As to the chalk board tidbit...PI seems to be famous for this given its agenda on open discussions amongst its researchers?

Was looking for a specific quote for you.....but found one close:

Greene:

it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-33 centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ... (CSPAN Archives Videotape #125054)

Ah here it is....

In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above? (Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

Do yo believe Phil these quotes are similar in context of the PI chalkboard statement?

Just so you sort of get where my thinking is and the difficulty with which to examine how many lumps one needs....the conventional wisdom has to take in consideration how perspective has been forced back to the very small while examining the very large.

I hope I am making sense to you.

The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 231 and Pg 232

"But now, almost a century after Einstein's tour-de-force, string theory gives us a quantum-mechanical discription of gravity that, by necessity, modifies general relativity when distances involved become as short as the Planck length. Since Reinmannian geometry is the mathetical core of genral relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory. Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Reinmannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."

One might see where being lead through to Einsteins theory of relativity how such a thinking may be garnered as to what use Riemann became in helping us to to understand what a non-euclidean world might look like. Grossman help direct Einstein to look and in this effort, Einstein was able to fit the pieces together. You see?

What kind of geometry would Greene be talking about?

This has been a question on mymind as well as what you have been given on that blackboard for consideration as to how many universes can be made with the choice of how many lumps?:)

Nice quote by Greene yet I don’t think this was the point of all the chalk board wisdom aimed at the general public, rather more of a statement of where they think most of them are at. Another way to state it being that what many find to be important, as Shakespeare first observed, is much ado about nothing :-) I must also sadly report that I couldn’t locate that inscription you made note of and fear it might have been lost in the expansion.

Another way to state it being that what many find to be important, as Shakespeare first observed, is much ado about nothing :-)

Oh Phil, Einstein thought energy could arise from nothing?:)

Thanks for update on inscription.

Figure 8 [replaced by our Figure 2] is to be conceived three-dimensionally, the circles being cross-sections of spherical shells in the plane of the drawing. A man is climbing about on the huge spherical surface 1; by measurements with rigid rods he recognizes it as a spherical shell, i.e. he finds the geometry of the surface of a sphere. Since the third dimension is at his disposal, he goes to spherical shell 2. Does the second shell lie inside the first one, or does it enclose the first shell? He can answer this question by measuring 2. Assume that he finds 2 to be the smaller surface; he will say that 2 is situated inside of 1. He goes now to 3 and finds that 3 is as large as 1.

How is this possible? Should 3 not be smaller than 2? ...

He goes on to the next shell and finds that 4 is larger than 3, and thus larger than 1. ... 5 he finds to be as large as 3 and 1.

But here he makes a strange observation. He finds that in 5 everything is familiar to him; he even recognizes his own room which was built into shell 1 at a certain point. This correspondence manifests itself in every detail; ... He is quite dumbfounded since he is certain that he is separated from surface 1 by the intervening shells. He must assume that two identical worlds exist, and that every event on surface 1 happens in an identical manner on surface 5. (Reichenbach 1958, 63-64)

Hopefully you understand the exercise in playing with such thinking of the infinitely large and the small:)

Imagine, what could arise in any universe could arise in you?:)It might mean, "that becoming" could be inclusive of all that can ever exist and that such signs may lead us to consider how "new universes" are born? It always existed "as a potential" within the one now.

Then again Greene’s thoughts are not new when it comes to matters of scale and what significance they hold. As for what geometry they suggest I really don’t think what’s important here relates to it yet rather to math as far as the fathomability of the infinite as to when is something considered large and more importantly how so. In short I think this relates more to contemplations of those like Cantor in respect to the Aleph.

"There are the rushing waves mountains of molecules each stupidly minding its own business trillions apart yet forming white surf in unison.

Ages on ages before any eyes could see year after year thunderously pounding the shore as now. For whom, for what? On a dead planet with no life to entertain.

Never at rest tortured by energy wasted prodigiously by the sun poured into space A mite makes the sea roar.

