# How Branes Came To Be?

HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey

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

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 [Broken]
Which of course brings us to the quantum harmonic oscillator.

Last edited by a moderator:
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?

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?

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.

Last edited:
Mike2 said:
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 said:
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?
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 [Broken]
http://ccins.camosun.bc.ca/~jbritton/animcup.gif [Broken]

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

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

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?

Last edited by a moderator:

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 [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
Petr Horava

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 [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
Brane Collisions

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

Colliding Branes

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.

Last edited by a moderator:
Mike2 said:
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?

D1 to D5 Brane

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?

http://www.space.com/images/h_space_membranes_010412_02.gif [Broken]

"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
.

Last edited by a moderator:
Are Brane Intersection UNiversal?

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.

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?

Heaven forbid, what shall we cal this http://www-glast.sonoma.edu/index.html [Broken] 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:

Last edited by a moderator:
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

Last edited by a moderator:
Brane World and the House of Cards

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

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

Brane World Interactions and Hyperspace

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 [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
Two......Two Branes Are Better then One

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 said:
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.

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

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

sol2 said:
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.

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@92.YyIIcXeLrlD.0@.1ddf4a5f/57 [Broken]

I wanted to add this animation 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

Last edited by a moderator:
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: [PLAIN]http://www.mu6.com/ANPA/pelastration1.ppt[/URL] [Broken]
2. 1.2 Mb: [PLAIN]http://www.mu6.com/ANPA/pelastration2.ppt[/URL] [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
pelastration said:
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: [PLAIN]http://www.mu6.com/ANPA/pelastration1.ppt[/URL] [Broken]
2. 1.2 Mb: [PLAIN]http://www.mu6.com/ANPA/pelastration2.ppt[/URL][/QUOTE] [Broken]

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?
http://oldsite.vislab.usyd.edu.au/gallery/mathematics/diffeo/diffeo.html

Greg Egan is very helpful here 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?

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

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@208.lWSbctOOtqi.20@.1ddf4a5f/69 [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
sol2 said:
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.

sol2 said:
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?
http://oldsite.vislab.usyd.edu.au/gallery/mathematics/diffeo/diffeo.html

Greg Egan is very helpful here 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?

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.

Last edited by a moderator:
pelastration said:

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?

pelastration said:
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 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 Good work. Maybe, you can give the image a complete rotation?

Last edited: