Blackhole Creation in the Colliders

[sol2]

It was in response to this https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=41878

The biggest gap of them all and it is found in the most unlikely place?

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

High energy particles have extremely small wavelengths and can probe subatomic distances: high energy particle accelerators serve as supermicroscopes:

To see What?

The structure of matter

(atoms/nuclei/nucleons/quarks)

http://hep.uchicago.edu/cdf/smaria/ms/aaas03_ms.pdf

With Marcus's introduction to Words of Stephen Hawking and "predictions

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=33553 what might we find from such a talk? We know well this could all be dismissed very easily when the time comes?

If JPierre can ask such a question...

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

then where should we focus if not in black holes for consideration?

Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.

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

What shall the complexity of this information look like if we do not consider some of the philosphical considerations. Where such theoretical plateaus have developed from strings and LQG. How much more straight forward can we become if we do not consider the complexity of the large and small?

Many call it speculation. No dimension at all? Maybe call it something else?

So here we are talking about information and we have this gap in our thinking, and for me hidden dimension seems relevant if you do not know what exists in a certain place? Can't describe it, yet have formulated a mathematical structure that exceeds the minds of the majority of this planet.

You can see how you could be pulled in two ways. From a energy standpoint to a cosmological one. It just seemed appropriate at such energy levels that if you lack the ability in the high energy area that you move it to another place for consideration?

 

[sol2]

So we remove peoples faces then and stick with the substance only. Fair enough

Blackhole subspace

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0409/0409056.pdf

Strings has already dealt with this subject, and it looks like Smolin and his couterparts are trying to verbalize this substructure.

One of the points missed I think, is that the entropic values are directly connected to how we would percieve the dynamcis of space that is constricted from all sides evenly and collapsed. The very signatures of strings tells us something abou the source of the energy, and it is this feature that is being scaled in terms of dimensnal relevance.

It is this that takes us back to the beginning of the universe, and these events are are not isolated. They happen all the time, in context of the greater perspectve of our universe.

A interestng thing about cooperation, is that what is posted here might be copyrighted, but if it posted somewhere else first in the same context it's not. So what I found in dealing with this PF forum is that I will bring with me importat links in exchange for links that others bring and in this spirit, the community gains and PF gains. I think this a fair exchange, and a respectful one.

 

[sol2]

Some would not of understood the integration of the cosmological constant as a view of the whole cosmo , that talks to its dynamical nature.

So I will post this here as a understanding of how we must look at the dimensional signficance Savas began with his counterparts, Nima, and Gia.

So what is the implications of this thinking that has bypassed a majority of the population?

As I have stated before I have information to back up this line of reasoning that I am showing and that it can quickly come to a end. I had hoped there would have been questions, but I guess I can quickly make my point and I'm done eh:)

Hot Paper in Physics

"New dimensions at a millimeter to a fermi and superstrings at a TeV," by Ignatios Antoniadis, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, and Gia Dvali, Physics Letters B, 436(3,4):257-63, 24 September 1998.

[Authors' affiliations: Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France; Stanford University, California; ICTP, Trieste, Italy]

Abstract: "Recently, a new framework for solving the hierarchy problem has been proposed which does not rely on low energy supersymmetry or technicolor. The gravitational and gauge interactions unite at the electroweak scale, and the observed weakness of gravity at long distances is due to the existence of large new spatial dimensions. In this letter, we show that this framework can be embedded in string theory. These models have a perturbative description in the context of type I string theory. The gravitational sector consists of closed strings propagating in the higher-dimensional bulk, while ordinary matter consists of open strings living in D3-branes. This scenario raises the exciting possibility that the LHC and NLC will experimentally study ordinary aspects of string physics such as the production of narrow Regge-excitations of all standard model particles, as well as more exotic phenomena involving strong gravity such as the production of black holes. The new dimensions can be probed by events with large missing energy carried off by gravitons escaping into the bulk. We finally discuss some important issues of model building, such as proton stability, gauge coupling unification and supersymmetry breaking."

This 1998 report from Physics Letters B was cited 39 times in current journal articles indexed in the ISI database during September-October 2000. During that two-month period, this was the third-most-cited paper in physics (excluding reviews) published in the last two years. Prior to the most recent bimonthly count, citations to the paper have accrued as follows:

July-August 2000: 25 citations
May-June 2000: 26
March-April 2000: 36
January-February 2000: 32
November-December 1999: 23
September-October 1999: 16
July-August 1999: 15
May-June 1999: 11
March-April 1999: 3

Now you have to remember this is 1998 being quoted in 2000. We are 2004 and still the comprehension of dimensions has fallen along the way side as speculative dreaming of the Flower children. :rofl:


Is there a result of choosing whether one can continue to talk if the general concepts are not understood? The question of background dependence or independance is the soul of the discussion between LQG and Stings/M theory.

