Problem solvers have a way of getting to the heart of the issues, and unfortunately when ones engages competent minds like Peter Woit in the world? Whose sign post is,”anti-string with no explanation“? This is simple in the minds of the general public? It then becomes a rant, without a substantial basis? Why? Because he had no platform with which to refute?
So this attempt was fruitless, in wondering why strings should not be.
What I did find viable in looking for myself, is finding out where strings applicable features pervaded and what they were describing. Both bottum up and top down have to find approaches that emerge from a place that asks us to map this progress, and there is only one place that allows me to understand this operation.
The spectrum.
When you look at Glast operations this idealization of using the spectrum in cosmological discernation, helped to clarify why the move of strings to a cosmological operation platform was necessary from a experimental and scientific undertanding. Why was this move important?
It had to do with the amounts of energy needed to explore the principles of reductionism? How could we extend reductionism to a cosmological question about the origins of our beginning? There were no limitations as to the question of the energy that could be displayed for us all to wonder on that cosmological pallete, and here Relativity Ruled.
While complexity, asks us about the means of what is established in the forms, stands for us in our observations, as existing? Many people feel safe in what they can see?
I looked for comparative features. Like how ideas could emerge and as a good example of what math could issue from the minds of those whose good observation could speak about natures manfestations.
How good are the observatory minds of mathematicians? That would systematically describe for us this idealization of quantum reality and Relativity to join in a way that makes sense?
Macroscopic and microcosmo perceptions joined?
You say Time? Julian Barbour wants to do away with Time? Yet his goal is the same? He calls Time a human construct? What isn’taside from everythng else that we don’t see? Science reveals a deeper truth?
Killing Time
Barbour posits that time is, in fact, an illusion – a measure imposed on the world by humanity. He explains this with the concept of a ‘now’, which he describes as a snapshot in time – a completely frozen, self-contained instant (much like a Polaroid photograph). Time is simply the measure of the space between two separate and unrelated ‘nows.’
BarryTo offer that I am an engineer and a sculpture with a carear of problem solving. To offer that making me understand the final solution is to achieve making it clear to anyone.
I am somewhat like a philosopsher as you are, minus, the engineering, yet I am quite capable of peering past the veil that good minds construct.
In the end, what is taken with you might be the realization that of all the thought forms we have estanblished and created. The illusion that we move through, hides a deeper truth, and we were emersed within it the whole time. Science, verified the anomalies that we saw?
How much power then could we grant the mind who escapes this realization, to find that all the thoughts that have ever existed, were weighted with the gravity that held us to earth? That the forms, revealled a deeper realization of their beginnings?
As the temperature cooled, the solification was final and so was the idealization that manifested from the idea.
When is a pipe a pipe? Is a question about what supergravity reveals in the forms manifestation. Crystalization. What pattern emerges?
Betrayal of Images” by Rene Magritte. 1929 painting on which is written “This is not a Pipe”
Yet probablistic in nature, how could such things arrange themselves as they have?
There is a deeper question here about the reality. If the idea is born in mind how would it not burn up, comparative to the beginning of our universe? Yet nature has supplied a good analogy of bubbles that form, rise to the surface, and this could have been information that arose from the fifth dimension? It all arose form the mind of the subconsious? It was always closer to the source. Why Ramanujan and Einsteins note taking in the subtle realms help to spur the incubation of reality to a deepr level of questions.
People might say indeed, that this departure point from the sane world of forms, is the moving further into the illusions? But if we cannot find a way to free ourselves, then surely, one will accept the consequences of there reality, as they take it with them?:)
Dialogos of Eide 
If time is an illusion then to see behind the veil we must first define the boundaries of the veil. To do this we must first accept that it is an absolute until we find a crack.Space-time has at least one vector in time. That our frame of reference sees time as linier and as an instantenious point does not prevent other frames of reference.Two photons to exhibit quantum entanglement. Does this imply a connection in some direction I cannot directly observe, like time? They were once entangled so they remain entangled until this symmetry is broken?
Maybe you can help me to get the facts straight as well. I am learning too.I added a link to a article on Julian Barbour, to exemply another perspective and attempt, at joining Qm and GR( the hands on the elephant)If time is an illusion then to see behind the veil we must first define the boundaries of the veil.Gravity and Light in the fifth Dimension.Spacetime, is a result of the higher dimensions? If we look back to the events 13 billions ago then what would this mean? From a four dimenisnal perspective how did Kaluza raise this to the fifth?Two photons to exhibit quantum entanglement. Does this imply a connection in some direction I cannot directly observe, like time?Compton and Graviton Scatterings What is Symmetry Breaking?the role of symmetry breaking, the empirical status of symmetry principles, and so forth. These issues relate directly to traditional problems in the philosophy of science, including the status of the laws of nature, the relationships between mathematics, physical theory, and the world, and the extent to which mathematics dictates physics.
