What Are Branes in Superstring Theory?

[sol2]

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

Go with me here for a minute.

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

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

 

[sol2]

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

As you should.

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

 

[sol2]

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

Its all in the "timing"?

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

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

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

Sol,

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

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

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

Regards,

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

Sol,

Let's see..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a paradox that arises for me.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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





So indeed, we walk a fine line

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

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

 

[sol2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

Now what does that "information" consist of?

You see where http://www.sciam.com/singletopicissue/ has a really interesting angle here?

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

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

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

How the heck did they get to branes?

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sol2]

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

Continuity and topology, have there place in the roads of projective geometry do they not? It has to be consistent.

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

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

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

Time

 

[sol2]

MOved from other location

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Non-Euclidean Geometry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

I am of course open to corrections.

 

[sol2]

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

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

So all of a sudden one accepts paradigmal changes?

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

Will this help you look at earth differently or the moon?

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

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

How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

(Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

 

[Olias]

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




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



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




Non-Euclidean Geometry



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

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



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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

I am of course open to corrections.

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

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

Look, listen and learn!

 

[sol2]

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

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

Look, listen and learn!

I appreciate the link.

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

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

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

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

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

Is spacetime fundamental?​

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

This is a hint that perhaps spacetime geometry is not something fundamental in string theory, but something that emerges in the theory at large distance scales or weak coupling. This is an idea with enormous philosophical implications.

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

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

What kind of geometry?

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

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

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

There is lots and I have been speaking to it in regards to the Planck epoch

More preaching here I guess eh?

 

[Olias]

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

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

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

 

[sol2]

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

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

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

I know.

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

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

Thanks for your patience to respond

 

[sol2]

Supersymmetry

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PLAIN]http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/string.html"

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

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

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

What am I saying?

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


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

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

Probing the Universe with Gravitational Waves

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

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

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

Joseph Weber 1919 - 2000

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

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

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

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

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

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@21.LDOQcReQxm9.12@.1de0d666

 

[sol2]

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

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

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

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

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

Who is this shadow partner? Hmmmmmm...

 

[sol2]

The Heirarchy Problem

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

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

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

What exactly is the hierarchy problem?

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

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

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

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

 

[sol2]

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

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

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

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

The Function of the Metric?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sol2]

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

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

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

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

 

[sol2]

What the Heck are Spherical D3 Branes

If only I could see

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[arivero]

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

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

 

[sol2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parameters for this link have yet to be written, so hopefully somebody reading will move to correct this.

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

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

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

When I raised the issue of Liminocentric structure, the conceptual framework had already been established.

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

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

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

(Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

 

[arivero]

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

I have done it in the thread "Arun...", https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=41376
feel free to critiquize there