Monday, May 3, 2010

Integers & Irrationals as Physical Units

Integers & Irrationals as Physical Units

I am not sure what to make about this idea- if it is of a quality as deep as some I have presented on this blog. But it did occur to me from reading Rowlands on the idea in some articles that the Background radiation could represent the measure after all of the aether and light- Rowlands arguments presented to a young mind as if a statement of the facts would have made quite an impression on me as a younger man- I mean, what we first encounter in science let alone religion leaves an imprint hard to change. Texts do not always present things with a caveat to keep an open and doubting mind- then again who else is the judge of some program or agenda but those who do original and fundamental research for their PhD's? Considering the post yesterday one wonders if in our higher thinking, if that does indeed model the design of a universe, is ultimately dependent upon the struggle of our bodies and environment as a theory and not some absolute grounding in mathematics.

Now, let us say there is one unit- I mean the measure is not the issue says Rowlands in this continuity of things- then let us say the minimum unit or even the general idea of an integer unit- is Unity or one, one that moreover is a product of the finite and infinite. Say it applies to some scale of degrees- obviously the background radiation is close to three degrees of a unit- why not Pi degrees as with any irrational difference of things and random things (which from the article yesterday is thought possibly physical?) In any case pi comes up everywhere and as trigonometry in the equations of the particle physics.

So, how can there be a background radiation if there is no Big Bang, is it sort of a minimum? Hoyle suggested it is retransmission of iron whiskers in space as one candidate. But it is a great question. Why cannot a pure number be involved in a dynamics of scale and an evolving or seeming to evolve universe? The inertial and the light speed difference in Rowlands foundations reads to me as if a fact or at least a deep view to consider. He has a quote where no relativists has shown how the light arrives not at the same angle as the gravitational influences. Does not light somehow mysteriously without mass react to the gravitational field?

But we know the wave itself is faster than the signal speed of light- and Rowlands suggests in the infinite speed or indefinite speed of gravity as inertia moon that there is an algebraic difference and one we can see indirectly at least physical evidence- that the non-local information is carried by the gravity even if it could have a form relativistically which would move at light velocity.

If in a sense c is taken to be a unity and especially if it relates to the minimum scale then pi x c would in a sense be the wave train which might say in this weird to me idea that the global concert cannot be less than pi (or binary multiples of it in some cases) so there is a sort of inertial zero region, a minimum quasized pixel of sorts. I do not feel continuity the reason when things are broken down for the discreteness of space, the quantization of mass and charge for example but the geometry and arithmetic are part of the quasi symmetry breaking by quasication and the issue of conservation is not clear even if one says it cannot meaningfully go less than some area pixel space, sphere or flat, to a state of scaleless and thereby dimensionless unity. Such a total dependence on conservation implies a constant and a global pixel idea of an indefinite by limited scaling.

So, imagine then we are supported from the very small as if we are tied to the atoms by a rope without end- and that we hang as does the moon- that moon that some say have magical effects at the new moon but the effect is delayed and measureless when the pendulum is confused where the planets are in syzygy aligned- If we in the center and with our own meso scale of intelligible unity think in terms of the endless truth of relativity or the endless truth of the quantum theory- why is it in our sense of a unifying theory we think we can tie the outer ends of that rope together? We imagine it intellectually and perhaps not by our physical processes alone nor by some disembodied consequence merely the consistency of thought (surely this is the simple theme of this unexpectedly long winded post which may indeed originate from my body more than my brain and dreams)

But if as the article yesterday on the mind suggests aliens being of a different body would not comprehend certain languages and ideas as say each of us do (would we understand the lion if he could speak Wittgenstein? Can I expect the Mediterraneans to understand my sort of Polar physics? The do not drink milk - nor I their's for even in the math it seems there is no universal code or language?) I dont expect anymore an understanding from those somehow closed off from a wider academic and intellectual, creative and compassionate universe- if indeed we can magically touch and be intelligible to each other.

* * *

Facebook thought posted:
L. Edgar Otto Unifying physics is like holding to an endless anchor toward the very small and kept from falling by a rope endlessly reaching to the large sky- and trying to tie those ends together.

* * *

I almost thought this small and trivial idea not worthy of posting or immediate posting but in a way it is an example of the frontier of things, the ground of what it is to be interested and sentient of the depths of physis. If we can say the measure of an idea is how close it comes to nothing- and such an abstract idea of nilpotency in a sense creates the universe then why not a long winded post that vanishes into the nothingness? Add to this that such nilpotency in a sense is thought also infinite-potency potentially (that is the flipping of zero and infinity on a Riemann sphere) then what are we measuring, what are we reasoning? Will the simple idea stand up in reflection. If we are as the article says I act therefore I am- then perhaps the pragmatists were on to something after all as a viable aternative to learning methods and philosophy and the abstract is still a distant realm, a sort of secondary illusion. Again, there is debate on this level of which at the creation of this blog the issue of dark fluid came up as to the dark matter and the dark energy, evidence aside and speculations as to scales predicted, that these on some (vanishing?) level are the same thing or have the same origin? Thus I have the feeling there is something more going on here of practical foundations we still have to ponder and explore- It helps when we grasp this problem in the interpretation of significant dreams intimate with them if they be on that borderline between our social connections and sense of our own unique selves and language or genetic design- that outside or inside us perhaps. Still, from a reckoning standpoint our labeling or naming of things is part of the equation and turning zero into infinity over some unity or plurality does not on the face of it change the chriality as if a solenoid (or does it?) I intuit then the double zero less than nothing and what is left in the rationality an idea to which if you understand nothing of what I have said you too understand the humanity and the theory or at least the need for further creative and sober enquiry.

Surely such a quasic arrangement as the accompanying illustration assumes we have a commensurability, here dividing unity into the continuity by one 64th. Yet could we not work it the other way, start with the irrational and derive the discrete in these wonderful grids that say a lot on a single page for viewing? Perhaps these thoughts did arise from the subconscious level meaning in a sense the physical design that somehow stands on some sort of unit at a distance from what magic we fancy is that in the space of our mind and head.

* * *

Later that night at the coffee shop (the nucleus cafe):

I had a thought that this idea could be rather useful after all- in a sort of global relativist way...we can locate a number to any degree of accuracy and consider motions between those on the same quasic state level (if not other inter dimensional motions) on a flat plane with an origin of sorts in the counting, a sort of a relative zero concept.

The question then as to what constitutes a number, like an irrational number in some space (that is a natti point which would as finite would be duplicated a zillion times in a sea of singularities along the lines of finite copies of ourselves so many atoms away- also it is the sound of one hand clapping as a Dedikind cut as the linear is a limit like property located in a relativist epsilon delta dialectic of two space. I am not sure what this could be used for but I think there could be applications for things like number theory as the quasic grid already converts by positional notation several bases of number systems. If it is total in scope one wonders if we can really say as far as digits in the depth of the grid we really could generate short of the evolving to infinity numbers by shift of digits not in the list of countable irrational numbers- or is there a sort of quasic digital proof or method going on here? This may be one case where the application of a theory in the abstract may be said to encompass the universe as we do seem to imagine such theories until we see a greater hill over the horizon- until we feel that perhaps there is some sort of ultimate omega again- albeit actually on all scales and everywhere. What else would explain the mirror effect of the process of our dreams and our daydreams?

No comments:

Post a Comment