Deep in the sea all molecules repeat the patterns of one another till complex new ones are formed. They make others like themselves and a new dance starts.

Growing in size and complexity living things masses of atoms DNA, protein dancing a pattern ever more intricate.

Out of the cradle onto dry land here it is standing: atoms with consciousness; matter with curiosity.

Stands at the sea, wonders at wondering: I a universe of atoms an atom in the universe."

....then again as you say everything on scale and powers of ten?;)And this, is where the condense matter theorists come in?:)Or, some Higgs forming view? It finalizes itself then on some sociological "scale of reasoning." Voila:)

"[Geometry is] . . . persued for the sake of the knowledge of what eternally exists, and not of what comes for a moment into existence, and then perishes, ...[it] must draw the soul towards truth and give the finishing touch to the philosophic spirit."

Here is where previous quote comes from.....and why my interest of inscription. You see?

What PI stands for.....not just for what quirks a architect of a institute might of thought to add as his own inflection, but more of what is occupying minds from the perspective of "a depth even greater" then what we as a general public are privy to knowing.

You share the sentiments of someone else I'm familiar with respective of such matters or should I say thoughts regarding matter and space. I would caution however that although he enjoyed much success he also took his fair share of lumps as a result of his views:-)

“Thus Descartes was not so far from the truth when he believed he must exclude the existence of an empty space. The notion indeed appears absurd, as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in ponderable bodies. It requires the idea of the field as the representative of reality, in combination with the general principle of relativity, to show the true kernel of Descartes' idea; there exists no space "empty of field".”

-Albert Einstein, “Relativity: The Special and the General Theory”, Crown Publishing (fifth edition, 1954)

## 9 comments:

Hi Phil,

Have been waiting to see how your trip went.

As to the chalk board tidbit...PI seems to be famous for this given its agenda on open discussions amongst its researchers?

Was looking for a specific quote for you.....but found one close:

Greene:it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-33 centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ... (CSPAN Archives Videotape #125054)Ah here it is....

In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true?How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe?How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above? (Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)Do yo believe Phil these quotes are similar in context of the PI chalkboard statement?

Best,

Just so you sort of get where my thinking is and the difficulty with which to examine how many lumps one needs....the conventional wisdom has to take in consideration how perspective has been forced back to the very small while examining the very large.

I hope I am making sense to you.

The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 231 and Pg 232"But now, almost a century after Einstein's tour-de-force, string theory gives us a quantum-mechanical discription of gravity that, by necessity, modifies general relativity when distances involved become as short as the Planck length. Since Reinmannian geometry is the mathetical core of genral relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory. Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Reinmannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."One might see where being lead through to Einsteins theory of relativity how such a thinking may be garnered as to what use Riemann became in helping us to to understand what a non-euclidean world might look like. Grossman help direct Einstein to look and in this effort, Einstein was able to fit the pieces together. You see?

What kind of geometry would Greene be talking about?

This has been a question on mymind as well as what you have been given on that blackboard for consideration as to how many universes can be made with the choice of how many lumps?:)

Best,

Hi Plato,

Nice quote by Greene yet I don’t think this was the point of all the chalk board wisdom aimed at the general public, rather more of a statement of where they think most of them are at. Another way to state it being that what many find to be important, as Shakespeare first observed, is much ado about nothing :-) I must also sadly report that I couldn’t locate that inscription you made note of and fear it might have been lost in the expansion.

Best,

Phil

Hi Phil,

Another way to state it being that what many find to be important, as Shakespeare first observed, is much ado about nothing :-)Oh Phil, Einstein thought energy could arise from nothing?:)

Thanks for update on inscription.

