Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Man in the Moon has no Palm Prints
The Man in the Moon has no Palm Prints
The moon is not there if we don't see her
but it is not there because we are looking at her
Cassandra at her vanity is full of pocks and wrinkles
but the Man in the Moon has weathered palm prints
While the donkey in his tranquil bliss brays and
talks of pictures of top spinners and bottom dwellers
Who can say, in her freedoms and Gibbous phases, image in
our earth shine there is but one moon seen or not?
The moon through my child's eyes and jittery powerful telescope
is full of all the prism's crystal colors, one slit its spectrum
Yet only one moon rules the night, follows me and hangs firm
no matter how far I walk or fast I run towards home
Like light of a thousand fireflies at once, equal, so hot the summer night
the more I bask and gaze, her classical moonbeams super cool colliding
evaporates her quantum weirdness we sculptors of one theory
That is why time moves and we see one same face spin of Love to
wax and wane, empty full, she the one halo rainbow of my lifetime
* * *
Note: I have begun to question some of Dirac's assumptions he made in establishing the quantum theory and just what it means to limit science to experiment- that is
the more data we receive from the LHC at high frequencies the more we reach for in its self fulfilling prophesy the unified yet classical theory of everything- at least of everything we are content as scientist to see.
* * *
Another thing on my mind today, concerning the stated need to see things in the quantum world a little differently than the classical world- Dirac's clear emphasis on the nature of superposition as a radically different idea, and his axiom that we should establish a form of measure, that such observables is the scientific part of the enquiry, and the integral number of things in that observing which approaches the classical in matters of scale and so on- I disagree that some of the formalism has to be expanded into values that have to have some positive value and not just be zero. I also question that the bra (in the conjugate imaginary and conjugate complex interpretations) should be assumed to be a one to one and not many to one relationship to the ket.
But at which point does a new scientist become distinct from his predecessors? I mean did not Weyl try to combine the quantum ideas and group theory? Did not Einstein establish the quanta nature of light with his work force equations? If Dirac uses the complex numbers and trig and log formalism from the algebra at the foundations are we not limited thing of which the higher groups expand the ideas of space and freedoms and symmetry and asymmetry of division after the fact of some minimum positive dimensionality? Einstein said he believed the moon was there even if he did not see it- but do not the quantum ideas suggest it could be otherwise?
Rowlands powerful idea is that we are on one side of what we can see in the universe so see the positive values of matter and so on and say nothing really observable about the values of things beyond the observable on the other side. Yet does this not happen that we approach the classical the more data or number of photons we have on the other side of a crystal in its 1 or 0 all or nothing orthogonality and its probabilistic generalization? In this sense there is a parallel to Rowlands idea in that the higher energy where particles share the degrees of freedom equally and the more data we accure practically from say that microscope and resolution into the past viewer of our atom smashers- do we not load the dice for the integration of our experiment and by the raw principle of science as empiricism and experiment, despite the intrinsic indeterminacy, actually build a machine that makes the data classical and flat- the proof this side of all that is not negative vacua that our physics is so grounded- that we may say at last we have found this or that complete and unified theory of everything or God's language or God particle but from a more physical and earthly stance?
Dirac reads in the original, and we should always go tot he original source and not just the spin of alternative interpretations, as if a stated text of facts with the usual caveats and remarks toward some philosophic point at issue (for example what Rowlands quoted of Newton on this issue of if there is internal complexity beneath some opaque boundary of a zero point- my colors and supersymmetries within the moon and the old argument also in Buddhism that two spheres do not touch or know they do if they are opaque and atomic without an infinite or large regress of substructures.
Newton wrote his Principia in Latin, the formal tongue already centuries a dead languge and he presented things with Geometry and not his use of the calculus. Yes, Rowlands points out the Leibnizan space differentials and the Newtonian time and this an interplay of the quaternions and multivectors in a unified system of these higher but not highest groups symmetric and asymmetric structures. Yes we can exchange things based on the dualities, yes we can imagine fractional charges with all the problems that has for a general theory, but let us not forget that if we merely think of the Cantorian continuum as aleph1 in contrast to the particle nature as aleph 0, that we also can for sure declare 2 to the nth equal to a continuum. But the idea of numbers, surreality more fundamental or not, or in the raw counting of things including the natural dimensions the so called hook functions of partition theory at least on the low levels of Ramanujan primes, that perhaps the geometry and arithmetic are in a sense a foundational center that at least depending on our symbol systems is equally real and important as the abstract.
One day maybe, in the living language, despite the debate as to if there is a universal language or even a private language, we in the blogosphere with the informal writing will do for science what many have done to lecture in the vulgate and so speak in retrospect linguistic reform brought down to and made accessible to a wider group of people.
* * *
I also did this recreational artistic math where particles change information states:
* * *
* * *
I has been said (Scientific American some time back) that our fingerprints and other such patterns reflect certain things in our genetics- maybe intuitively this is the sense in some people that palmistry may have and intelligible basis- yes, the partial truth that seems evidence for the incomplete and unseen lie, perhaps.
* * *