Maybe you can help me to get the facts straight as well. I am learning too.I added a link to a article on Julian Barbour, to exemply another perspective and attempt, at joining Qm and GR( the hands on the elephant)If time is an illusion then to see behind the veil we must first define the boundaries of the veil.Gravity and Light in the fifth Dimension.Spacetime, is a result of the higher dimensions? If we look back to the events 13 billions ago then what would this mean? From a four dimenisnal perspective how did Kaluza raise this to the fifth?Two photons to exhibit quantum entanglement. Does this imply a connection in some direction I cannot directly observe, like time?Compton and Graviton Scatterings What is Symmetry Breaking?the role of symmetry breaking, the empirical status of symmetry principles, and so forth. These issues relate directly to traditional problems in the philosophy of science, including the status of the laws of nature, the relationships between mathematics, physical theory, and the world, and the extent to which mathematics dictates physics.
Now that you have given me a better understanding of symmetry I come to some realizations. That as a value approaching some limit; all symmetry must be broken.The modifier to consider is if initial conditions exist to allow the energy changes required to break symmetry.There being background thermal signature everywhere I look leads me to question one such parameter. Could I actually achieve a low enough temperature to break symmetry in the direction of mass/energy concentrate? Maybe if I find another way to remove heat energy?Looking at the beginning of time I see that at symmetry breaking is where emergent properties define physical laws. It is here that all probabilities exist. What becomes important to me here is what probability was realized. It is only here that I can find time as an illusionary veil. It is the probability that was chosen that set the pattern of weaving the veil.In my probability I look at all of my histories and see that time must follow the weave of the pattern. If the dinosaurs looked at 160 million years in time as an illusion, then their imaginary deaths are 60 million years in the past. Even if I could travel instantaneously I find the weave impossible to break. I jump to a planet 4 light years away and look at earth, I see myself four years ago contemplating the journey. I have arrived before the information of my departure. No matter how many times I jump back and forth, I am never fast enough to catch myself as more than an information lag that I had just left. Every fiber of my being tells me that the veil became real when its existence emerged from the set of possible veils. This tells me that for the probability chosen, time can only move forward. We can slide down the veil at different rates of progression through time, but we cannot undo the weave, change the pattern, or even stop it from sliding through our grasp.
The modifier to consider is if initial conditions exist to allow the energy changes required to break symmetryIf we look at where we are now in the scheme of things then of course, there is a difference between the gravity of a earlier time(Steven Weinberg’s first three minutes), to the one we find now on earth?Yet, there is information roaming freely in the bulk that passes through all things, and resonates. Robert Laughlin does not care about this, but this does not take away from what happened at another time, and can resonate in this time?The forms would be the crystalizations of the matter forms, yet what space would measure this relevance to dimensional perspective?Distances” Determine GeometryDescribe an object with a table of distances between points.Describe spacetime with a table of intervals between eventsIt is not my purpose in this discussion to represent the general theory of relativity as a system that is as simple and as logical as possible, and with the minimum number of axioms; but my main object here is to develop this theory in such a way that the reader will feel that the path we have entered upon is psychologically the natural one, and that the underlying assumptions will seem to have the highest possible degree of security.—Albert Einstein So dimensional signficance to me would be of value in the math determinations, and how we use this math to describe the variations in graviton information.The space between a quark to quark measure would be very revealing if we did not look at the two points , but focused on the distance in between them?
The modifier to consider is if initial conditions exist to allow the energy changes required to break symmetryIf we look at where we are now in the scheme of things then of course, there is a difference between the gravity of a earlier time(Steven Weinberg\’s first three minutes), to the one we find now on earth?Yet, there is information roaming freely in the bulk that passes through all things, and resonates. Robert Laughlin does not care about this, but this does not take away from what happened at another time, and can resonate in this time?The forms would be the crystalizations of the matter forms, yet what space would measure this relevance to dimensional perspective?Distances” Determine GeometryDescribe an object with a table of distances between points.Describe spacetime with a table of intervals between eventsIt is not my purpose in this discussion to represent the general theory of relativity as a system that is as simple and as logical as possible, and with the minimum number of axioms; but my main object here is to develop this theory in such a way that the reader will feel that the path we have entered upon is psychologically the natural one, and that the underlying assumptions will seem to have the highest possible degree of security.—Albert Einstein So dimensional signficance to me would be of value in the math determinations, and how we use this math to describe the variations in graviton information.The space between a quark to quark measure would be very revealing if we did not look at the two points , but focused on the distance in between them?
Absolutely. Tell me that two points lie in the mind of God? Tell me they are in the test tube of the architect? Are they in a seething pool at the bottom of a jungle of energy, or as the vibrations of strings stretched between membranes. Maybe all, or none of the above? When the path of travel eludes definition then I cannot accept that a deeper meaning is yet revealed. I can believe in probabilities that are potentials to be realized. I do this every time I place a bet on a hand of poker. I bump my head on the hard edges of the path I travel. I am told the path is an illusion and no more real than any other probability that the path might take. Wild speculations abound of alternate universes and energy slipping through the veil. Maybe true, yet no explanation is found for the last sharp edge that bruised my head, or of a way to avoid the bruise.My world is made of concrete and steel, my life a short mark in a large book. Speak to me of magic and ask for faith. You should be pulling a rabbit out of my own hat, where I knew none existed this morning. This is the skepticism you must engage to offer that a deeper truth is revealed. A full explanation of all in my path would convince me that you have found a deeper meaning.For me it comes down to a question of the finite within the infinite. Just beyond the beginning of the symmetry I perceive, I know that many paths are the potential, yet I exist on the path that is chosen. There cannot be infinite paths, for then there is infinite energy for them to use. Infinite possibilities must exist but I determine that there is only enough energy for one. That all is finite is revealed to me because I see energy approaching limiting values in every direction of travel. For space-time to be fully revealed, it must be fully defined. I can observe the behavior of space-time on a macro scale. What does it do on a quantum scale? Does it even have quantum scale components as does mass? Time emerges as the most important to me now. Once I understand every fold of this veil, then I can seek a deeper meaning beyond the veil. Time dilation is a very real property of space-time. Is it fully understood? Why does space-time see photons with velocity and frequency additive, and mass with velocity and mass additive? Is it short verses long wavelengths? Velocity through the time component of space time?
