Friday, March 19, 2010

Real and Imaginary Space and Time DeGaussed

Real and Imaginary Space and Time Degaussed

I would be remiss if I did not emphasize the role of probability as part of the picture. The bell curve as fundamental to the analysis; the integration under it over infinity as unity; the role of pi and computation of fractional and imaginary factorials; the direct analogy between expectation and variance to position and moment of inertia of things only measured accurately by their differences, of estimations that act for a resolving of better regions and areas to some degree of finiteness of samples- and so on to state our view of the quantum ground and what beyond the event horizons -as some grid of fuzzy zero point energy concept- on any scale is the nature of structural design, the normalization or super-normalization of some ideas of physis and number.

Perhaps, assuming we can have someplace as a path or orbit of singularity as if a meridian, some place outside of the questions of the uncertainty of location and momentum, that that grid where the phanerons or brane have different and physically real fundamental densities of the energy and geometry where they come to the big bang or reverse big bang at a black hole to extend maximally the laws of relativity but perhaps not beyond, that this grid and value and flat constant pi to base the curvature upon, is on the equator of such a complex but seemingly bounded finite area of space plane, some form of the Bell curve- and intersection of such curves. Buffon's needle may say a lot about our ideas of resonance and minimum distance to any scale including Planck and so on- but such wave ideas as probability are not a complete theory to describe what seems to some an enduring ground of consciousness so it also fails to ground the idea of what a universe or particle is for all things are not necessarily magnetic with respect to some reference frame interpretation.

The quantum world needs not be mystical. But we should do better educating the general public about the origins in the mathematics of where some of these ideas come from that sound hard to comprehend while the methods as if our consciousness were a differential machine spewing out sets of equations can be done quite extensively and mechanically without the simple creative understanding. At the top of the branches of mathematics the most diverse ideas seem to approach a common view of things that have connections- bridges between mountaintops of the disciplines.

For me forgive me if I have not crossed smoothly without a bridge from mountain to mountain but rather sunk into the valleys in some pointless zero sum- I mean we do not need the leveling socially as much as we need the specialization- if I showed excellence in science it was not encouraged nor even acknowledge so as some of my other social studies would not suffer- I mean I have persisted but I have been fought and held back all along the way. I have tried not to do this to others when I have such position and not to deface the mountain in the climb.

* * *

I would like to add, a few hours later, that in the debates on Zeno in the old philosophychatforum and the dalnet philosophy- that the idea of bare black holes that is black holes have no hair- that the meaning of his paradox is that two points at a certain distance remain at that distance- I read about this again in new scientist and had read about in a book of philosophy given to me by the nickname No_reason to the effect the matter was not as settled as some argued on those channels. But clearly I propose by quasics something more fundamental that the quantum formulation and more general that the relativist compass for the background of the universe.

The flags also indicate the idea of lines and a point to those lines in some sort of vector space or that of Pure Euclidean and so on. Certainly, the difference from a probability standpoint of the Gaussian curve meridians I intuitively found as that of the difference between holographic and fractal models. And that is where it stands for awhile. After all a prime is either 4n + 1 or 4n - 1 is it not?

No comments:

Post a Comment