Interlude
Many modern Grail stories have a root in the early romances of von Eschenbach, who lived from 1170 to 1220. According to the official Templar website, in 1216 von Eschenbach wrote:
They live from a Stone whose essence is most pure. If you have never heard of it I shall name it for you here. It is called Lapsit exillis. By virtue of the Stone the Pheonix is burned to ashes, in which he is reborn.
To von Eschenbach, the Grail was never really a material cup, but a jewel like the jewel in the lotus, a symbol of enlightenment, of something intangible and always beyond reach.
I must confess that the reason I know this is because I'm a bit of an opera fan. The work of von Eschenbach was a source for Wagner. Just the other day I was thinking how nice it would be to hear das Rheingold again, and the beautiful arias of the Faustian Alberich as he curses the gods.
They live from a Stone whose essence is most pure. If you have never heard of it I shall name it for you here. It is called Lapsit exillis. By virtue of the Stone the Pheonix is burned to ashes, in which he is reborn.
To von Eschenbach, the Grail was never really a material cup, but a jewel like the jewel in the lotus, a symbol of enlightenment, of something intangible and always beyond reach.
I must confess that the reason I know this is because I'm a bit of an opera fan. The work of von Eschenbach was a source for Wagner. Just the other day I was thinking how nice it would be to hear das Rheingold again, and the beautiful arias of the Faustian Alberich as he curses the gods.
posted by Kea | 11:24 AM
10 Comments:
In case CV deletes my comment on Scott's Gauntlet, here it is...
Go Scott! He’s onto it.
Sorry Sean, but you’re really losing this battle. The Holographic principle comes from monadic dualities in higher topos theory, which is all about quantum logic. And as for your breakup of matter components - it’s just plain wrong. The dark matter is black holes, which is also understood in terms of quantum computation.
For those who don't know, that's Scott the computer scientist.
11 06 06
OK Kea, now I am getting a better feel for how you think. Usually your posts are quite technical and I havta reread them and the articles you site. But on other sites, your comments are oft cryptic. Since you have left the comments above, I can see a bit of your perspective. Thank you:) Here is a bit that I wrote which leads to some linguistic analysis. You may like it, it is similar to the Mersenne number finger counting post I did:) Have a nice day!
11 06 06
#
Would anyone like to defend a claim that our ability to factor large numbers using a quantum computer contributes as much to our basic picture of the universe as dark energy, or emergent spacetime?
Sean, the quantum computer contributes much more, since DE does not really exist (and even if it did, do you claim to understand it?). As for emergent spacetime - this is where Scott is far more right than he realises….
# Kea on Nov 6th, 2006 at 4:11 am
Sean, it is no coincidence that the Connes who studies the Standard Model is the same Connes who is trying to prove the Riemann Hypothesis. Now the leap from the RH to prime factorisation by a quantum computer might be huge, but you should probably grant that the problems are related.
# Kea on Nov 6th, 2006 at 4:22 am
OK, maybe you don’t agree with that….
# Kea on Nov 6th, 2006 at 4:30 am
Maybe a question for Sean: what is your concept of emergent spacetime?
Kea, I saw your comments but was puzzled by the lack of response to your statements. From what little I have gathered, the thought that dark energy are black holes doesn't seem to be that far fetched. I saw this one show about how black holes really force the topological evolution of our universe in many ways...Your invocation of the Reimann Zeta problem seems to be where all of these answers lie, or where many answers lie. I am starting to see it pop up just about everywhere in various forms. Similarly, your statement about the p-adic computation was quite loaded wasn't it? I need to think about it for a while. But certainly, random number generation in a field of numbers computationally doesn't seem to be that different than the problem posed by trying to use primes to label the toplogy of spacetime.
I hope I don't sound totally wacked here, but I don't get their lack of responses.
11 06 06
Kea, here is a response to your comment before it was deleted:( But the guy brings up good points, what say you?
