I am thinking about Lee Smolin’s history here in terms of discrete measures ( I am developing a perspective here in relation that will be complied later) How this effected the the way Lee may have viewed the background. I don’t want to speak for Lee Smolin, but I would like to make it simple.:)
Can this difference be as simple as, “a determination between “being discrete, and implying continuity“?
Where strings implying only tree features, while the approach to glast, as a “new view” supported by “Doubly Special Relativity”, that Rovelli and Lee produced? This basis and history is what I am compiling.
One can ask any question and have it loaded, with lots of information. But just trying to bring something to simple clarity, even in conceptual framesworks is not always easy, if you don’ ask the question?
The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit (GZK limit) is a theoretical upper limit on the energy of cosmic rays from distant sources.
This limit was computed in 1966 by Kenneth Greisen, Vadem Kuzmin and Georgi Zatsepin, based on interactions predicted between the cosmic ray and the photons of the cosmic microwave background radiation. They predicted that cosmic rays with energies over the threshold energy of 5×1019 eV would interact with CMB photons to produce pions. This would continue until their energy fell below the pion production threshold. Therefore, extragalactic cosmic rays with energies greater than this threshold energy should never be observed on Earth.
Unsolved problems in physics: Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are theoretically too high, given that there are no possible near Earth sources, and that rays from distant sources should have been absorbed by the cosmic microwave background radiation?A number of observations have been made by the AGASA experiment that appear to show cosmic rays from distant sources with energies above this limit (whimsically dubbed Oh-My-God particles). The observed existence of these particles is the so-called GZK paradox or cosmic ray paradox.
Anyway, this was brought up and the questioned asked, because I did understand something that even if it was based on theoretical definitions might have been ones that were different from another, and brought the scorn of high energy physicists to wonder, where such principles had been raised in terms of quantum gravity?
So lookng at Lee’s position and it becomes clear when one does the research on cosmological scenarios, that no wonder you want the string theorist on side, in this debate.
John Ellis is a fine educator when it come to laying the simple view to avenues related to both High energy physics and the relation in Pierre Auger determination.
Imagine microstate blackholes, and I wonder what “this trigger is” that would make life so much easier if we could determine the background,versus non background debate in terms of these experimental positions?
So strings and Loop quantum are face to face here in our informational predictions, about outcomes of the background versus the non-background, and getting to the source of this debate, from a physics interpretation and a expeirmental one, has always been the quest I think, and one supported by Lee Smolin.
So what rationality might have issue from the basis of that theoretcial position, and like I said before, it seems what pubic relations the top scientists have with the public, is to lay the foundation at the front door in a simple a way as possible from the blogosphere. What other way is so simple and direct tot he public that such distance could now been narrow to someone like Clifford in Cosmic INvariance, speaking to this very subject. Any the link below this sets the tune, and here th econtinuation of th equestion I had there that has not been repsonded too, becuase of the layman underdevleoped view of where top theoretorcians reside.
I’ll give it a stab anyway. There seems to be a certain romance I have with the subject, that does not require money from any avenue, and such grants, far from the layman’s view that doing this for fun, has been most rewarding becuase it brought me to see in different ways in the bulk, that others in simple life care not, and walk their way.
Seeking clarity in relation to experimental propositions of Glast 2006 and how it shall support one’s position over another? Will it?
High energy relevance had to meet each other in a way that cosmologically had something to do with high energy perceptions in relation to the trigger? Link on name.
The “beginning”, as first principles? Robert Laughlin saids no to “first principles”?:)
Since it is hard to put a link within a link, I thought I better put link on name here as well.
I really hate quoting myself, but alas the move is to continue regardless, so onto, “Gubser and structure information.”
Steve Gubser (from Princeton) has just gave an interesting talk at the joint seminar in which he tried to convince us that structure formation (the process in which the early clumps of matter and the first galaxies were born) is a very interesting topic in cosmology, even for string theorists, in which some signs of new physics may be found if one tries to reproduce the observations.
How indeed would one see gluonic perception at this level bringing us ever closer to views on the window of the universe, and such leaidng indicators has to bring some noton to what started in the beginning? Non?