In the world of LQG I ahve undertsood thephton interaction as a bais of this quest and any attempts at further discussion, would have ventured into the realm strings had entered. If I am wrong here please someone let me know.

This is the difference between the LQG (SRIANs) versus the Strings(GRIANS)

These two perspective govern how LQG ad STrings have model their perceptions?

From this the question arises, as to how LQG sees photon intersection with gamma ray detection? Strings would ask, what would photon intersection with the gravitons tell us?

Please someone correct my thinking, if not, this statement stands as is ( the truth?).

 

[marcus]

good work sol, you are weaving lots of themes together in your own thread (which could be called a rope)
all these different thoughts going into my Olaf thread about cos. const. would have
shivered its timbers but good (that is a narrower topic needing
concentration more than breadth). thanks for setting this thread up

 

[sol2]

good work sol, you are weaving lots of themes together in your own thread (which could be called a rope)
all these different thoughts going into my Olaf thread about cos. const. would have
shivered its timbers but good (that is a narrower topic needing
concentration more than breadth). thanks for setting this thread up

Do you understand my question in regards to background dependence and independance and the thoughts on the cosmological constant?

It is impossible to take a position without seeing its counterpart. Why they must bounce off each other as they are pboth after the same thing with different things governing their perspectives. You have to undertand this and be flexible.

 

[marcus]

Do you understand my question in regards to background dependence and independance...?

no I don't understand your thinking
AFAIK anybody in his right mind would choose a b.i. theory other things being equal,
the problem is that humans have not yet learned to make very good b.i. theories that satisfy their urgent needs to calculate.


it is not a question of "does nature have a fixed background geometry or doesn't she?"
AFAIK no one seriously thinks nature is background-dependent in the sense of being committed to one fixed geometry of absolute space

the problem is that the mathematical methods humans have devised so far require (most of them) some absolute space geometry to be fixed ahead of time, in order to work.

Gen Rel is the only one that has evolved completely to being free of that dependency.

this is a case where your intinct for compromise and "meeting halfway"
is misleading you. there is no need to compromise IF and WHENEVER there is a background-independent option. It is a straight shot.

even Brian Greene has repeatedly made the point that if there is anything Loop offers string it is some ideas on how to make string into a background INdependent theory. Loop has some mathematical techniques for contructing B.I. models and he perceives background dependence to be a major string deficiency to be gotten rid of. If only one knew how.

So I do not understand your question. It sounds as if you think there is some value to background-DEpendence, rather than just seeing it as something to be gotten over or a problem to be cured.

Background dependency? Just say no

 

[sol2]

Well, thanks Marcus for that, and now moving on Now remember this is may-June of 2001


Well, so much for what we have understood of the larger part of reality, but yes, there can be difficulties in trying to understand this quantum world, so we are given little tidbits of analogies to help us along the way.

Imagine stepping off the planet for the first time in our conceptualizations, and seeing that if we followed this thought process developed and expanded in GR how could such a sane model of apprehension shine with such rigor to have now become the sacred word.

So these guys thought , hey, maybe it's like that way down below where the eyes can't see, so we can assume the grass is greener there too? Naw, really? As Marcus once said even Einstein focused deeply on this problem.



So are the ideas testable?

Perhaps. Let me give an example of an experimental signature for extra dimensions. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), under construction at CERN, Geneva, will have an energy up to 14 TeV. Now think about collisions between two TeV particles: in a collision at such high energies the gravitational force becomes large because the distance of closest approach is very small. If these particles are radiating energy into extra dimensions it might be detectable.

Here’s an analogy to understand this: imagine that our universe is a two-dimensional pool table, which you look down on from the third spatial dimension. When the billiard balls collide on the table, they scatter into new trajectories across the surface. But we also hear the click of sound as they impact: that’s collision energy being radiated into a third dimension above and beyond the surface. In this picture, the billiard balls are like protons and neutrons, and the sound wave behaves like the graviton.

Quantitative studies of future experiments to be carried out by LHC show that any signatures of missing energy can be used to probe the nature of gravity at small distances. The predicted effects could be accessible to the Tevatron Collider at Fermilab, but the higher energy LHC has the better chance.

These colliders are still under construction, but results also have consequences for "table-top" experiments, being carried out here at Stanford, as well as the University of Washington and the University of Colorado. Here’s the basic idea: imagine there are two extra dimensions on a scale of a millimeter. Next, take two massive particles separated by a meter, at which distance they obviously behave according to the well-known rules of 3-D space. But if you bring them very close, say closer than one millimeter, they become sensitive to the amount of extra space around. At close encounter the particles can exchange gravitons via the two extra dimensions, which changes the force law at very short distances. Instead of the Newtonian inverse square law you’ll have an inverse fourth power law. This signature is being looked for in the ongoing experiments.

http://www.sciencewatch.com/may-june2001/sw_may-june2001_page4.htm

Does Loop consider the collusions, whoops, I mean collisions?

