So we change the color, and sometimes, the color lets us see how this global perspective encases the elliptical valuation? It did not just hold then to this “surface valuation” in a cosmic event but was ever unfolding to reveal dynamcial properties that GR helps us see. It is only part and parcel of a developing framwork? There had to be some geometrical consistancy, even taken to this level.

Oui, Non?

I am learning here, so be kind.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0507619

at

http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/45/8/8

(in turn linked from

http://blog.olympus.het.brown.edu/science/archives/000386.php).

Now THIS is work to my liking! (I would also feel immensely stupid for having missed it, were it not for the fact that I was in full immersion mode and not looking at new stuff at all at the time.)

Sep 14th, 2005 at 12:40 pm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/12/cosmic-violence/#comment-3389

Ah, thank you.

Eric Adelberger:It is true that we are seeing an anomaly at shorter length scales but we have to show first that the anomaly is not some experimental artifact. Then, if it holds up, we have to check if the anomaly is due to new fundamental physics or to some subtle electromagnetic effect that penetrates our conducting shield. We are now checking for experimental artifacts by making a small change to our

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/10/modifications-to-general-relativity/#comment-1310

What anomaly would he being refer too. Could you define this better?

I am going to get very bold here. As a layman you must forgive me?:(

While the gaussian coordinates reveal, as well as the metric, variations in “distant measures,” why would geometric principals not be “more common” in perception and associative values?

Here, the older perspectives on the quark to quark measures, might have revealled a better understanding in the geometric developement along side of Aldebergers experiments.

How we see such a dynamcial avenues revealled in the understanding of gravitational differences assigned to the bulk perspective?

Would this be counterproductive, having concepts established in our thinking to this point?

While it is a simple idea to develope curvature parameters seen establish by the Friedman equations, such dynamics need something in which to assign not only the “fate of our universe” but some principle being talked about here, to couple to dynamics, not only in regards to cosmological principles, but quantum ones as well?

Do you find in this case of extra dimensions, compatibility in issues related to Omega, and critical density geometrically inclined? That it would need physics to apply such ideas we would all agree. I am thinking of Microstate blackholes and their dissipation, as a culmination of such geometrics.

Atlas comes to mind now in regards to “the trigger”. Is this not what Smolin is trying to accomplish seeing glast determination in the calorimetric bringing a greater depth to our perceptions of the universe?

And no, I wouldn’t call the extra-dimensional track crackpotism, unless propounded as established fact or as “the only way” or some similar nonsense. But it should be kept in mind that to date it’s just a highly speculative hypothesis, nothing more.

Eric Adelberger on Aug 12th, 2005 at 2:37 pm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/10/modifications-to-general-relativity/#comment-1310“>

One of those is as follows. The second was insight of Pierre Auger experiments and the issue of “microstate blackholes.” I’ll come to that later.

We were given some indications on this site about the state of affairs with Albrecht. Do you think this time span of proposed validation processes, were constructively and experimentally handled appropriately through it’s inception? As scientists would like to have seen all such processes handled in this respect?

Stanford’s Savas Dimopoulos: New Dimensions in Theoretical Physics

Our new picture is that the 3-D world is embedded in extra dimensions,” says Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University. “This gives us a totally new perspective for addressing theoretical and experimental problems.

http://www.sciencewatch.com/may-june2001/sw_may-june2001_page3.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6841/images/411986af.0.jpg

The angular movements needed to signal the presence of additional dimensions are incredibly small — just a millionth of a degree. In February, Adelberger and Heckel reported that they could find no evidence for extra dimensions over length scales down to 0.2 millimetres (ref. 11). But the quest goes on. The researchers are now designing an improved instrument to probe the existence of extra dimensions below 0.1 mm. Other physicists, such as John Price of the University of Colorado and Aharon Kapitulnik of Stanford University in California, are attempting to measure the gravitational influence on small test masses of tiny oscillating levers.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6841/box/411986a0_bx1.html

And lastly,

Eric Adelberger on Aug 12th, 2005 at 2:37 pm Then we will replace our molybdenum detector ring with an aluminum one. This will reduce any signal from interactions coupled to mass, but will have little effect on subtle electromagnetic backgrounds. These experiments are tricky and measure very small forces. It takes time to get them right. We will not be able to say anything definite about the anomaly for several months at least.

Would you do away with extra dimensional attempts at comprehension, as crackpotism?

First of all, “missing energy” is a normal feature of collider experiments, since you can’t expect to catch all the stuff that comes out of them. You have two particle beams banging into each other inside a tunnel of finite width; any decay products flying off into the tunnel are lost. Around the collision point, you have detectors which, while huge and most impressive, also have blind angles and - most importantly - finite size.

The latter means that very weakly interacting particles can fly right through them without leaving any visible trace. There really isn’t much you can do about this; neutrinos go right through the planet all the time, so even an Earth-sized detector would not get them all. This is indeed how neutrinos were first discovered: back in the heroic days of quantum mechanics, late 20s to early 30s, there was a missing energy problem with nuclear beta decay. Pauli suggested that the missing energy was being carried away by a neutral particle, Fermi gave it a name and constructed a theory of weak interactions incorporating it, and they both ended up getting a well-deserved Nobel prize years before anyone had actually detected a single neutrino (see e.g. http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/nuexpt.html).

So, even today experimentalists must routinely correct their data to account for naturally “missing” (really undetected) energy. They would start to worry only if there was a significant deviation between these corrections and the amount of energy actually missing. If this were to happen - and it must be underscored that it hasn’t, currently this is all speculation about what might be seen at the LHC when it starts taking data, hopefully in just 2-3 years - the first hypotheses to analyze would be

1) a new “neutrino”, i.e. very weakly interacting particle, being produced in the collisions and flying right through the detectors (this would be an obvious dark matter candidate, by the way);

2) a new interaction causing processes with a strong angular dependence, i.e. a large fraction of final products flying off into the tunnel, around the directions of the colliding particles.

These would be the natural assumptions for any honest high energy physicist. Ruling them out would take many years of hard work. Energy disappearing into large extra dimensions would be a last straw to be invoked only after all else has failed.

Then I might be a victim as well?: )

But while this issue has gone on, I have become somewhat puzzled then. As a response for another, would any loss of energy value determinations of what you had before you started into particle reductionsism, should indicate, that energy valuation after the event, should be equal and accounted for? Indicate, that this energy had gone some where, if it’s not?

I am certainly not of the higher calibre of degree here but I am somewhat puzzled. If this were to be the case then, indeed, there is somewhat of an anomalie that needs to be dealt with.

Can you answer this?