I look at the sun and see a sphere. The only direction that I can observe any other shape is in time. Stretched through time I might perceive a cylender? Then the only anchor for this energy path is across time?
I am sorry that I could not respond sooner.Tell me that two points lie in the mind of God? Tell me they are in the test tube of the architect? Are they in a seething pool at the bottom of a jungle of energy, or as the vibrations of strings stretched between membranes.Of course I am taken back to the early days of euclid first couple of postulates.We know that euclidean geometries fall short of explaining higher dimensional realities. So we have to expand our minds to consider non euclidean views. Who were the authors of this beginning and we learn very quickly how to percieve a flat world with no gravity, to one of gravity? Bernhard Riemann once claimed: “The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean.” His prophesy was realized later with Einstein’s general theory of relativity. It is futile to expect one “correct geometry” as is evident in the dispute as to whether elliptical, Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry is the “best” model for our universe. Henri Poincaré, in Science and Hypothesis (New York: Dover, 1952, pp. 49-50) expressed it this way. But it continues to here.Klein’s Ordering of GeometriesA theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.http://www.ensc.sfu.ca/people/grad/brassard/personal/THESIS/node21.htmlA new post was produced on entropy and relates to our discussion on symmetry breaking? It can all be quite confusing for me sometimes.
I am sorry that I could not respond sooner.Tell me that two points lie in the mind of God? Tell me they are in the test tube of the architect? Are they in a seething pool at the bottom of a jungle of energy, or as the vibrations of strings stretched between membranes.Of course I am taken back to the early days of euclid first couple of postulates.We know that euclidean geometries fall short of explaining higher dimensional realities. So we have to expand our minds to consider non euclidean views. Who were the authors of this beginning and we learn very quickly how to percieve a flat world with no gravity, to one of gravity? Bernhard Riemann once claimed: \”The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean.\” His prophesy was realized later with Einstein\’s general theory of relativity. It is futile to expect one \”correct geometry\” as is evident in the dispute as to whether elliptical, Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry is the \”best\” model for our universe. Henri Poincaré, in Science and Hypothesis (New York: Dover, 1952, pp. 49-50) expressed it this way. But it continues to here.Klein\’s Ordering of GeometriesA theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.http://www.ensc.sfu.ca/people/grad/brassard/personal/THESIS/node21.htmlA new post was produced on entropy and relates to our discussion on symmetry breaking? It can all be quite confusing for me sometimes.
Sorry about links in previous postKlein’s Ordering of Geometries
Sorry about links in previous postKlein\’s Ordering of Geometries
Do not feel pressured to respond in any time frame. Sometimes I ponder something for years and still find inadequate solutions. I find myself in the unique position of having too much time for mischief. You must learn to deal with the frustration of speaking to my ignorance. I have for years mused on the mysteries of the universe, and only recently posed my musings to others. My education in this arena is rudimentary and fragmented. Klein’s ordering as a mathematical proof is irrefutable. What is not proven to me is to what level energy follows this model. I have seen structures fail that followed a perfect mathematical model. Another parameter exerted an unexpected influence, or a previously undiscovered property emerged. Friction follows known laws, and yet the exact coefficient between two surfaces can only be determined by testing to failure. To ignore this leads to catastrophe. Consider our universe as a single spark in a shower of sparks. There are many levels of models to consider. A grinder collides with a large metal structure, producing sparks. The metal would appear to be infinite because it has the potential to produce a great many sparks. The metal is not infinite in its own frame; each strike reduces a tiny amount to sparks. Consider that each spark is burning to cinders. I could graph stages of consumption as similar in each spark, and conclude correctly that strings connect all the sparks. If my frame of reference is constrained to the exact moment of burning, then one spark is my universe and I wonder what symmetry is preserved.What is important to me here is not if symmetry is preserved, but how much symmetry is preserved, and how much is lost. There must exist some largest unit of energy that can pass through a big bang intact. Energy of any larger size must be broken. Energy of smaller size remains unbroken. The emerging question is if this largest unit possible is one singularity or group of singularities? The question of how much symmetry is preserved becomes immaterial in another respect. The event is of such totality that little can be determined of initial conditions. Since I cannot connect each spark by any means other than a mathematical abstract, I cannot say how many sparks there are. They must be finite for an energy change of some unit produced them. My abstract is a potential for infinite paths, yet I can only determine the exact path of the one I exist in. This predicts that a string theory must emerge as the abstract of all possibilities? Yet we need a model that speaks to the path we find ourselves on? If it is not all very confusing then we follow a blind path?
