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.
* * * * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment