I mean this discourse on the nature of viscosity is leading in the sense that what has been currently going in terms of RHIC “is the physics” and understanding that came about by the pursuate of elementary considerations.

Physicists Andrew Strominger and Cumrin Vafa, showed that this exact entropy formula can be derived microscopically (including the factor of 1/4) by counting the degeneracy of quantum states of configurations of strings and D-branes which correspond to black holes in string theory. This is compelling evidence that D-branes can provide a short distance weak coupling description of certain black holes! For example, the class of black holes studied by Strominger and Vafa are described by 5-branes, 1-branes and open strings traveling down the 1-brane all wrapped on a 5-dimensional torus, which gives an effective one dimensional object — a black hole.

This is part of the understanding that with those who try to diminish the substance of this avenue of research have missed in their wide sweeping generalizations, less then adequate of string theory. You do not dismiss Strominger lightly as part of that generalization.

So in regard to multiplicities, should we dismiss the substance of the viscosity nature here while those who are less then kind about the avenue of research regarding the model string theory, find that people like Lee Smolin have decided to work with people like Clifford to deal with these physic’s issues. Although he is not changing his tune in regards to the substance of this theoretical/concept/idea model, he does appreciate the science behind it.

For those who up hold the laws, and I mean the badge of the peace officer here at Backreaction. It is nice that we understand this history as it is being explained. Shall we succumb to the mechanical modes of being and we disavow “creativity” according to the limits of the law, or must we push ahead in the “greater courts” of theoretics and challenges to these laws.

Again I am reminded of Einstein’s quote here.

…the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.Albert Einstein

Some would have you believe that you have acted irresponsibly in regards to model apprehsnsion about nature? Don’t let them fool you or coierce you into thinking that you have disvorced yoruself from reality. If “pure thought” resides in the essence of these “mathematical forms,” then where do these ensue from?

See: