Saturday, April 24, 2010
Viswanath's Constant and Creative Thermodynamics
Viswanath's Constant and Creative Thermodynamics
I visited Astronomy Picture of the Day today and recalled the point I had forgotten in my last post due to an interruption of my compose in real time train of thought.
As today's article explains there are some unusual halos around some galaxies recently observed. Apparently just as our search for origins was said to be the sweet fruit juice of our explorations- we interested in what seems a beginning as if viewing further we arrive at some big bang- that ten billion years or so ago there was a significant time or phase change of the overall universe. Note this concerns things like quasars. I show in the illustration in simplified color the extent of such a "box". Of course the explanation offered is the material mixing and influence of other galaxies presumably from smaller ones given time to evolve into the current shapes.
Now the thing I forgot- in that I did mention the representations of a mirror surface as embedding a multiplicity of mirror symmetries in one surface, let us say calyptic symmetries, was the old Buddhist question of the divisibility of space that argued two spheres could not be broken down because as a unity the parts would have influence on each other- thus no further reduction of said spheres. To this I add Rowlands quote from Newton on similar reasoning from a solid space of at most one mirror, that is as if the filled but thin negative vacuum would be say the monopoles from one "external" view. Certainly an atom is a chiral dynamic thing like this as are the shells of things like stars- why not then the dark or opaque matter like things to some constant point as the disc or box as a creative thermodynamic limit analogous in the momentum eating and distribution to the energy that comes from the stars over the long time frame in its apparently random walk of a photon constantly exchanged. Hoyle said (I think it was he) that the time from such a photon from the center of a star was comparable to big bang time past.
The point of such a constant (not so of the neutrinos postulated to spawn a nova but which if they change generations may that way delay or stop such a possibility) is that the random things do reach a pattern of determinism to some level of accuracy but only to the 100th power of a Fibonacci generated series by a coin toss of negative and positive numbers (the neutral information of the same toss would at least contain the golden ratio as a convergence). The point is that the discoverer using fractals presumably complex analysis (I should google this rather than just use the Phi book data or my head) ignored the sign of the numbers generated which for me is one way to see some spaces as Cartesian. Again, there is a lot of rounding off and use of the five fold roots and so forth. In quasic creative space we need a modified view of thermodynamics but the limits as the Quantum Carnot Engine is a boundary that should be there because of such dynamically expressed constants in nature, at least to some states of the global macro evolution involved in greater degrees of freedom with the properties lost but not of the algebraic space itself. Where is the need and the measure of ignorance inductively for a world of a pure random thermodynamic or statistics? How does this relate to the Bell Inequality tests? If such a boundary as with any contour boundary becomes expressed as a physical and literal representation what might we do deal with potentials and energy questions of this sort of state of creative and quasic quantized space? Perhaps it contrains the projective generations beyond the charting of chiral paths such that of so many spatial dimensions seen of those possible we all share the same restrictions in our immediate shared spaces with of course the mixed generational information where one simple result is in vibrating things circular determined by linkage of doubly linear things we find the result or even illusion of ellipses beyond and overlapping the circles especially in flat hexagonal (complex) space.
Intuitively the dimensionless constants like F89 or 136+ are part of such a dynamic evolving thermodynamic and thus here holographic principled boundary.
Interestingly thereferenceframe.blogspot discusses the ten fold focus of the LHC and I remind readers there is the illusion of passing distance in a quasar that the light might appear to be tenfold faster (wonder if this is where star trek gets warp ten?)
* * *
Later that afternoon- I have not raised the issues as creative philosophy as in the remaking of the self and world or if we have an essence or not- or as an artificial or natural language we do or do not all arrive at commensurate knowledge? Does philosophy exist? Are things relative or absolute or under some agenda in this polemic age do we find the opposite? Is determinism really the objective agenda under relativity and quantum flux? I will let the philosophers also deal with my terminology- more as a poet that license and the usual third way to deal with both sides of modernism who see the other as irrational or who will or will not accept the relative inputs of many views. In that sense my apparently scinetific approach banned from the science forum and my philosophic approach even banded from that forum into poetic blog heaven and odds and ends along with the sort of logic discussed- the marriage of science and philosophy chat is a strange animal and one that on philosophy early one merged epistemology and metaphysics.
By this standard, if the LHC discovers nothing objective or remotely so as a matter of reasoning and experiment perhaps they will prove after all the basis of reasoning and philosophy is the relativist post-modernism and existentialist views and even failed embedding in the cultural era and division of those immigrants from the future engaged in learning as a grounding of living as the point of Marx to change the world not comprehend it. But then again the lack of an aether did not shift all the world into a foundation of decisive cultural relativism and it too undermined positivist or at least scientific humanism in that hopeful era of an agenda of at least a common language of peace. But again, the terms in their cautious profusion are my own and my explorations also intuitive and independent if one tries to sort it out from some philosophic view. For those on one side of the duality in our development and learning they can miss the tradition of things and also from objective utility with perhaps a desire for completeness as a sort of self deception of the useful and truly new on the frontiers or fringe of science. Certainly what is science and philosophy coexist as if to merge at some level of the foundations and in principle there can be more than we understand of our minds. Or maybe not in some post alphanumeric age and post economic age for I find myself outside of both areas in the debate- and as we know Plato did not like the poets- I mean they are a threat to both the church and the state, so are the radicals and the dabblers in sorcery. Philosophy as real living is much like Whitman or Thoreau perhaps Darwin away from women his boyish adventure and deep innuendo dreams reduced perhaps to the skirt of his beloved she barnacles. Thoreau as getting his education from his Harvard and Yale- the right and the other whale on his ship risking the hardships before the mast.