 

[sol2]

Like these analogies one can use to help people arrive at some conceptualizationof te world we are dealing with, let's think about what the heck we are doing when we look at the universe microscopically.

http://lif****z.ucdavis.edu/~mattingly/images/planck.GIF


The Planck scale is the scale at which quantum gravity is believed to become important. At this scale the smooth structure of spacetime
breaks down into some structure (strings, spin-foam, lattice, who knows?). The Planck length is approximately 10-35 m, which is very, very small.
To get an idea of how tiny this is we can compare a Planck length LPl with the size of a proton and the size of Rhode Island. The radius
of a proton is larger than the Planck length by roughly the same factor as the size of Rhode Island to the proton.

http://lif****z.ucdavis.edu/~mattingly/research.htm

the forum swear word checker is not allow this picture to load so you have to use link of quote but even this might be a problem so look up home page of David Mattingly

David Mattingly Department of Physics
University of California-Davis
Davis, California 95616
(530) 752-0820
mattingly@physics.ucdavis.edu


So indeed we assume there is some advance from the ignorance we place ourselves in from assuming the cosmo can only sanctify the views of the very large, that we have somehow misplaced a deeper sense of the operation of this universe.

Might we have found a deeper association to the Mercuries orbital pathways as a larger perspective of the the "oscillations" that are revealled down below where the eyes can't see? So observables needs some help here to extend the arm of measurement

If people assume no singularites what else could they assume?

Imagine we are looking for this trace element of the early universe around us now. Where shall we look for this? Where shall we find our current attachement to that early universe? Think people, think

It is so easy a assumption that it hurts soemtimes when I hold my breath

 

[sol2]

For those hard of seeing, I have given some more http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@197.WPz2cpMmFi1.6@.1ddf4a5f/125

 

[sol2]

I would like to acknowledge the help in links I am receiving and find these links important to the discussion. I will becoming back to them.

Symmetry and entropy of black hole horizons
Olaf Dreyer, Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin ‡
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
35 King Street North, Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9, Canada, and
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
September 5, 2004


If indeed the right choice for the Hilbert space of a Schwarzschild black hole
consists only of states with equal and minimal punctures, then there is a remarkable agreement between the two computations. This supports the case that there is something physically correct about the description of black holes in loop quantum gravity.

On the other hand, if() All A is the right Hilbert space for the horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole, loop quantum gravity is in deep trouble, because there is no choice of that will agree with both the Hawking entropy and the quasi-normal mode spectrum.

It is clear that to resolve this problem we need additional physical input. The
only property of the Schwarzschild black hole used in previous work to constrain the corresponding quantum state is its area. But a more complete treatement should take into account other characteristics of the Schwarzschild black hole such as its symmetry and stability. To do so, we need to understand how those classical properties can emerge from a quantum state, described so far in the background independent language of loop quantum gravity.

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0409/0409056.pdf

 

[sol2]

It is getting a little interesting when you look back to what is being said here.

Without a singularity how is it we could have transformed the total event into another perspective about what could exist "now" in our universe?

Without some conception of Planck length and its energy correlations, it becomes very difficult not to undertsad how these energies can be reached not only in the overall scheme of the uiverse, but look to its counterpart in expresssion and study the geometry that is being revealled. Someone did not like my "Jet comment" but it is signficant if you are looking at the overall geometry of expression.

If one did not think how they could have gotten there, with dynamics that escape th most perceptive then if you look back to Heisenberg, he had a interesting perception on the collapsing sphere.

On the Universality of the Hawking Effect
William G. Unruh1,2 and Ralf Sch¨utzhold3
1Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of British Columbia,
6224 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1 Canada;
2Canadian Institute for Advanced Research Cosmology and Gravity Program
2 Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Technische Universit¨at Dresden, D-01062 Dresden, Germany

The striking similarity between the laws of black hole physics and the (zeroth till third) law of thermodynamics motivated the idea to assign thermodynamic properties such as temperature and entropy to black holes [1]. Hawking’s prediction [2] that black holes should emit thermal radiation with the temperature being consistent with the thermodynamic interpretation strongly supported this idea. As a consequence, the concept of black hole entropy as given by the surface (horizon) area of the black hole in Planckian units (instead of the volume, for example) is now used in many ways to estimate the total entropy of other objects – which is expected to be a measure of the number of fundamental degrees of freedom of the underlying theory (including quantum gravity).

http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408009.pdf

I will leave this thread for now so that discussion can resume in other threads. I will be adding more later to complete this thread. Thanks for your patience

 

[sol2]

Now what I wanted to show was cpatured here ina quote offered by Sean Carroll and I thank Peter's blog for directing me to it.

Up to this point, is GR a well-tested theory?

It is extremely well-tested in certain regimes, less so in others. Three regimes have been especially well-tested: the Solar System, where precision measurements have tightly constrained deviations from GR; the binary pulsar, whose orbit implies exactly the amount of gravitational radiation predicted by GR; and the early universe, where observations of light elements produced by nucleosynthesis and the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background provide good evidence for the validity of GR when the universe was seconds old and hundreds of thousands of years old, respectively.