Figure 8 [replaced by our Figure 2] is to be conceived three-dimensionally, the circles being cross-sections of spherical shells in the plane of the drawing. A man is climbing about on the huge spherical surface 1; by measurements with rigid rods he recognizes it as a spherical shell, i.e. he finds the geometry of the surface of a sphere. Since the third dimension is at his disposal, he goes to spherical shell 2. Does the second shell lie inside the first one, or does it enclose the first shell? He can answer this question by measuring 2. Assume that he finds 2 to be the smaller surface; he will say that 2 is situated inside of 1. He goes now to 3 and finds that 3 is as large as 1.

How is this possible? Should 3 not be smaller than 2? ...

He goes on to the next shell and finds that 4 is larger than 3, and thus larger than 1. ... 5 he finds to be as large as 3 and 1.

But here he makes a strange observation. He finds that in 5 everything is familiar to him; he even recognizes his own room which was built into shell 1 at a certain point. This correspondence manifests itself in every detail; ... He is quite dumbfounded since he is certain that he is separated from surface 1 by the intervening shells. He must assume that two identical worlds exist, and that every event on surface 1 happens in an identical manner on surface 5. (Reichenbach 1958, 63-64)

Hopefully you understand the exercise in playing with such thinking of the infinitely large and the small:)

A Conversation with Physicist Brian Greene

Liminocentric?:)

Imagine, what could arise in any universe could arise in you?:)It might mean, "that becoming" could be inclusive of all that can ever exist and that such signs may lead us to consider how "new universes" are born? It always existed "as a potential" within the one now.

Best,

Hi Plato,

Then again Greene’s thoughts are not new when it comes to matters of scale and what significance they hold. As for what geometry they suggest I really don’t think what’s important here relates to it yet rather to math as far as the fathomability of the infinite as to when is something considered large and more importantly how so. In short I think this relates more to contemplations of those like Cantor in respect to the Aleph.

"There are the rushing waves

mountains of molecules

each stupidly minding its own business

trillions apart

yet forming white surf in unison.

Ages on ages

before any eyes could see

year after year

thunderously pounding the shore as now.

For whom, for what?

On a dead planet

with no life to entertain.

Never at rest

tortured by energy

wasted prodigiously by the sun

poured into space

A mite makes the sea roar.

Deep in the sea

all molecules repeat

the patterns of one another

till complex new ones are formed.

They make others like themselves

and a new dance starts.

Growing in size and complexity

living things

masses of atoms

DNA, protein

dancing a pattern ever more intricate.

Out of the cradle

onto dry land

here it is

standing:

atoms with consciousness;

matter with curiosity.

Stands at the sea,

wonders at wondering: I

a universe of atoms

an atom in the universe."

-Richard P. Feynman

Best,

Phil

Nice poem Phil,

....then again as you say everything on scale and powers of ten?;)And this, is where the condense matter theorists come in?:)Or, some Higgs forming view? It finalizes itself then on some sociological "scale of reasoning." Voila:)

"[Geometry is] . . . persued for the sake of the knowledge of what eternally exists, and not of what comes for a moment into existence, and then perishes, ...[it] must draw the soul towards truth and give the finishing touch to the philosophic spirit."Best,

Here is where previous quote comes from.....and why my interest of inscription. You see?

What PI stands for.....not just for what quirks a architect of a institute might of thought to add as his own inflection, but more of what is occupying minds from the perspective of "a depth even greater" then what we as a general public are privy to knowing.

Best,

Removing "space" really isn't the issue. You'd have to remove pretty much all electromagnetic interaction I suppose.

Hi Bee,

You share the sentiments of someone else I'm familiar with respective of such matters or should I say thoughts regarding matter and space. I would caution however that although he enjoyed much success he also took his fair share of lumps as a result of his views:-)

“Thus Descartes was not so far from the truth when he believed he must exclude the existence of an empty space. The notion indeed appears absurd, as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in ponderable bodies. It requires the idea of the field as the representative of reality, in combination with the general principle of relativity, to show the true kernel of Descartes' idea; there exists no space "empty of field".”-Albert Einstein, “Relativity: The Special and the General Theory”, Crown Publishing (fifth edition, 1954)

Best,

Phil

Post a Comment