What is not proven to me is to what level energy follows this model. I have seen structures fail that followed a perfect mathematical model.I actual have two links for consideration, and one of these deals specifically with the question of energy following this modelThe second links expands the thinking in terms of quantum gravity My education in this arena is rudimentary and fragmented.Then you can relax as I am a laymen myself, who has wondered through a lot of information over the years. LOts to learn and it never seems to end
What is not proven to me is to what level energy follows this model. I have seen structures fail that followed a perfect mathematical model.I actual have two links for consideration, and one of these deals specifically with the question of energy following this modelThe second links expands the thinking in terms of quantum gravity My education in this arena is rudimentary and fragmented.Then you can relax as I am a laymen myself, who has wondered through a lot of information over the years. LOts to learn and it never seems to end
If we consider gravity as the force space-time exerts on mass then some other considerations emerge. That velocity increases mass and dilates time suggest that time has an energy value. Consider that space-time is compressed by mass and pushes back exhibiting compression as gravity. With velocity approaching C space-time is compressed in front and stretched as it tries to fill in behind mass. This implies that space-time has vectored energy components. Contraction of length is a spatial vector and dilation is the time component vector. In this model a string in time is virtual as it is a mathematical abstract of the chosen path as it is realized. The history of where a particle has traveled is a path that has a relationship with all other histories. An instantaneous moment of now is more than perception, because it is the boundary between a path that is chosen and the infinity of choices the path might take. Velocity in time then carries an inertial function that eliminates possibilities exponentially. That the earth is in orbit around the sun eliminates a lot of possibilities, for example that the earth might crash into Vega.Entropy then emerges as a function of the dynamics of the process? Time histories emerge as realities of the chosen path? Strings emerge as an imaginary abstract to understand the path? That is ok with me. All of our mathematics then emerges as abstracts of the path. An electron does not consult a periodic chart to choose an orbit. The orbit is chosen for it by the histories. The periodic chart is possible because we can abstract futures from the limitations in possibility imposed by the histories.
Inertial time frames of energy introduce an uncertainty? Is a photon a particle or a wave? In its own inertial frame neither of these possibilities have been eliminated. When referenced from within our inertal frame, one or the other possibility is eliminated by the collisions of the histories?
If the inertial frame of a photon has a time energy then consider collisions with other histories. Red shift and particle collisions extract energy as the elimination of possibilities. If the photons inertial frame survives the collision with a net energy loss then only the energy lost is a determined path? The remaining photon energy retains its its uncertainty at a lower energy level?
Hi Barry,The kinds of questions you are asking are important, becuase they are the experimental basis that has been understood in Glast, versus analogies I am portraying in graviton scattering link, as I have shown.Compton-and-Graviton-scatteringsGlast determination and gamma ray detection using calorimeter helps us to organize our thoughts in regards to that early universe perspective. How could we talk about photon interaction at early universe beginnings considering the energies involved? Cosmologically this is very revealling in terms of blue and red shifting, but how would lensing and time dilation help in this regard?The energy consideration in considering the graviton scattering would have to be specific to the information released in the early event?
Hi Barry,The kinds of questions you are asking are important, becuase they are the experimental basis that has been understood in Glast, versus analogies I am portraying in graviton scattering link, as I have shown.Compton-and-Graviton-scatteringsGlast determination and gamma ray detection using calorimeter helps us to organize our thoughts in regards to that early universe perspective. How could we talk about photon interaction at early universe beginnings considering the energies involved? Cosmologically this is very revealling in terms of blue and red shifting, but how would lensing and time dilation help in this regard?The energy consideration in considering the graviton scattering would have to be specific to the information released in the early event?
Hi SolIt occurs to me that every approach we take to understand the universe comes back to one theme. All becomes dependent as motions in time. Consider then the unstoppable force and the immovable object. If static time did not compress there would be no motion of any kind. If static time had no resistance, all would be motion. Since all energies are measured with respect to time then all equations can be solved for time value. All energies, motions, particles, waves, all that we know are forms of compression energy in time. Motion as dynamic time verses the pressure of static time. If we consider the big bang as the pressure release valve then equilibrium was broken when dynamic motion intruded into static space-time. Expansion occurs at the point of intrusion, compression as regions where equilibrium is again being established. C emerges then, not as an absolute speed limit, but as the coefficient of surface tension between two super fluids. Bubble nucleation viewed from our limited frame of reference models both gravity and anti-gravity expansion. Mass/energy relationships are distributed arrangements of velocity and rotational forces. All arrangements are unstable because space-time pressure is constant. Equilibrium is accomplished as black hole formation. This would not require a single super massive black hole to consume all matter. Only that all black holes are capable of compacting motion. Early galaxies may not have had black holes, but all will eventually develop one. Mass/energy distribution ratios should emerge from older galaxies.In this model the only property required of space-time is pressure. As the fluid undergoing permanent change, mass/energy distributions as light, mass, dark matter, or whatever become dependent on phase transitions. Entropy emerges because space-time pressure is relentless. The properties that emerge as most physical laws are determined by phase interactions. Space-time sees all as unwanted intrusions to be squeezed out of existence.This model requires that space-time be a compressible fluid. If it is more dynamic than this, as in subatomic particle exchanges between space-time and light then the model falls apart.