There is still a lot we don't know. For example, are the predictions of GR for gravitational lensing and dynamical measures of mass consistent with each other? Are there deviations at very strong curvatures, or for that matter very weak curvatures? Are there deviations at very small distances that may be probed in the laboratory? (Current best limits go down to about one tenth of a millimeter.) Are there long-range but subtle effects that still may show up in the Solar System?

http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004/08/testing-general-relativity.html

So how would we explain the second part. Earlier in this quote from Sean's blog he talks about the scalar tensions. Now as I see it, it is indeed necessary to undertand how our mind can appreciate the dimensional significance of how we might interpret the energy being demonstated in these short distances and culmintaing in a very large cosmological string for considertaion, "if", we accept the string amplitude in relation?

This post sets up the thinking for what is to come from the perceptions of Savas, Gia and Nima. If they wanted to test the idea of dimensions how shall they do it?

 

[sol2]

I needed to understand where this thinking developed and how the threesome expanded on this notion at sub millimeter distances. I have understood this idea has been attributed to Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali in regards to understanding extra dimensions.

It was not to hard to understand the scalar fields in regards to the tension that could have manifested as energy conisderation that would have values leaking into those extra dimenisons. Sean Carroll's read helps one a bit here.

On the importance of testing gravity at distances less than 1cm
Silas R. Beane†
Department of Physics, Duke University Durham,
NC 27708-030

What is the present status of experimental searches for new gravitational strength forces in the sub-cm region? Existing limits are illustrated in Figure 1. The curve labelled Sparnaay is deduced from a classic electromagnetic Casimir force measurement [8]. This experiment measured the attractive force between parallel plates at separations of roughly 10−1 µm to 10 µm. Bounds on were extracted from Sparnaay data by conjecturing a force due to a Yukawa interaction between parallel plates (see Ref. 1). The curve labelled Hoskins et. al. is deduced from the Cavendish-type experiment of Ref. 9. This experiment searched for deviations from the inverse-square law in the 2 − 5 cm region. The bounds on are an extrapolation of these results to shorter distances. It is clear that there are no significant bounds in the sub-cm region. Cryogenic mechanical oscillator techniques have been proposed [1] which would improve existing limits on the strength of a Yukawa force with a range of 100 µm by up to 1010. This is precisely the range which our theoretical argument finds most interesting. The dotted curve in Figure 1 indicates the sensitivity of this experiment. The important background effects are due to: vibrations generated by the motion of the source mass, Newtonian background due to edge effects and geometry defects, and magnetic and electrostatic forces [1]. The analysis leading to the dotted curve is given in Ref. 1. There also exists independent theoretical motivation for probing this region; it has recently been argued [7] that masses and couplings of scalar fields which arise in certain classes of supersymmetric theories fall naturally into the region of parameter space accessible to the cryogenic oscillator.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9702/9702419.pdf

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/Short_Web.jpg

Photograph of the Mark II short-range apparatus, showing the torsion pendulum and the ring with 10 holes. The upper part of the torsion pendulum has mirrors mounted on it; the twist of the pendulum is measured by reflecting a laser beam from one of these mirrors. One can see the image of the pendulum ring in the mirror-like metal foil that separates the pendulum from the attractor. The entire sensitive portion of the apparatus is coated in gold to minimize electrical forces on the pendulum.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/shortr.html

 

[sol2]

Without some comparison in which to make the case for dimensions what would I have compared this feature to the ideas in the creation of the black hole?

Weak field measure of gravity had to be understood in relation to the universe we now inhibit, and that this feature of dimensional significance had to have some corresponding values on how we interpet that dimension and the corresponding black hole relations.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/graphics/about/chandra_middle.jpg

Trained as a physicist at Presidency College, in Madras, India and at the University of Cambridge, in England, he was one of the first scientists to combine the disciplines of physics and astronomy. Early in his career he demonstrated that there is an upper limit - now called the Chandrasekhar limit - to the mass of a white dwarf star. A white dwarf is the last stage in the evolution of a star such as the Sun. When the nuclear energy source in the center of a star such as the Sun is exhausted, it collapses to form a white dwarf. This discovery is basic to much of modern astrophysics, since it shows that stars much more massive than the Sun must either explode or form black holes.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/about/chandra.html

Smolin has a interesting perspective on what Chandra missed in terms of general relativity deepest implications, when he focused on the black holes or how the universe may expand. He compares Chandra, to one reaching for a beautiful flower, and of one, who had missed how the flower came to be.

Where have we heard these flower analogies before eh? I chide those who had not understood the Epochs and the realization of that expanding universe. Maybe like Chandra I am one more who is caught in the flower recognitions of the expansion of that universe?

