Sunday, April 18, 2010
Sharing Scientific Wisdom
Sharing Scientific Wisdom
I received a reply from Professor Rowalands which makes a statement on science of which I am in very much agreement so I thought it fitting to post it here.
* * *
Of course, you should pursue your ideas wherever they take you and not be concerned what I or anyone else may think of them. I have been involved in business meetings in London most of this week and have not had much time to reflect about these matters. In the immediate future, I will be writing new papers and organizing a number of conferences – I have quite a bit of catch up to do in this area. I would stress that what I and my colleagues are doing is a programme based on fundamental abstract principles that lead to developments which can be expressed in largely mathematical form but whose sole justification is their correspondences with the real world. We are certainly not opposed to speculation, but regard it solely as a means to producing more rigorous conclusions, using the accepted principles of scientific method, which, in many cases, we believe we have achieved. There is a logical structure driving the work which is revealed both in Zero to Infinity and in the many detailed papers that we have written. People who read our work need to realise that it is written in that spirit, and that a great deal of it has been presented to our colleagues in scientific conferences and published in scientific journals. A great deal of it is compatible with orthodox thinking, and we are not particularly interested in attacking orthodoxy. I would urge people who want to understand the work in Zero to Infinity and related papers to pay close attention to the detail. It is really significant to the meaning.
* * *
I also noticed an article today in thereferenceframe blogspot about and astronomer in Chapel Hill which seems to me to reach similar conclusions to Rowlands foundational view as my own (although I am independently and outsider to such wisdom) but there are minor disagreements. Apparently we are all converging on the same overview and for me I did not think physics was that simple as to be based on geometry, dimensionality or what have you- thus, as an amateur I have come to realize that maybe after all my physics is as good and up to date and orthodox and any of it out there. But we all give lip service to the community of science for the world and the use of various media like the internet today to share wisdom for the betterment of the world and not for some question of power and control by some arbitrary agenda. Maybe what I am is an illusion as surely as the astronomer from Chapel Hill argues there is only two dimensions in our hologram- and yet my encounter with Rowlands gives me a feeling that I can hold my own with my heroes and giants- that as I told the service interview upon completion I planed to be a high energy physicists and they laughed at it- said I could not do that- so I said poet and they laughed then I said put down Hippie and finally he said I will put down you are going to school. Well I never went to school and I did not become a hippie but I have kept up the interest in physics and have written a lot of poetry. I also dearly love Chapel Hill and regard it as my home base.
I think Rowlands ideas on thermodynamics and holograms are closer to the facts. In particular from his reference footnotes the idea that due to the fine structure constants in relation to say 136 there can be what I call quasi-nonlocality. Now this is a difficult concept but does relate to the quantanglement issue and that of what we think about the overall picture of space. In general though, we can find a casual or unique sequence of concrete things but the math may not tell us of other solutions and this is true in many geometric forms. Now the Dirac formalism can apply also to models of types of grounding space and that we assume a type theory logically gives not concreteness fundamentally to such models applied. I could I suppose but I dont see how in the overall picture of a creative 3+1 universe.
The issue of dark matter is either an important one or it is not but an incomplete idea- for me it is as if we have another notation of say fractions and division to worry about needed much like we need to get around dividing things up like cooling with logs and exponents. We need also do use the notation and find better formulas for things like the double factorials for the group effects of powers of two in the sense of duality or viriality as Rowlands means them.
Then again all this could be a human element of boredom saturation with some thought or perception and the central idea of Desire. Desire can go up or down, uppers and downers to a good or bad hallucinogenic trip of the basic emotions as described by Spinoza to limitless Joy or Sorrow. We see by the mathematics of the infinite that the powers of two may in a sense exceed the continuum as a continuum while the continuum itself as if say a dimension less is not a strong foundation for a continuum with certainty.
I in my forum posting used terms like the idea of dark matter-energy, or what I called in some sense opaque matter or energy- and the logo of this blog is some idea or analog to dark fluid. It is as hard to reduce the idea of dark matter out of a need for the fundamental physics decisively as to neutralize the idea of consciousness as say the ground for quantum theory.
I would like to add that all three of us question the need for gravons- interestingly all our intelligibility could fail together should any be found- maybe there is some sort of quasi-nonlocality that shows such effects.
I thought my genetics ideas would be welcomed with grateful hands by the general community since my open policy was to share everything and that these ideas would be useful and important. Well, it is not my loss and philosophically perhaps there is enough time for us to solve other things before we explore the stars- nevertheless the stars I explored in my lifetime I would not be discouraged to reach for and wait.
L. Edgar Otto Eau Claire WI
O, Sweet Universe !
I plucked you from the wall my flower
You let no one cut into our dance
I counted the starlight of our freckles
I submitted and led through your milky ways
The rolled over despite the missteps
The fact of bond and faith, the dress rehearsals
That I would not disturb the kiss and path of seeds
Alighting on chance wind and taking chances
We knew not how but were the authors of our dances
You slept in the teddy bear of clouds in your
Own world and wake I followed down your vague desires
I could not know your pathology of lies were the
Work of the lesser demon tempting me to
Risk my soul and all the god game's garden
My poems once all about you become about myself after all
You as we who doubt but will not give up Love's illusions
Want the what-if''s of more than meets our tattooed eyes
That or your mascara runs, your color grows cold, we old
You beside me made of clay and formaldehyde. I but echo ghost
Find in your cloud of dispersing ash and gritty inert sand our dance and
Desires begin, transcends again as I touch your freckles full of starlight
* * *