"# Steinn Sigurdsson on Nov 6th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Enough here: dark matter is almost certainly not black holes - the bounds on the contribution of the cosmological density by quiescent black holes is very strict and far below the observed cosmological density for pretty much any plausible black hole mass.
Bernie Carr reviews this issue every few years and plops down the new constraints, which get tighter each time.
here is a recent discussion on primordial black holes, which includes some useful limits on their density http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0511743
only plausible mass range is ~ 10^16 kg - which is sub-lunar, and requires some amazing fine tuning to produce in such numbers. Don’t know any plausible physics that would make a cosmological density of black holes at that mass.
A more comprehensive review is found in Carr’s 1994 ARAA paper.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1994ARA%26A..32..531C&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
# Cynthia on "
So Sean, if I might repeat my question: when you claim we have gained the insight of emergent spacetime, I would like to know which approach to QG you have in mind. The most promising approaches (even if you mean Strings - black holes a la Kallosh, for example) use categorical ideas at the very core of quantum computation. I fail to see how this is a crackpot statement, and I believe it supports Scott’s argument, even if he is unaware of this new physics.
Don’t know any plausible physics that would make a cosmological density of black holes at that mass.
That does not mean it does not exist. The point is that you may be using the wrong cosmology to analyse the situation. There are alternatives. Sean might prefer to delete any reference to them, but I believe if he was honest he would admit that there are some ‘respectable’ cosmologists (myself naturally not included) working on these alternative ideas
Mahndisa!!
Gee, thanks! You managed to save some comments! I never bother to keep them all, so I'm very grateful. Yes, when one is naturally taciturn (as I am) and labelled a crackpot it is difficult to get anybody to listen to what you say. Can you believe the audacity of Sean? I'm the QG person, talking about QG, and he decides that I don't have anything interesting to say...but it's human nature...he simply cannot bear the thought that his cosmology might be WRONG.
Mahndisa
I don't know if you know, but I have spent a number of years working in a world class cosmology group, and I am quite familiar with the WMAP data and the arguments for the standard picture. So far none of the commenters has said anything even remotely challenging to the new ideas.
11 06 06
Yes Kea:
I have been looking you up for a while now and have seen a bit of work that you have done. I must say that it is highly technical and your approaches are unorthodox, but that is what is so exciting about physics!!!! We cannot evolve in the sciences without pushing the envelope. Frankly, I have no issue with people labelled as so called crackpots, if they can justify their positions. Much of the time, the crackpots are on the cutting edge;)
The people who I consider real crackpots are the ones who cannot justify what they are saying and use sloppy polemics and formalism. Justification can occur from within their framework or without, but it has to have some tie in with reality.
When I read Matti's blog, I am always so pissed off by the lack of comments. He is really onto something, but Wikipedia says that no other physicist understands what he is doing, which is ridiculous.
I am sure you are working on some great insights. And I hope to get a paper out sometime within the next year or so. My biggest issue is narrowing down what I will write about.
Up to this point, I am seeing myself emerge as someone who enjoys mathematical physics immensely, but doesn't want to be relegated only to that discipline. The power in mathphys is that it goes across all disciplines, even language...hehehe
What is the most difficult for people to accept is that everything is really one in the same, and that padic physics can be used to describe protein dynamics all the way to the structure of spacetime. Once we get that integrated approach inside of our heads, we will evolve.
Your defense of Scott's statement was great! It really bothers me that the CV people cannot see that we are all working on one in the same problem, and many of them fail to really understand the jewels of category theory.
I am just now learning a bit on CT, so am not really competent to discuss finer details. However, your comments seem to be spot on.
When you put out your next paper, let me know! And if your school is looking for grad students, let me know too:) heheheh Have a nice week:)
My biggest issue is narrowing down what I will write about.
Oh dear, yes. I'm just dreadful about that, which is why I never seem to publish any papers. When I decide to write something I suddenly think of a million other things I need to say and I can't bring myself to omit them all...anyway, I am hoping to get out a paper soon on the operad amplitudes. Good luck with whatever you're thinking....
Post a Comment
<< Home