Unbeknowst to myself I find a overall geometry that has to emerge out of these cosmological events. One cannot help but recognize how any point shown on a supersymmetrical plane could have expanded to some form, and we would have been beguiled for saying such heresies if we went backwards?? Critical energy density has drawn some parallels to the Planck epoch? How could this have been done?

 

[Chronos]

I think you are missing the big picture. There are no epicycles. There is no geometry. There is no deception. The universe is not trying to lead us into a false paradigm. The universe unforlds in front of use in perfect observational harmony. Just because we cannot explain why it exists does not mean it does not exist.

 

[sol2]

I think you are missing the big picture. There are no epicycles. There is no geometry. There is no deception. The universe is not trying to lead us into a false paradigm. The universe unforlds in front of use in perfect observational harmony. Just because we cannot explain why it exists does not mean it does not exist.

Even you cannot be so foolish to offer a perspective on experimentation in space along with the child like qualities a grown man could have for geometrical prospensities to bubble formations. This perspective soldifies the direction I am head here in this thread and challenge you in this respect on the basis of your statements here.

How foolish to think that on one level we could deal with euclidean perspective and not recognzie the drive for a expansive feature to this unfolding to get us to the fifth postulate? Shall you cripple yourself to limit your views? I don't think so. You unconsiously perceive the deeper relevances of that link you offerred. Tell me if I am wrong? :rofl:

Lubos made a off handed comment on the crystal and it resonant capabilities and if you do not think the quantum harmonic oscillator can have moved to deepr levels of percspective, that's fine too. We all have a lot to learn

You want to vent on me that is okay

 

[sol2]

What is Your Road Leading to Quantum Gravity

It is strange to me why Einstein involved himself with the thermodynamcis issues yet strongly opposed quantum mechanics( I am thinking of his oppositon to Bohr and the Solvay meetings?. Why if he recognized Boltzman( did he?) not consider the nature of that world?

I just wanted people to know of the link Chronos offerred because to me this new perspective on how we might look at the features of the vacuum is something that has caught my eye in how the universe could have arisen from Plancklength. The converstaion on background really help to orientate my thinking.

In some respects, gravitational attraction under LQG reminds me of surface tension in a fluid. I get a little lost after that, the mathematics involved get rather complicated in 3 dimensions. For more confusion, see this
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/25feb_nosoap.htm

I had been searching long and hard for some geometrical approach that is hidden in string theory, yet we all know this is very hard thing to do.

So to me, I am looking way back to the beginning of this universe. How did it originate? Does someone have a solid answer? Did it always exist, or is there some recyclical answer to what has always existed? So this last point is the one that made most sense. But, if singularities are not favored and the work of Chandra scoffed at, how would anyone further the ideas from the standpoint of black holes, given the theoretical position that has been adopted out there?

The development of the geometry seem a awful good clue to me, as one looked at the basis of Gr and going through this work, this seemed to make the most sense to me, as I plotted the events leading up too. How could one ever make sense of the photons path through mass impressions or energy events that gravitationally speak to the photon's passage, if one did not have some geometrical process in which they had been lead through consistently? Even LQG had to construct some framework, yet it was done so that it was considered background free, just like Einstein's GR. So we are sayng then that if such a model of LQG is snactiuned then it would have been in the spriti of Einsteins views that this model is very sound and should not be played with?

So I look for some credible source in which to track this geometry. Having looked at Klein's ordering of geometries I soon seen this evolution of ideas as they manifested in the work of the cosmological world discribed something about the nature of our universe. Friedmann's curvature parameters were the first good comprehension I had of the way in which we could discern the dynamical nature of this universe.

Again I have to stop here because, without pointing to some geometrical beginning how could you ever follow the roads leading to discriptions that are hidden in string theory. This then after our discussions today, is not savored by those who hold LQG to honourable esteem , as Einstein had done. Who is to carry his torch. Smolin?

Yes it makes sense now, and if one does not want to look at such geometrical feature of what could have arisen from the spacetime fabric( i know its used for analogy purposes) how could the macroscopic universe ever make sense ? How could we not understand the dynamical nature of how we percieve this universe?

So as we are lead through our geometrical processes and I would have added to Klein's Ordering of Geometries so that we could have detailed which author could have begun the language bent to further the reality of the visionistic qualities that emerge.

Does someone else have a Road Leading to Quantum Gravity? I would say sEven Smolin, recognized this in his formulation of the title of the same name. Smolin had to define the position he would take in order to move from the position he did on LQG. I hope I have made it much clearer. Does anyone fault him or Einstein on the beauty seen of GR from their perspectives? Do they want anyone playing around with it? Of course not.

Einstein realized much more in the Solvay meeting with what was at stake, then the questions of his model that he had created. It worked, and to have others mess with it in the field of Quantum mechanics disturbed the beauty of that model. Yet we now know that there is a world that has developed from the ideas of quantum mechanics. Is it simple?

