Horatiu is referring to a mathematical similarity between the physics of the real world, which govern RHIC collisions, and the physics that scientists use to describe a theoretical, “imaginary” black hole in a hypothetical world with a different number of space-time dimensions (more than the four dimensions — three space directions and time — that exist in our world). That is, the two situations require similar mathematical wrangling to analyze. This imaginary, mathematical black hole that Horatiu compares to the RHIC fireball is completely different from a black hole in the real universe; in particular, it cannot grow by gobbling up matter. In other words, and because the amount of matter created at RHIC is so tiny, RHIC does not, and cannot possibly, produce a true, star-swallowing black hole.
I place this picture and article above so that one keeps perspective about the similarites of the “micro versus the macro” perspective and “not” that the “disaster scenario” could create the “large blackhole?” But wait?
I am thinking in terms of what could create “the situations” for what is coming into being. Is it acummulative? I am not sure from the “many colldial events” that one could see happen? Hence my focus, to what not ony is created in the “collidal event,” but to the cosmic particle colllsions as well. How rare are these? I speak on the “history of strangelets” from that point.
Anyway onward here.
Seriously his talk is all about the physics of certain type of spacetime singularites-such as the one that live’s in our universe’s past-and whether life can make sense of the idea of space and time coming into being after sucha singualrity, while not existing prior to that
I should start off from a quote of Clifford’s of Cosmic Variance, becuase of Q’s insistance in regards to the descritpions of singularities and my lacking an understanding and somewhat confusion. I thought I would do some more research here.
There are “certain assumptions” I am making and this is in regard to the a statement Clifford makes, is held as a question in my mind of what exists before anything can emerge into the spacetime? While he has called this beginning “spacetime” and reference “another state” before this, what is it? This is what holds my assumption and idea about what the singularity is doing.
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 long because there is no physics “below” the Planck length.)
I place this, too support what Clifford is saying in regards to the what is emergent into the spacetime from what I understand(Strings as a building block on the road too, not as the source of this “emergent property?”). Where do all these dimensional ideas then reside? You can’t ignore this, or what Lubos “is saying” about talking about the past? Everytime one’s perception changes, the hisory changes too? It forces you to look at the future in a new way?
It is certainly not the Newtonian version I am thinking about. People tend to think of these as diamonds(?) or something like that as a Pea? I tend away from that thinking, because it just doesn’t chive with what is tramsmitted into what “being [is] in spacetime?,” if you don’t have a foundation from which to work?
Call them coordinates and in it, the spactime emerges, and from that “okay” the looking at the arrow of time which implies to me a simplier supersymmetrical idea, looking back. So how did you get there? The outside/inside “quandry that stretches the mind capbailites” while chasing the “idea” as Brian Greene’s Koan?
There is something to be said in how “ideas emerge from all the information gathered and accumulated” spontaneousily bursts into a new form? The mind goes through a bit of a change? See’s differently. Reinmann accomplishement along with those of the geometrical forbears(shoulder’s of giants) help to change how we see geometrics.
Briefly I pick up the Kurzwelian book on singularities, and find that a greate rperspective is need beyond what is espoused. A new stage in the thinking, beyond what society is thought to be headed. Some reject Kuhnian thinking but this is revolutionary to bme in what an dhow th emind proceeds in bringing down to earh the ideas that await to form in mind. Another place perhaps? A way of dipping the “toe” into the stream, and letting all that “informtaion” flow through you?
<a href="http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/01/breathing-new-life-into-existance.html" target=_BLank title="Everything you
always wanted to know about black holes-Joseph D. MacMillan”>
A black hole in astrophysics often has two distinct meanings. The first is the black hole in a general relativistic sense – the extreme gravitational case with a singularity in space-time – while the second is a simpler Newtonian approach: a black hole is just a point mass. While both of these meanings are used, often interchangeably, throughout the literature, it is important to remember that no astrophysical observation has yet been made that can distinguish between the two; to date, the Newtonian point mass is all we need. In the future, with better X-ray observations and a detection of gravitational waves, this may change.
First off I wrote the post Singularities should be rewritten as “a question” of what I was seeing inregards to our universe. What is in our universe’s past. The reason for it’s inflation. The reason for entropic valuations that become complicated and end in some chaos reasoning that Sean askes of those to solve in the Three body solution? I think this ahas already been done from what I understood so that push me towards lagragian perspective s and the other assumptions I have about this beginning and what existed before it?
Here’s what I write:
If the initial states at the beginning of the universe are to be in concert with particle reductionism, and the particle creations that I have exemplified in how particles came into being, then, the understanding of what can be transmitted through the blackhole is extremely important as a valuation of what appears over time?
So I have to say yes I am quantum characteristically driven to see this universe as it existed in a state held in our perceptions, of what it has become today. So of course I was looking back, with new knowledge of what the futre is to become. Why shouldn’t it matter what help to draive this situation in the universe we have to day not hold perspectove abot what has emerged in the spacrtime as we know it?
Strominger: <a href="http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-are-those-quantum-microstates.html" target=_BLank title="Black Holes and Beyond:
Harvard’s Andrew Strominger on String Theory-Strominger spoke to Science Watch correspondent Gary Taubes over a dinner in Aspen, Colorado.”>
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.