Sunday, March 17, 2013
State of TOE before the LHC Symmetry Breaking beyond Superforce
State of TOE before the LHC
Symmetry Breaking beyond Superforce
L. Edgar Otto Saturday, 16 March, 2013
I checked out some DVD's from the public library having never done that before to test my PC player and chose a few more or less at random. One in particular as of an educational nature, along with movies and old television programs, is relevant to the discussions of Theories of Everything on Gibbs site. STEVEN HAWKING and the theory of everything, from 2007. Its theme of course was the mind and work of Hawking. The physicists I see talked about in the blogs and elsewhere and their place in the search for the "grail of the unification of the physics, of the very large and very small" were present, in particular Penrose and Greene, and what started the comment thread the statement of Lisa Randal on the TOE who appears many times in the DVD. It is a good general snapshot of the general trend and state of the art of these physicists.
I found his assistant, secretary, most interesting when she showed the stacks of letters sent to Hawking due to his fame that included everything from wormholes to aliens. How do we evaluate and what mechanism is there to do so of such a sea of creative theories of which there may be wheat among the chaff? Can we sift thru them and find the general trend as if alternative paths of which certainly among other minds we may have parallel or even deeper theories. For my own part, this experience of thought over time that does seem to flow along with ideas of the new physics, my early thoughts and general design has served me well- well enough I can make some headway in evaluating some of the work of others as imperfections and the resolution to perfections expand.
The question of the singularity in relation to string dimensions suggests to me my and Penrose's better term for TOE as Omnium, particularly in that as philosophy and even religion this unification of our wisdom as science still looks beyond our accepted theories and makes conclusions at such foundations. Also methods like Hawking insight of the no boundary condition which as philosophy ideas are presented with hoped for evidence such as the finding of micro black holes in the LHC and to go beyond them as statements of philosophy as well pronounce some stance on ideas like Hawking's- is a God still necessary in the design?
Since the LHC results we have come to ask some of these more radical questions more seriously. I think MS Randall does understand, while she works in specific problems such as the charge relationships of branes, that at the sea of singularity, supersymmetry beyond it or not, in a sense at unification as with no assumptions or documentation at the black hole concept where the two physics meet as Hawking points our saying much more than casually that black holes evaporate (after all to apply quantum theory there is as deep a reversal of sorts to Dirac applying relativity to a particle) she can say in my spirit of nonnecessity that at the general unification we may not need a theory of everything in our development of physics- is there a boundary in depth after all as part of the picture, can there in terms of our design of the no boundary view (essentially my ultranscontinuum) what amounts to a "wall" of the universe. Of course the Omnium principle does from the beginning of my ideas assume that the universe and things in it like the way Hawking thought of time, that the unity possible does have infinite and zero or finite aspects and does so dynamically.
The fundamental idea of symmetry breaking presented in a simple demonstration of right or left wine classes chosen at a table leaves little really of the explanation of symmetry breaking, I would hope the minds who express it this way have a deeper understating of chirality. That gravity in a sense is expressed as weak because of the extra dimensions was an idea I read about of a student in Milwaukee who got noticed for his theory by threatening to jump from a bridge- and the article said in that sense he was not wrong- but in the climate of the times I do not know if his idea came before its use in the string theories.
Now, my post of yesterday seeming to me rather more of a recreation than a formal theory seems more formal to me today after viewing this popularization DVD. Because at this nonnecessary quasi boundary where the ultimate TOE stated with its goals as envisioned, we certainly may see that the folding of these ideas of space and half theories may in a sense literally apply as a reference frame of sorts to the variations of such universal foundational theories- after all Michio Kaku and others say that in the wider dimensions things fold on themselves- and evidently they do maintain boundaries as if space, as vast as it is, does have a level of no vibrations after all.
Is it not obvious that given these possibilities, with proofs or not of that possible or even deeper than influences of a multiverse, that the structures of black holes may be of several levels of influences as many of our bloggers understand and assert? Is it possible we ask the wrong question of extra dimensional sizes in such higher than supersymmetric spaces where bounds also exist even when in the general scheme of things we can fold abstract objects not only at some point or a sea of branes but in the laws and fixed properties generally of the one yet many singularities?
I refrain from pronouncements or speculation that seems to open inspiration for this new world of physics somewhere in what is from this essential insight of what difference the level of vision makes between the universe as very small and ultimately as some timeless place of a unique beginning, what beyond or present practical work as scientists with the thought dreams still to inspire us, that singularity has an analogous structure to our sense of what is absolute nothingness in existence as we know it.
* * * * *
ps Judging from Lisa's hourglass figure there is no doubt she is quite intelligent... I begin to expect more from her and now that I can afford should really find her book- it must at least apply to practical (albeit still abstract) physics and what do we do with so many intelligent young Einstein's who work behind the scenes not in the race for fame or a super-theory and not all who want to leave the team and find their own path or the next new thing in a company? But this DVD is worth the viewing, say to give a general foundation for questions my son has asked me lately from snips of things in the news like the Higgs. Still it seems quite dated to me as well as when some face new territory that challenge their roles- but I see it as nostalgic though relatively recent- it reminds me of that golden age in my beloved Cambridge when Hoyle and Gammow, and Crick gave a big bang to my interest in the cosmos- yes, and a steady state of inquiry without regrets. I must say though, the ending quote by Hawking as to how we should reach out to the stars, that we do not take care enough for our world and selves- right on and perhaps something in this still mysterious origin and purpose of life endures beyond fixed or bursting bubbles of that particular vision of Hawking's universe.