It would be very revealing to establish how soon the earliest GRB’s occurred after big bang. We should recognize that, there could be many types of GRB’s depending on the source.Your thoughts?
Hi BarryIt occurs to me that every approach we take to understand the universe comes back to one theme. All becomes dependent as motions in time. Consider then the unstoppable force and the immovable object.The view here then as I read your post, points to a dynamical realization about how we percieve the dynamcis of the universe and how we explain it in a way that we can understand. Here the Friedmann equation is very important in this regard, as it sets up how we can see where dark matter might lead perspective to opposition, like black and white and the interplay.Kaku’s vision of looking from the bridge into the eyes of the carp looking at the surface of the water, helps one to orientate this move to non euclidean views and what happens at GRB manifestation in the early universe.INfomration is left in the bulk, and gravitonic condensation, saw us back to blackhole growth, would be part of this dynamcial feature of the universe as rejuvenation?Here I would point to the matrices involved and how we would see this feature disquised in, early universe exchanges revealled in glast determinations. This will become the subject of a new thread soon.In contrast to the arrow of time? It leaves the idealization of how we see what has always existed? How do we percieve the universe then if it becomes cyclical in nature? It would have to have features we recognize in this rejuvenation process, that would take us through all the phases of science, and it’s manifestation?Back to the energy that has been released, and is recovered, to further ths expansive feature? As strange as this may sound and in contradiction to the thermodynamical issues, where is this energy source amongst us, that we have never really been that far from the origins of ths beginning. And only needed to find the pathway to this early universe beginning.The early events are with us now?:)Your second post is important and I will address this too shortly.
Hi BarryIt occurs to me that every approach we take to understand the universe comes back to one theme. All becomes dependent as motions in time. Consider then the unstoppable force and the immovable object.The view here then as I read your post, points to a dynamical realization about how we percieve the dynamcis of the universe and how we explain it in a way that we can understand. Here the Friedmann equation is very important in this regard, as it sets up how we can see where dark matter might lead perspective to opposition, like black and white and the interplay.Kaku\’s vision of looking from the bridge into the eyes of the carp looking at the surface of the water, helps one to orientate this move to non euclidean views and what happens at GRB manifestation in the early universe.INfomration is left in the bulk, and gravitonic condensation, saw us back to blackhole growth, would be part of this dynamcial feature of the universe as rejuvenation?Here I would point to the matrices involved and how we would see this feature disquised in, early universe exchanges revealled in glast determinations. This will become the subject of a new thread soon.In contrast to the arrow of time? It leaves the idealization of how we see what has always existed? How do we percieve the universe then if it becomes cyclical in nature? It would have to have features we recognize in this rejuvenation process, that would take us through all the phases of science, and it\’s manifestation?Back to the energy that has been released, and is recovered, to further ths expansive feature? As strange as this may sound and in contradiction to the thermodynamical issues, where is this energy source amongst us, that we have never really been that far from the origins of ths beginning. And only needed to find the pathway to this early universe beginning.The early events are with us now?:)Your second post is important and I will address this too shortly.
What a model does is help us understand the unknown by comparing it to what is known. It would take many models to tackle the theory of everything and even then we would have to arrive at some new concepts beyond the models.In the compressible super fluid model a cyclical universe is not established. We would have to examine black hole metrics to project further. I am considering this for another post.For compression to occur we have to establish volume as bound in some way. This does not fit a universe that appears unbouind. If space-time had a crystalline like structure then it would be self bounding. From compression torsion in the lattice there emerges field parameters? Like maybe the Higgs field? In this way the model bycomes more dynamic?
What a model does is help us understand the unknown by comparing it to what is known. It would take many models to tackle the theory of everything and even then we would have to arrive at some new concepts beyond the models.Lhc and linear experimentation would be a case where this model would be sutable for examination?Phenix article was develoing in my mind when you spoke about supperfluidity as a perception of that early dynamcial realization of the early universe. For me this vision is closing in on the origins, and is part of the spectrum of possibilties. I injected cosmic particle interactions as a phase considerations of the early universe and atmospheric interactions as a viable observation to microstate blackholes?I updated Shakespearean Quandry?In the compressible super fluid model a cyclical universe is not established. We would have to examine black hole metrics to project further. I am considering this for another post.Blackhole productionBefore such a collapse is initiated in bubble, the boundry conditions would have recogized such limitations?Cavitation produced by sound waves and moved inside the bubble would have determined the bubbles size, and energy released. The recognition of the schwarzchild radius and would reveal energy valution in the continued expression of inflation? Hence cyclcial in that inflation would reveal swiss cheese universe with microstate blackholes, and the continued expansion.Part of this contiued push is recognition of the Bose NOva and anti-matter production from such gravitational collapses in jet recognitions.This dynamical realization, forced me to consider not only geometrical realizations on cosmological proportions, but redirected my thought to topological use of genus figures of the sphere in the quantum geometries and planck scale recognitions.Do you follow this thinking?
