## Tuesday, March 23, 2010

### Cloverleaf Mazes and Labyrinths in the Quasic Model

Cloverleaf Mazes and Labyrinths in the Quasic Model

Perhaps one of the first and oldest principles that lead to the quasic model, here what happens on the boundaries between the cells in the grid presumed to be connected that as in the pieces of a chess game they move through the rim or flanges. So in a sense all the surfaces of such an entity are instantaneously connected as if one could walk on the surface of the earth to say the moon. This is a deep question of connectivity and continuity. I owe the general hint to my father when I asked how the electrons "know" to relate to the protons and what caused them to emit the light. He said stuff happening inside the atom causes the things to happen on the outside. This view is more of a quantum one where what happens in such a space is like the particles negotiating a maze just as in a more general relativity view of the "pressure" and zero "density" of things there are no such connections at a distance of ideal infinite speed save spooky action at a distance. There is only maze of looping and not labyrinth. Yet both general spaces can result in even a classical dynamics of chaos and directed time, that is time that we observe directed and not explain.

Yes an electron spins and has a magnetic field- but considering the magnetism of an atom depending mysteriously on the number and spin of electrons on the shell it would seem a more simply physical and unified model of electromagnetism is needed. From some mirror world we could imagine the monopole as coextensive with an electron or simply the circles and lines in quasic and projective space reversed such that we have say an imaginary mirror image.

Now sense we imagine we can go out in lines, Riemann style, to "infinity" and thus imagine coming back again to make the star polytopes with density of the intersection- we can also imagine a more general and directed net of such densities. We can imagine in particular isolated five fold regions like quasi-crystals, a wider application of the non-euclidean tessellations, and depending on the entry or exits of a maze or layering the probabilities involved in intervals of particle decay and time and initial conditions.

Any purely quantum or general relativistic model fails to be a complete description of the world when it reaches the fundamental theorem of calculus of this model for who can say what going outside or inside is conserved relative to the totality and things in the totality when some of it needs explanation not by a mere sea of merging forces and parts or sea of holes but a total integration from an independent aspect of space upon the zero solutions in the topology and complex plane of what, given a world conceivably of ultimate decay and dissipation, are independent entities themselves- as if everywhere self collapsing principles are scaled and correspond to independent spins and dances of that which sees only the positive in the small to make unexplained connections derived from small networks and twists.

It should be a small matter to put this sort of thing into the proper mathematics which utilize better the omnic principle of zero, one, and infinity whatever side of the intervals one is on. Is this not obvious? Certainly if we can begin to understand the genome in its complexity this in no harder a model- but we cannot just separate the idea of inter-atomics as a separate study of what goes on in the organic world on higher levels of matter organization-that we find things not any more complex and the genome for example more intelligible. Let us say for example that the dna spiral is indeed an interval between the outside and inside of the space grids and as finite is a loxidrome Riemannian spiral in two directions and this preferred shape in nature certainly is a length with ends like a chromosome.

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

You make me wonder with this, where the term "infinity" itself has to be put in quotations, if it is impossible to solve. Intentionally, from a supreme being. Or, infinity is an outdated notion.

ReplyDeleteDear Anon,

ReplyDeleteAn ideal projective point at "infinity" do we reach it ever. And if this projective idea is the limits of our physical world would not infinity as you seem to use it mean but the face of God and not necessarily the Creator?

Yes, infinity is like the sign merely "potential infinity." There are many others and the same question of logic if there is a final one or ultimate one.

It is possible to solve and in better ways than we are doing now (as someone said the finite takes longer) but would not a supreme being in our best imaginations be somehow outdated to merely think of one as infinity?

I hope I have understood your state of mind on this, comment and possible question. I did mean the quotations show how things are so out of date compared to all the new physics including the quantum ideas.