Now two points occupy my mind that hold questions as to what and how such counting can be done in terms of geometric propensity, that would allow these geometries into topological states. First point is:

We need to get closer to the “theory of everything”, regardless of the question whether the destination is a finite or infinite distance away. (And yes, the path should not be infinitely longbecause there is no physics “below” the Planck length.)

And the second:

**Black holes and branes in string theory**

But it has been discovered through string duality relationsthat spacetime geometry is not a fundamental concept in string theory, and at small distance scales or when the forces are very strong, there is an alternate description of the same physical system that appears to be very different.

So what then would say that non linear approaches would now have taken form in our talks, that what was once geoemtrically feasible, had been taken down to the length where no new geometry is involved. So lets see then how shall we verbalize what happens at the horizon, in terms of radiation, that such states never existed to make this possible?

Now there are always reasons that one moves into the historical to gain perspective. By doing this, you gain insight and advance thinking to reveal theoretical developement, and where it has taken us. So by using thse linked paragraph statements, we are revealling something about Blackholes that had been culminative, to have discussions in todays world. Like BPS blackhole dynamics.

Andrew Strominger is an American theoretical physicist who works on string theory. He is currently a professor at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Society of Fellows. His contributions to physics include:

Now one thing that troubles me about Lubo’s statement, is the idea that supersymmetry valuation could ever be entertained, had we not consideedr this avenue of some importance. Not just in terms of symmetry breaking, but of the illustrous states of existance, that would exemply this idea where the superfluid could rest itself, and provide for the base of operation for these new universes?

To the second point, by providing for the idea of a geometry to emerge from this vast ocean of vast probabilites. Again for me, to see this I recognized that “space is not empty”, and that such a congregation of gravitonic perception would have to be culminative, in some form for such a superfluid to exist?

So one had to get there geometrically from this ten dimensional perspective to have some basis to fuel developement into other stages of existance. Some geometric form, that would reduce, such valuations to supersymmetrical thinking and allow such a developemental process to cyclical natures. of that same universe.

Strominger: That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited.

All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn’t the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did.

So indeed then three conditions had been satisfied, that issues about the physics involved had something to say about quantum mechanics, gravity and computation of entrophy of blackholes respectively.

The animation shows schematically the behavior of the gas molecules in the presence of a gravitational field. We can see in this figure that the concentration of molecules at the bottom of the vessel is higher than the one at the top of the vessel, and that the molecules being pushed upwards fall again under the action of the gravitational field.

**What is black hole entropy? **

Suppose we have a box filled with gas of some type of molecule called M. The temperature of that gas in that box tells us the average kinetic energy of those vibrating molecules of gas. Each molecule as a quantum particle has quantized energy states, and if we understand the quantum theory of those molecules, theorists can count up the available quantum microstates of those molecules and get some number. The entropy is the logarithm of that number.

When it was discovered that black holes can decay by quantum processes, it was also discovered that black holes seem to have the thermodynamic properties of temperature and entropy. The temperature of the black hole is inversely proportional to its mass, so the black hole gets hotter and hotter as it decays.

**Microstate Blackhole Production**

Unfortunately, all of this is overstated. At RHIC we don’t make a “real” black hole, in the sense envisioned by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Rather, Nastase’s point of view is that RHIC collisions can be described by a “dual” black hole. But what does “dual” mean in this context? It’s not “two-ness” in any sense,but rather indicates that one can write down a theory which describes the collision as a black hole, but in a completely different world than that we see around us. To make his model work, he (and many other researchers who are exploring this direction) make a calculation of a black hole in 10 dimensions in order to describe difficult (but gravitationally benign) aspects of the strong interaction in 4 dimensions.

If one did not have some comprehension of hyperspace (roads lead too from our geometers) and the dynamical inclination spacetime has lead us too, then how would any valuation of those extra dimensions work? I think this is that “toposense” that Calabi Yau might offer, when you travel in the Cave?Revealing curvature parameters on a cosmological scale sets us up when we move down to the quantum level although the probabilistic valuation creates uncertainty. I understand strings is a model for apprehension.While it is indeed a struggle for me to understand this I wouldn’t throw it aside because I didn’t understand it, but continue the struggle to make sense of it. Why not a “fluidic form” of the superfluid as a form of this continuity?Why Ten dimensionsModular functions are used in the mathematical analysis of Riemann surfaces. Riemann surface theory is relevant to describing the behavior of strings as they move through space-time. When strings move they maintain a kind of symmetry called “conformal invariance”Conformal invariance (also called “scale invariance”) is related to the fact that points on the surface of a string’s world sheet need not be evaluated in a particular order. As long as all points on the surface are taken into account in any consistent way, the physics should not change. Equations of how strings must behave when moving involve the Ramanujan function.So to see such topological travels in the issues of continuity, always comes back to the dynamcial nature that the “first three seconds to(Guth’s first three minutes) of the universe” imparted. It might not be the answer, yet it has pointed to a time.That accounts for something doesn’t it?