What a model does is help us understand the unknown by comparing it to what is known. It would take many models to tackle the theory of everything and even then we would have to arrive at some new concepts beyond the models.Lhc and linear experimentation would be a case where this model would be sutable for examination?Phenix article was develoing in my mind when you spoke about supperfluidity as a perception of that early dynamcial realization of the early universe. For me this vision is closing in on the origins, and is part of the spectrum of possibilties. I injected cosmic particle interactions as a phase considerations of the early universe and atmospheric interactions as a viable observation to microstate blackholes?I updated Shakespearean Quandry?In the compressible super fluid model a cyclical universe is not established. We would have to examine black hole metrics to project further. I am considering this for another post.Blackhole productionBefore such a collapse is initiated in bubble, the boundry conditions would have recogized such limitations?Cavitation produced by sound waves and moved inside the bubble would have determined the bubbles size, and energy released. The recognition of the schwarzchild radius and would reveal energy valution in the continued expression of inflation? Hence cyclcial in that inflation would reveal swiss cheese universe with microstate blackholes, and the continued expansion.Part of this contiued push is recognition of the Bose NOva and anti-matter production from such gravitational collapses in jet recognitions.This dynamical realization, forced me to consider not only geometrical realizations on cosmological proportions, but redirected my thought to topological use of genus figures of the sphere in the quantum geometries and planck scale recognitions.Do you follow this thinking?
We would have to examine black hole metrics to project further. I am considering this for another post.————-Please go ahead here as I would like to see thinking you are developing.
We would have to examine black hole metrics to project further. I am considering this for another post.————-Please go ahead here as I would like to see thinking you are developing.
GreetingsConsider that gravity may have two components. Pressure exerted by space-time displacement and field forces that arise from torsional fluctuations in space-time.Bubble nucleation demonstrates appearent gravity and anti-gravity behaviors as a scaler function.When looking at gravity on a quantum scale we would have to consider if the contribution by each component remains linear? That gravity could change behavior as a scaler function in both large and small frames of reference?That this may change black hole metrics as matter compresses to smaller scales? That thermodynamics may change with scale?your thoughts?
Hi BarryConsider that gravity may have two components. Pressure exerted by space-time displacement and field forces that arise from torsional fluctuations in space-time.———-This may seem really strange that such a “gravitational collapse” would produce a blackhole? So while this blackhole is developing and sucking in gravitonic infomration, how much energy is being imparted to the blackhole structure? It’s expanding and has cooling temperatures(?), yet it will reach certain limitiations, before it’s collapse again?The Elastic Nature——Bubble nucleation demonstrates appearent gravity and anti-gravity behaviors as a scaler function.—–It is very difficult for me to separate the vacuum flunctuation in bubble collapse, as not effecting the spacetime fabric.While we may see energy expansion from the re-collapse of a previous state( a star that can no longer support itself) to a collapse of the blackhole again(re-ignition), would have made this energy part of a cyclical process, that would include gravitonic information, and even while, photon dispersal is obvious, the photon is held to the event, and can traverse vast distances in terms of billions of years. All the while gravitonic expression is free to roam in the bulk, and yet, we see and make use of this in a continuing process of rejuvenation? Further use of this analogy in terms of bubble structure, minus the buble intesections, as possible connection between monte carlo methods of quantum gravity percpetions in the use of simplex’s, I hold off from this particpation, in respect of the continuity and move away from discrete recognitions.To me defining states that would cater to such bubble technologies would help orientate the mind towards these early universe conditions. Require this support?Without it I see no possibilties of cyclical nature being exploited in the blackhole process of rejevuenation.
Hi BarryConsider that gravity may have two components. Pressure exerted by space-time displacement and field forces that arise from torsional fluctuations in space-time.———-This may seem really strange that such a \”gravitational collapse\” would produce a blackhole? So while this blackhole is developing and sucking in gravitonic infomration, how much energy is being imparted to the blackhole structure? It\’s expanding and has cooling temperatures(?), yet it will reach certain limitiations, before it\’s collapse again?The Elastic Nature——Bubble nucleation demonstrates appearent gravity and anti-gravity behaviors as a scaler function.—–It is very difficult for me to separate the vacuum flunctuation in bubble collapse, as not effecting the spacetime fabric.While we may see energy expansion from the re-collapse of a previous state( a star that can no longer support itself) to a collapse of the blackhole again(re-ignition), would have made this energy part of a cyclical process, that would include gravitonic information, and even while, photon dispersal is obvious, the photon is held to the event, and can traverse vast distances in terms of billions of years. All the while gravitonic expression is free to roam in the bulk, and yet, we see and make use of this in a continuing process of rejuvenation? Further use of this analogy in terms of bubble structure, minus the buble intesections, as possible connection between monte carlo methods of quantum gravity percpetions in the use of simplex\’s, I hold off from this particpation, in respect of the continuity and move away from discrete recognitions.To me defining states that would cater to such bubble technologies would help orientate the mind towards these early universe conditions. Require this support?Without it I see no possibilties of cyclical nature being exploited in the blackhole process of rejevuenation.
