## Monday, April 19, 2010

### The Fog In the Blog

The Fog In the Blog L. Edgar Otto

Sometimes I feel strongly that all the big words and abbreviations of the shared language of the string theorists are so much philosophy and hardly any science at all. In fact it looks like an incomplete understanding or partly understood mathematics. I think the problem in this fog of speculation is one more of the way we set up, have evolved, and done our mathematics than problems with science or philosophy per se. The issue is same old issue of the ghost of departed quantities at the foundation of the calculus and the still open issue of zero and the idea of limits that from a general view can be also seen to resolve this open issue. Is math platonic or not?

The reference frame blog today has another foggy presentation in big words that is really not a clear and certainly not a breakthrough comprehension of these string issues. The things said will in the main be seen as cleaver but embarrassingly less than a clear headed philosophic or scientific intelligibility. I can see parts of these authors theories that assert things which do not match or are relevant to each other so do not need to match- or are downright contradictory.

One issue is the nature of space and of course the inverse square law or in general some attitude toward the quadratic and non-linear. Newton held that the square of the small quantities vanished! The Euler formula in the illustration was mentioned in Rowlands book as having the Diracian symmetry 3 + 1 formalism. Let us recall that this is a formula that combines the algebra and the geometry of things. The quaternions are on one hand an algebra while the same sort of holon reduction can be seen as a geometry. Clearly it takes two natural dimensions to invoke the ideas loved by algebraist of the imaginary (so called by Descartes) numbers. It is not so clear that this sort of information can be done by one or no dimensions nor that from one side or the other of the geometry algebra equation some authors get things or choose to get some things backwards.

Euler has been said to make mistakes but if one looks carefully it may turn out his was not the mistakes involved in deciding what is summed to zero or infinity or one or whatever, even a third when one has an overview of more advanced fundamental analysis.

Again, set theory verses the integer idea as given and not the work of mans imagination gone awry- if zero and all or infinity are interchanged via the ideas of the complex plane and projective geometry of Riemann then the irrational numbers being all, or the zero probability of integers for example, is not an absolute condition of some type hierarchy of dimensions,time, entropy or space. What then determines when and if things are nilpotent (does anyone begin to see the fog here?)

Again, one man's ghosts of departed quantities is another man's quantities of departed ghosts- in my metaphors I show the consequences of thinking and ask to what limit do you limit such thinking- quarks, space, the trinity, and so on?

Anyway it was a boring day for physics thinking yesterday for me and any great new ideas if sensed at all seem rather far away to start from scratch and do I want to begin such a journey again?

But the dream of last night was interesting- the old 136 and all that but also the 89 as it related to the Fibonacci numbers- being the 11th one (but significantly in the dream I read the 11 as a binary two in the sense 2 x 2= 4 and 11 x 11 = 121 and x2 +2xy + y2... This could have a germ of an idea.

I also wondered if we can have a unique sequence from a list- then again list or not and independent of numbers or not (how I wish the primes were clearer but they may not exactly be this side of the hologram)in the quasic ordering of things. And that is a new principle apparently none of the physicists have yet understood in the complete sense of it.

* * *

I did have a passing thought about what some thing it is all about with things like naked singularities in GR and other point discontinuities in QM as having the same resolution if we find a description of reality. But the string theory as much like the idea of a ring or event horizon does not really solve it by some sort of sanctification thus a cosmic censor that rather keeps things away from such singularities. The string particles are of necessity ideal Lines not tubes! And the zero at a point is not some sort of minimum vacuum energy that may eat the solar system in theory from the LHC but it highly improbable. In fact what happens when we go into the black hole like creative object where the values do not stretch out again as if there is no inside to make the stages of things like plasma and preon quark and neutron stars and so on overwhelming Pauli exclusion and this the whole presumably fermion creation black hole particle tachyonic process of creation as an explanation of astronomical evolution.

White holes and so on as some sort of higher space changes of sign- all the fog but cleaver fog- for me it is not just a quantum thing the structure inside such creative objects or quasions- the hologram idea is a consequence of quasics not a combination of dimensionality of lesser dimensions that determine the freedom or not of the greater dimensions or vice versa as a quantum object on one side or the other. Such an object is a quasic object and one that reaches for the abstract and subtle ideas of a quasizied space. And yes, perhps more- for in the end the algebra as a defrag in one than one way is a geometry as an integration in more than one way on either side.

But other than exceeding the topology of distance and the issues of acceleration seen or limited or not- is this not the same old gain or loss of information of the constants (including dimensionless ones?) when perhaps the rules and laws of that information the universe doing its code and laws by differentiation not just an empirical only addition or lost into some sort of quantum or even Casmir fog.

* * *

I have doubts about the string concept of compact dimensions based on just complex or natural topology. Even the so called holes in the Cab-yau surfaces can be not observable nor influential in string vibration nor need we such a foggy hypothesis to explain particle generations. Nor is the Clifford algebra structure primary in an infinite sense despite its finite counterparts of discreteness. All of this can be done simply and certainly beyond three or four dimensions with the quasic idea. Otherwise in a variegated universe of such string possibilities what are the particles quantumly the same or the generations over some extension uniform?

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## No comments:

## Post a Comment