Anyway I wanted to use this post t set up one with the idea of the geometry questions. Who is going to deny what qunatum geometry is? So I leave this quote here so that it is understood that the dicritpions and the way in which strings is modelling has some diffrenet advantages to how we percive this work on quantum gravity.

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

"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 mathetical 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 issues on the the balckhole creation in the colliders is following a geometrical consideration much to the dissappoint of those who hold the esteem of Einstein. This does not invalidate Einstein at all, but brings his perspective in line with the quantum world

I think, because one works from a different position should not have amounted to crankhood if one messed with what is held to high esteem.

Even Bohr felt the resistance in thought experiments that quickly dimissed Einstein's life as rambling into the last thirty years of his life. But we all know the importance of what GR has done for us and what we hope manifests through our research into gravitational waves production?

 

[sol2]

I contrast to Marcus view, that Baez has a soccer ball that he likes to show.

The Monte Carlo effect shows this perspctive as well, and on the issue of quantum gravity it is a nice model to look at Reminds me of the platonists attempt and even buckminister fuller' s geometrical view of that sphere

The quote below is a geometrical attemtpt to make sense

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

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

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.

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

A wormhole is a genus 1 topological defect in space.

http://scholar.uwinnipeg.ca/courses/38/4500.6-001/cosmology/Properties-of-Space.htm



I think I should have better asked the question on deviation from discrete to continuity and how this would have been defined mathematically.

In coordinate frames, as have been pointed out in various posts, none have really dealt with the issue of dimension other then within those confines.

Continuity has to explain dimension, and leads from classical discriptions now faced with, higher recognition of four dimensions of space(cube to hypercube), within the issues of topology and recognition of curvature?

The consistancy in geometrical expression has to be define through the different phases of that geometry(gravity has been defined up to this point)

U(1) is a point, also a circle, it's length as a one dimensional string defined in the brane:) (http://physicsweb.org/objects/world/13/11/9/pw1311091.gif)

A sphere, in reality, separate spacetime into an inside and an outside with no connection between points inside and outside except through points on the boundaring spherical closed surface. Once a point is picked on the surface, it is the same thing as creating a hole, literally speaking.

The energy determination of the circle in U(1)is describing a means by which such consistancy might have been recognized? Immediately one wrap of the string, more energy more wraps, hence the length of that string? This movement is defining not only the length but is determining its twists and turns. Does this make sense?

 

[sol2]

Hi sol2, I am not sure I really understand your questions. I will make three responses:
1.) When Poincare wrote early in the last century, our modern concepts of supersymmetry
and supergravity had not yet even been dreamed of.
His arguments were pretty much purely geometrical, and also based on freedom of choice of coordinates
versus effective forces, ie what part of a theory is coordinate dependent or true by convention, versus what is
in some sense true in a coordinate independent way.

Yes of course in regards to supergravity.

The geometry is what I am referring to as a basis, but I had to develope thinking along side of the physics in regards to that one dimensional string. Three sphere in a fourth(space) dimenisonal perspective had to arise from some where, and so with Reinmann and Gauss, we see where non euclidean lead from Euclids postulates? I know there are a whole bunch of people in between So what I had done is look for this basis in string theory.

2.) Poincare's arguments are general and not dependent on spherical or other symmetries.

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

I have to come back to this as something caught my eye in your previous explanation. If the heart of the thinking is geometry then there had to be some consistancy that is not apparent even at Planck scale? The topology that arise from genus 1, that ole coffee with a donut trick. It just seems to me that this pattern woud have been inherent in everything as it expresses itself. Ex. the early universe to now, the electromagnetic field, the bose Nova.

My explanations on background dependency assumes that becuase the string explains the spacetime from a different perspective as a expression, this geometry should have been able to emerge in some geometrical consistancy

3.) On the other hand, if anyone presents credible evidence that the universe is a compact sphere or torus,
I for one will regard that as strong evidence that the geometrical curvature picture has come up with another triumph.

Jim Graber

http://dustbunny.physics.indiana.edu/HallD/po2.gif

How does a sphere originate, and it from this thinking as a basis I looked at the scale tension revealled at Q<->Q measures and at weak field manifestations. This distance function would have a energy correlation to it?

Thanks for responding. The black hole creation in the colliders is based on this geometrical thinking. Of course I could be way out to lunch I am trying to stay in line, and appreciate any corrections in thinking.

It's much nicer having https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=310989&postcount=6

 

[sol2]

I contrast to Marcus view, that Baez has a "soccer ball" that he likes to show.



The Monte Carlo effect shows this perspective as well, and on the issue of quantum gravity it is a nice model to look at Reminds me of the platonists attempt and even buckminister fuller' s geometrical view of that sphere

The quote below is a geometrical attemtpt to make sense

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/img57.gif

Figure 4: A state in the preliminary Hilbert space for 3-dimensional quantum gravity

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node4.html

Now in comparison,

Monte Carlo Simulation





I knew I'd find it sooner or later. But this is not what I wanted to say, although I demonstrate another view.

