What choice do I have but to quote myself.:)
Superfluous is a mathematical construct for sure. Continuity, asked not from the condense matter theorist point of view as Jacque’s remind, or, as Susskind speaks of Laughlin( was Susskind ever aware of Witten’s statements?)
Edward WittenEdward Witten’s Homepage
Now I write this link and quote above because it set my own mind in motion, from that point. I began looking at the experiments and trying to derive something that was consistent in that process that would lead into that same logical conclusion that we are “seeing” and “not seeing” what happens.
Once we know that there is one de Sitter solution, it is easy to find many more of them by just changing the values of the fluxes. Sujay Ashok and Michael Douglas of Rutgers University have recently estimated the number of different solutions to be at least 10100, which indicates an extremely rich landscape with many mountains, valleys, oceans and even volcanoes. Each minimum-energy point represents a different universe, and the height of that point is the value of the cosmological constant for that universe. Viewing the solution this way, the probability that one of these universes has a cosmological constant that is as small as is indicated by current experiments is actually non-zero. See:The string-theory landscape
You must know there is a reason that I am showing these articles just to provide consideration and will put up some information here soon that deals with this point.
I would say I do and am always impressed by Lubo’s candidness, so I do not derive any solution to this process and it remains a troubling aspect of my research. The counter argument I produce I had discovering along the way to provide an example in a comment section that deals with what I am saying to Zephir here in this blog entry, under the idea of the landscape. I would ask that Lubos look a little closer and speak to the idea of the Landscape even though under the tutelage of Tom Banks, he specifics his reluctance.
You must also know that I do not align myself with any current research model( disaster scenarios specific LHC.Org) other then to say I recognize facets “of this thinking from my own research” and that this presentation speaks to that. If there is no math involved then how can it represent the landscape in thinking? Logical conclusions, follow logical math processes in String theory?
Letting our minds be consoled with the understanding that cosmic particle collisions take place on earth is the point I am making about seeing “the sun in gamma” and understanding that such measures allow us to see this way. It also helps us to understand that such a location(microscopic blackholes) allows information to travel faster then light in the medium of earth, so that we understand that things can travel “through and tunnel.” Information is conserved.
A supercritical fluid is any substance at a temperature and pressure above its thermodynamic critical point. It can diffuse through solids like a gas, and dissolve materials like a liquid. Additionally, close to the critical point, small changes in pressure or temperature result in large changes in density, allowing many properties to be “tuned”. Supercritical fluids are suitable as a substitute for organic solvents in a range of industrial and laboratory processes. Carbon dioxide and water are the most commonly used supercritical fluids, being used for decaffeination and power generation respectively.
For explanation of these animations see: The behaviour of dense particle systems.
From certain perspective, the AWT is extrapolation of free fermion models of string field theory to zero dimension. These models are nothing very new in physics, as some physicists have assumed, the strings are composed from more fundamental particles (so called preons) already. The one-dimensional strings are just the lowest number of dimensions, which the formal math can handle without problem, while avoiding the singularities. The concept of environment composed from zero dimensional particles is naturally singular from formal math perspective, so it cannot use it. It can be replaced by one-dimensional strings partially, but here’s a technical problem: such approximation leads to
landscape of 10E+500 possible solutions
, so it’s unusable from practical reasons. While from particle model of Aether is evident, such system enables the only way of it’s compactification, leading to dynamic mesh of one-dimensional density fluctuations (i.e. “strings”) naturally – so no assumption of strings, no assumption of relativity and quantum mechanics postulates is required here at all. By such way, the zero-dimensional approach follows the Occam razor criterion, which
minimizes the number of postulates
See:27789 – 09/18/08 04:08 AM Re: Aether Wave Theory [Re: zorro1]