That the universe exists implies that other universes can exist. That they must be seperated by time or spatial dimension is recognized. That the energy distributions found in the bulk establish remnents of previous energy processes feeding into a big bang does suggest cyclical behavior, but does not rule out other possibilities. Just as inertial time functions eliminate possibilities, we must explore the uknown by elmination.Should we first define cyclical? Is it that the same energy must be recycled, or that other energy proceses show repeatability? Hypothesize that all black holes are connected by a compacted dimension. Upon collapse they transfer all of their energy into this compacted dimension. That space time mantains compaction by gravity compression. When enough black hole energy enters the compacted region space time compression is overcome. A new big bang erupts. For this hypothesis to be correct we have to establish the role dark matter plays. In this scenario I see no role for dark matter other than as a catalyst? We would have to assume dark matter to be inert and to have no role in phase transformations?Further we would have to show that, the energy plumes extending from black holes, do not contain any energy that is expelled from the black hole core. That all of the energy transfers to the compacted dimension?If I have overlooked some role that dark matter could play in phase transitions, while mantaining this scenerio please correct me. Other scenerios have not yet been eliminated?your thoughts?
Hi Barry,More personalities then you could shake a stick at eh:)Further we would have to show that, the energy plumes extending from black holes, do not contain any energy that is expelled from the black hole core. That all of the energy transfers to the compacted dimension?IN consideration if the Bose Nova, the jets release anti-matter. This would account for the dark energy?What shall we call this hypothesis?IN consideration of the attributes to fluidity, I wanted to further share some of my perceptions in regards to what I see in the beginning of the universe, that could emit from the subtle valuation creativity bubbling up to the surface of awareness.You should read, Civilizations Within the Cosmo in this blog.
Thank you for the time, effort, and patience you have put into our dialogue. Not being a physicist, or knowing anyone with similar interest, I have not had anyone to discuss my philosophies with. You are the victim of my years of frustration and I am enjoying heaping it all on you. I am taking advantage of your extensive knowledge of physics to direct my thinking, so I hope you can stand it. That being said, I have a lot of thoughts about the missing galactic community. I tend to be a task oriented obsessionest and when enthralled with an enigma I tend to work on it to the exclusion of all else, so I will try to fit some dialogue on alien agendas into your other blog page somewhere along the line. My wife has had to learn great patience with my obsessions.While anti-matter may emit from black holes, I find this unlikely to be a major product. For one thing we would have to consider what properties the emissions would have that allow them to escape gravity so strong that not even light can escape. Add to this that the emissions have gravitational properties such that mass/energy is swept into the plumes. Now consider that for a cyclical universe to emerge as a perpetual motion machine, even the energy escaping in the plumes would have to be reabsorbed. Why would these energies then be pushed into the compacted region and not be expelled again? Of course we could say that while cyclic,the process is not perpetual motion, and will eventually run down with each cycle reprocessing less energy. Not very elegent and I tend to reject this as there must be a better answer. We must also consider that if signatures remain that describe a cyclical process, then the process cannot be efficient enough at re-birth to not eventually run down?If we continue to eliminate possibilities what are we left with? I would look for an emergent truth to be revealed? Do I reach too far in asserting that a closed cyclical universe is yet excluded? Perhaps my logic is flawed or some factor uknown that leaves a sealed and cyclical universe on the table?Your thoughts?
Hello SolWhile reading some of your web pages and organizing my thoughts I had an epiphany. I offer what I hope is an elegant solution to the mysteries we ponder.What if black hole ejections were dark matter? That they are the smallest energy states in the universe. They are ejected because they do not posses gravity. They are gravity. Pieces of space-time that are spinning, sweeping mass/energy up in their wake. Due to their motions they exhibit some mass/energy properties, such as gravitational lensing. That after all of mass/energy has been converted to dark matter, what is left are spinning pieces of dark matter. When all of the reverberations of the big bang settle down, dark matter changes one more time. Dark matter then expands its last remaining motion energy to establish a bond with space-time. Motion energy converted to lattice bonds, expanding space-time. When all motion ceases the super fluid liquid crystal of space-time no longer exerts pressure on the compacted dimension. Being temporarily unbound pressure explodes into space-time as a new big bang. The explosive force reverberates through space-time, sealing the compacted region again, until this new universe is converted to more space-time lattice. Not exactly perpetual motion, but a repeated motion?Your thoughts?
Hi Barry,What if black hole ejections were dark matter? That they are the smallest energy states in the universe. They are ejected because they do not posses gravity. They are gravity.This is the right idea as I see it, and would serve to help see cyclical nature we have been discussing. If you focus on the dimenisnal attributes of higher dimenisons this is what is revealled, as far as I can tell. This would relate to gravitonic condensation that I have refered too.Does a Graviton contain the energy to help rekindle the gravitational collapse once the boundaries have reached it’s limitation in terms of the schwarzchld radius?
Consider that as a black hole reaches the schwarzchld radius it may explode if it is still surrounded by mass/energy. However as there becomes less mass/energy and more dark matter another metric emerges. When there is no more energy to feed the black hole it is surrounded by the dark matter it produced. This would provide the extra compression to rekindle collapse. It all comes down to a super fluid expanding from infinite compression into a space-time super fluid crystal that exerts great pressure if compressed by a tiny amount. This is the model. The mathmatical abstraction defining it speaks to the higher dimensional aspects.The energy contributing to the lattice is in the tiniest pieces possible. Torsion in the lattice then gives rise to electromagnetic fields. The vector motion of magnetics arise from these torsional fluctuations. There is no such thing as empty space. Even the regions between electrons and the nucleus are filled with lattice under torsion.Can someone please build me a spaceship that reacts directly with space-time? I want to go for a ride.