 

[sol2]

Short Range Tests of Newton's Inverse-Square Law

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/srtpend.jpg

"We don't know if these ideas are right, but they are revolutionary," Adelberger said. "There would be profound consequences if the ideas are correct. The best way to find out is to devise a way to test gravity at even shorter distances. We are working on it."

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/shortr.html

 

[sol2]

To me, part of the view that must arise from such particles collisions is a deeper recognition of the way in which the quantum world could describe the interactions. How could we have ever assigned a energy value? By the photon?


Given the wide range of Calabi Yau's that could have emerged from the supersymmetrical realities, which one would be the most appropiate one to choose? As a basis for all models?

In 7 dimensions, they are termed G2 manifolds. Essentially these extra dimensions are "compactified" by causing them to loop back upon themselves. A standard analogy for this is to consider multidimensional space as a garden hose. If we view the hose from sufficiently far away, it appears to have only one dimension, its length. This is akin to the 4 macroscopic dimensions we are accustomed to dealing with every day. If, however, one approaches the hose, one discovers that it contains a second dimension, its circumference. This "extra dimension" is only visible within a relatively close range to the hose, just as the extra dimensions of the Calabi-Yau space are only visible at extremely small distances, and thus are not easily detected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

This question was most on my mind.

If one could validate geometrically the roads leading to such supersymmetrical realites then would this not also map, the functions and rise of the standard model? Of course it would, and is right now, and movng beyond, the standard model, to include gravity, a very important consideration.

I will continue after if there are no comments or corrections.

Here is a question for consideration.

Can we now reproduce, the supersymmetrcial reality?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Here is a question for consideration.

Can we now reproduce, the supersymmetrcial reality?

I believe it's approaching make-or-break time for supersymmetry. High powered experiments have constrained it till even some of its enthusiasts are growing nervous. Future experiments at LHC when it's up and running, and till then more experiments at Fermilab may constrain it even more. Supersymmetry may be an idea whose time has come - and gone.

 

[sol2]

I believe it's approaching make-or-break time for supersymmetry. High powered experiments have constrained it till even some of its enthusiasts are growing nervous. Future experiments at LHC when it's up and running, and till then more experiments at Fermilab may constrain it even more. Supersymmetry may be an idea whose time has come - and gone.

IN context of the standard model, and supersymmetry, this might be evident, but does it change the understanding of how we might percieve the universe at a particular time?

To me, removing the singularities, also directs our attention to how we would get to the value of thermodynamic recognition, and Planck length and know, that the values here are smoothing out. It's all fuzzy, unless we consider the energy values?


The goal then in the way I see it, was to understand this geometical rise from the thermodynamic realizations and there was only one place that I know that we could do this, other then the methods you have mentioned Self adjoint.

Hence, a relative term in relation to the collider, but also a clue, to how this value could be meet?

Does this make sense?

 

[sol2]

There is a funny paradox that seems to pop into my mind when I think of geometrical realization and the scalar field. If I look at the geometrics, I know what it represents. :rofl:

http://physicsweb.org/objects/world/13/11/9/pw1311091.gif

a) Compactifying a 3-D universe with two space dimensions and one time dimension. This is a simplification of the 5-D space*time considered by Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein. (b) The Lorentz symmetry of the large dimension is broken by the compactification and all that remains is 2-D space plus the U(1) symmetry represented by the arrow. (c) On large scales we see only a 2-D universe (one space plus one time dimension) with the "internal" U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/11/9/1/pw1311091

Your dealing with Branes here :rofl:

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."

Can it be one or the other or both? No!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you deal with those topological genus figures how would we not model some comparison, alongside events in the cosmos of something so gol darn abstract?

I am looking for a specific picture(picture is above) that I wished I could show here, and ask the question, "if the geometrics is understood along side of the scalar then would this not heuristically validate some method to discerning, how something could arise from the back ground?"

So I got a thick head, explain it to me again.

 

[sol2]

Because I was told to go play somewhere else, I came back here. But through my tears, all I can say is make sure you read the post before this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/1/1f/Sphere.png

A sphere is, roughly speaking, a ball-shaped object. In mathematics, a sphere comprises only the surface of the ball, and is therefore hollow. In non-mathematical usage a sphere is often considered to be solid (which mathematicians call ball).

More precisely, a sphere is the set of points in 3-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is a positive real number called the radius of the sphere. The fixed point is called the center or centre, and is not part of the sphere itself. The special case of r = 1 is called a unit sphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere

Spheres can be generalized to higher dimensions. For any natural number n, an n-sphere is the set of points in (n+1)-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is, as before, a positive real number. Here, the choice of number reflects the dimension of the sphere as a manifold.

a 0-sphere is a pair of points<br>
a 1-sphere is a circle<br>
a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere<br>
a 3-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space<br>

Spheres for n ¡Ý 3 are sometimes called hyperspheres. The n-sphere of unit radius centred at the origin is denoted Sn and is often referred to as "the" n-sphere. The notation Sn is also often used to denote any set with a given structure (topological space, topological manifold, smooth manifold, etc.) identical (homeomorphic, diffeomorphic, etc.) to the structure of Sn above.

