the standard
model's rise from this brane?

Bulk consideration, with graviton release and from supersymmetrical
states of a early universe (which one?:)

http://superstringtheory.com/forum/t...sages4/75.html

We have had this discussion before. How would it have been applcable
to cosmological significance?

The ideas then here of Steinhardt and Turok become very interesting
from a couple of points as you mention.

What would such a cyclicle nature reveal of a universe that has always
been?

Dynamical events, taken place within a larger universal context, and
what has been revealed of these galaxies, and issues you speak of?
There would be topological cosiderations here that not only reveal the
dynamcial nature of the universe as a whole, but of these galaxy
formations as well?

This raises the question then of when and where such uiversal
beginnings might have issued from, and their originations. So we look
for stronger areas that reveal such warpages?:)

Now of course others issue come into question about the information
that has been released from such cosmic events as backholes and what
would be revealing in Blackholes creation in the colliders? These are
all important questions.

Braneworld and the House of Cards

using the search function and type in Colliding branes.

Similar Threads for: Novice Articles For Consideration
Thread	Forum	Replies
Thin Films with consideration to Amplitude	Introductory Physics Homework	1
pulley with rotational consideration	Introductory Physics Homework	2
For Consideration	General Discussion	1