Hello SolIf this model of space-time is correct then there emerges classes of energy defined by their reactions to the lattice. There are those particles that only displace space-time without torsion, such as neutrons.Those that displace and exhibit torsion as in electrons and protons.Another class that does not cause displacement but exhibit torsion, such as light.your thoughts?
Another thoughtConsider that in the presence of very strong gravity there is so much compression that torsion is restricted. Light does not propegate here so black holes emit no light?
Consider that in the presence of very strong gravity there is so much compression that torsion is restricted. Light does not propegate here so black holes emit no light?Part of your thnkng here would be correct as far as I seethe effect of the photon held to sucha event.But it is more then this. I speak about the planck epoch and the first three minutes and I allude to this in U(1)[electromagnetism] configuration as seen in the diagram in post of yesterday the 24 of Febuary. How does this arise inthe standard model.I am looking for speciifc informtaion to point in this direction.
Consider that in the presence of very strong gravity there is so much compression that torsion is restricted. Light does not propegate here so black holes emit no light?Part of your thnkng here would be correct as far as I seethe effect of the photon held to sucha event.But it is more then this. I speak about the planck epoch and the first three minutes and I allude to this in U(1)[electromagnetism] configuration as seen in the diagram in post of yesterday the 24 of Febuary. How does this arise inthe standard model.I am looking for speciifc informtaion to point in this direction.
If this model of space-time is correct then there emerges classes of energy defined by their reactions to the lattice.The QCD direction shared by John Ellis points to the method of apprehension that we would speak about. When you refer to lattice, I would need to be corrected as to how you are seeing this. I am thinking of certain triangulations and the monte carlo method, demonstrated in quantum gravity. As Scattering amplitudes?
If this model of space-time is correct then there emerges classes of energy defined by their reactions to the lattice.The QCD direction shared by John Ellis points to the method of apprehension that we would speak about. When you refer to lattice, I would need to be corrected as to how you are seeing this. I am thinking of certain triangulations and the monte carlo method, demonstrated in quantum gravity. As Scattering amplitudes?
The use of lattice is for lack of a better term. Perhaps you can suggest one, as this term seems clumsy and inept. Conceptually I envision space-time as particles so tiny that sub-atomic particles would seem large. Compression emerges as gravity waves. Consider that gravity then exhibits as pressure on a quantum scale. A larger body exhibits gravity as the sum of compressions. They would have a directional alignment that torsion would disturb? Thus a magnetic field would emerge due to directional arrangement? The polar aspects establish north/south and/or positive/negative relationships? Electromagnetic wave propagation is the torsion disturbance a photon exerts in passing? Frequency is due to photon spin rate? The magnetic component is due to the sum of alignment? Would there be fluid flow along lines of magnetic force? Forces transmit through space-time as a wave of polar alignment, or as a fluid flow? Possibly as both or either, depending on the metrics? I grope in the dark to understand this piece of the elephant.Would light propagation change significantly in interstellar space where gravity compression is small?I will ponder your questions more. My understanding of quantum mechanics is woefully inadequate.
But it is more then this. I speak about the planck epoch and the first three minutes and I allude to this in U(1)[electromagnetism] configuration as seen in the diagram in post of yesterday the 24 of FebuaryMaybe I missed something. Post of 24th where?
Hi BarryTriumph of the Standard ModelThis is the article I was referring too, and I give a link to the other universal expression of the cosmo, between John Ellis’s statements.U(1) can be found here for further reading. See this information in context of the mapping of expression. And we have to see how the standard model is being expressed in those first three minutes.Particle physicists describe this as saying that the symmetry of SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) is spontaneously broken down to SU(3)xU(1) at the electroweak scale of about 100GeV.
Hi BarryTriumph of the Standard ModelThis is the article I was referring too, and I give a link to the other universal expression of the cosmo, between John Ellis\’s statements.U(1) can be found here for further reading. See this information in context of the mapping of expression. And we have to see how the standard model is being expressed in those first three minutes.Particle physicists describe this as saying that the symmetry of SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) is spontaneously broken down to SU(3)xU(1) at the electroweak scale of about 100GeV.
What is the ? represent?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.One has to work their way to the microscopic view of the universe to understand what is happenng within those first three minutes?String theory tells us about this time(high energy). Also, if we wanted to comprehend the expansive process and did not see the singuarity that was to have been derived from the blackhole collapse, oneneeded to see the nature of the universe breathing and rejuvenating. Ultimately, the conclusion I am reaching is that the sum of all that string theory is, defines the Calab Yua models as movements that could might be traced in windings. The difference, in the 1R radius of this circle, helps us to define the amplitutde of the string and change in the tube as it expands and contracts in this calabi yau modelThis is all very abtract to me, and I am learning here.
What is the ? represent?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.One has to work their way to the microscopic view of the universe to understand what is happenng within those first three minutes?String theory tells us about this time(high energy). Also, if we wanted to comprehend the expansive process and did not see the singuarity that was to have been derived from the blackhole collapse, oneneeded to see the nature of the universe breathing and rejuvenating. Ultimately, the conclusion I am reaching is that the sum of all that string theory is, defines the Calab Yua models as movements that could might be traced in windings. The difference, in the 1R radius of this circle, helps us to define the amplitutde of the string and change in the tube as it expands and contracts in this calabi yau modelThis is all very abtract to me, and I am learning here.