An n-sphere is an example of a compact n-manifold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

In mathematics, a 3-sphere is a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere. A regular sphere, or 2-sphere, consists of all points equidistant from a single point in ordinary 3-dimensional Euclidean space, R3. A 3-sphere consists of all points equidistant from a single point in R4. Whereas a 2-sphere is a smooth 2-dimensional surface, a 3-sphere is an object with three dimensions, also known as 3-manifold.

In an entirely analogous manner one can define higher-dimensional spheres called hyperspheres or n-spheres. Such objects are n-dimensional manifolds.

Some people refer to a 3-sphere as a glome from the Latin word glomus meaning ball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere

It appears that the moderators have come to a consensus and tell me, all the quotes and accompany information I make here in strings is crap.

They want me to leave. So if that is felt by the majority I have decided to do so. Without moderator opinions.

Just post it here(i'd prefer it here) or journal and I will see how things are going.

 

[pelastration]

It appears that the moderators have come to a consensus and tell me, all the quotes and accompany information I make here in strings is crap.

They want me to leave. So if that is felt by the majority I have decided to do so. Without moderator opinions.

Just post it here(i'd prefer it here) or journal and I will see how things are going.

Sol,

thank you for the quest for synthesis you tried to cheer with others.
It's easy to tell others that what they do is crap when you reserve yourself the right to find the solution in 50 years.

d

 

[Integral]

Sol2,
When you started posting crap in other threads you got warned. I am not qualified to judge if the material in this thread is substantial. The fact that Marcus has made postitive comments leads me to believe that there is some merit here. If I had felt othewise I would simply have locked it. Let's put it this way, the jury is still out. Marcus holds the deciding vote, if he gives you thumbs down it is locked, Otherwise continue your efforts. It is clear to me that you have a very limited knowledge of physics outside of your efforts in string theory please refrain from posting in areas where you have little knowledge.

Thank you,
Integral

 

[sol2]

http://www.w2mw.org/letterArt/030500a.jpg

Whatever color you like

Sol2,
When you started posting crap in other threads you got warned.

If you are not qualified to judge what is substantial in this thread(blackhole creation in the colliders), then how could you surmise that what is in other threads is crap?

I am not qualified to judge if the material in this thread is substantial. The fact that Marcus has made postitive comments leads me to believe that there is some merit here.

You just don't get it. Some can see better then you. My conversation with Marcus, have insighted him to define himself in LQG. Plus, he lays the ground work for further perceptions. He would get a eagles feather becuase he is a little green in certain respects, yet is not afraid to expand his knowledge base and help others.

What better resource to a deadline then to have somebody heavily involved with what he is not only seeing, but what also helps me to see. He helps me to define myself...but you would not know what I take from him and place in another format

Do you think my arrogance is so grand that I do not learn? You do not know how I got to where I am...and that would take history which we don't have.

If I had felt otherwise I would simply have locked it.

Marcus demanded focus and chides me on this constantly, because I tend to flitter about, and I don't mind being scolded that way, because I like what Marcus is doing. His work is defining things for me, even though I had been engaged in only covering the surface of strings. But I noticed today, a sense of freedom in him had I remained up top. So I am defintiely going to cut him some slack

Lets put it this way, the jury is still out. Marcus holds the deciding vote, if he gives you thumbs down it is locked,

You have to live by your own standard, because you cannot judge, so do not forget to lock your self from this thread as well?

Otherwise continue your efforts.

Like I'm suppose to thank you? Take your accumulative seven points back and maybe. :rofl:

It is clear to me that you have a very limited knowledge of physics outside of your efforts in string theory please refrain from posting in areas where you have little knowledge.

Likewise...and I would like to point it out to you, if you cannot see it, is that you had to understand some physics in order to get here?

Spend some time with pelastrian and he will stretch your mind, so you can see differently. And when you do, remember the mother of invention. Come back and tell me what was at stake in the heuretistic discription that spoke the words of physics, in a totally different way.

Strings is like that

If you don't understand something next time, ask.

I am all ears, when it comes to the better educated/wise people, who speak to me of the laws inherent. I can even listen to Lubos and Urs and can understand them sometimes. It's really quite amazing for me.

Anyway, I'll decide to move on in my own time( I know the point system, just not the accumuative point system of sevens). You would only be interrupting a "process," that would continue otherwise. If not here...

Could you do me a favor. If Marcus thumbs me, and you feel the thumbs are good, then will you erase your post from this thread, you are a destraction from the topic.