Saturday, July 31, 2010
Eleven Dimensions and the Eighteen Faced Deltahedron ;& (PentaConway)
*0 - Quasi-centered or Quasi-extended Quasi-continuity.
*0.1 - In a greater space structure level, the linear and circular abstract motions being interchangeable, creation of mass inertial structures may appear in the lesser space as linear. (For example the ideas of a global compass for aether wind and non-anisotropic cosmic rays)
*0.2 - Such linear inertial wind may add mass and energy to created particles including ejected structures (as if from spherical shells) like stars or said rays.
*1 - Consider the 12 deltahedron dipyramidal pentahedra placed on a dimple of five triangles on a dimpled dodecahedron as if a rhombic triacontahedron of 60 faces.
*2 - The investigation of polyhedral structures used to elucidate "physics as the primary notion" applied in turn elucidates the ever wider discipline to explore of the fine points of such structures.
* 1.0 - The 12th face may be a self-dual null Dihedron. 60-5 = 55, can there be a dihedron with one face and no volume as if half vacuum?
*2.1 - My error was to feel the triangles of the 10hedron as opposite and not rather a decagonal state of things not between like subcells of a polyhedron (the triangles of this unusual symmetric are opposite edges). Thus
*2.1 - The spiraling of them as 5 and 10 fold in DNA (see Peter Rowlands) makes some sense- but in the study of ten tetrahedra in a compound as a symmetric higher dimensional shadow the elucidated structures of the applied algebra matching have deeper significance.
*3 - The cycle alpha,beta,gamma,delta,epsilon of the 10deltahedron in a sense is spiral globally by four ways of density (5 over 2) as if magnetism 2,6,10,14... of electron shells in an atoms so as 10deltrahedra we can imagine electrons as spinning dipoles (of which the quadrapole idea is an intrinsic joint property of total quantum descriptions.)
*4- 11 points for the 18deltahedron (non-existant but can be a loose near approximate strucure in the usual surface sense) collaspe into a symmetry state or can be a description of it as the potential of a broken one while the abstract expressions-motions.
*5- In mammal cells 2 to the 5th or 32 is the beginning of embryonic uniqueness as one organism.
*6- Verbs and Nouns as well as Consonants and Vowels are on opposite sides of the brain as far as linguistic and handedness notions matter for symbolic and material structures.
*7- Imagine a null (but spinning or chiral) Petrie polygon(ie equator of some higher dimensional structure) as a glue or place of interactions as half or double 10deltrahedra.
*8- Over or between null Petrie polygons two 10Dh of the same color matching (ie quasi-contiguity) may be imagined to attract or repel and this may be the reason for the observed ideas of spin.
*10- All things have opposites yet nothing does- the resolution of these notions and mathematical inconsistency is the heart of new ideas for physics and mathematics.
Friday, July 30, 2010
* * * [I think I made an error here in the illustration coloring the cubes but will check on them later because of tired eyes... but you have the gist of this method of symmetry classification. In a sense the use of color here is very abstract as if the cubes are an elaborate notation rather than something we feel we can physically hold and feel close to in our world- much like that era of crystallographers who always felt a kinship with even the ball and stick models on their desk.]
Cube Representation of the Pentagonal Dipyramid
Yesterday I looked for a better cube representation than I had which required imagining things in four space. (As if the pentagonal symmetry in three space were not hard enough to visualize, but I finally understood the significance of the drawings in Rowlands book.)
I computed the 121 bi and mono colors for labels of the axial pairs in the models of the five and ten stacked dimensions- which Rowlands points out may apply to DNA alternative stackings. Indeed, in 1967 after reading Klein's The Icosahedron and Equations of the Fifth Degree and having a small model I made of DNA hanging from the ceiling I immediately envisioned the flow along the structure as if an icosahedron and tried to relate the 20 sidedness- yet we also have to consider topological properties of the 24ness of which mapping into the cube with the five or ten tets and cubes possible seems to do.
One thing for sure is that the quintic spaces are not to be considered broken as symmetry nor as trivial. In a sense the linear group uniqueness that Rowlands intuits from the fact of three space plus one can be a more general property across many dimensions. I am not sure at this point if we in fact can go beyond the fifth degree but I imagine so.
The illustration above has some rather arbitrary colors for its spectrum. I will probably take a hint from Western music and assign the 11 (the broken symmetry is the folding symmetry of cubes btw but not in the sense the golden section has the monopoly on these ideas of symmetry breaking- rather quasi or semi-symmetry breaking.) one 12 note colors or perhaps 18 (24 counting semi compactified self duals) in the 16th dimension (roughly 17 + 1 as the types of centered and extended matrices are considered, and of course quasicity.)
Certainly there are uses for this modification and extension of group theories. It is not as complicated in our familiar world to sort out as one might think but the variations if useful are enormous. It has been a mental workout that only now begins to see new things as a measure of the value of a theory that the old ones seem simple in retrospect.
* * *
Imagine further the dihedral groups (as Rowlands in his careful speculations said may be an important part of the picture in his book) A dihedron has two faces and no volume is does come from the possibilities of what numbers can apply to simply connected solids. But we can have a null dihedron with neither faces nor volume and maybe no points. But the permutation of the points are much like two interlaced and opposite tetrahedra. Now as the tetrahedron can break down into two circuits of handed right angles so can the analogy 5-cell or pentatope so be split into two circuits. Imagine then eight colors in a cube and one in the center and that center is a quasi singularity of three points. The cubes I propose today simplifies that four dimensional into three space picture.
We can imagine further a cube of five faces and the sixth a vacuum or nil dihedron and these two can come together much like two cubes in hyperspace for a ten sided structure. But the principle is that concrete monads can enclose vacuum windows as well as a concrete monad having no window but metaphysically all not it is the vacuum.
I also imagine in this proposed lithon that the points of the cube meet with different values, 5 and 5 at the apexes of the dipyramid, 3 and 3 and two sets of 4 and 4 for a total of 32 points reduced to 8.
Let us imagine also the general importance of 32 squared (as in the dreams of that number and structure moderated by Jung of the quantum physicist) and of Dirac. This is 1024 which for me is important for four space chess of two players. In this 8 natural or time-like dimensional space in the counting of the multicolor label 8x17^2 minus 17 divided by 15 equals 153 and that minus 17 is 136. 11 of course has a special place where things add or multiply in some sense of counting for the powers of it are 1 11 121 1331 and so on.
The ambiguity where in the extended matrices of abstractly dimensional numbers that does distinguish between evenness and oddness of dimensions centered or not, primary or virtual or not, in the sense of complex space not clear of the sign- there is a process by which we may not assume the differences in signs equal and a method to distinguish the structure of some of them where the differences approach unity of a theory and not the local assumption of say the broken symmetry of and beyond octonians.
* * *
Dear Lubos of TheReferenceFrame blogspot:
I have been looking into some of these SUSY ideas on my pesla.blogspot lately. Clearly supersting theory implies SUSY.
I am much in agreement with you post. I find that the usual mathematics assumes some privileged position for some of the functions but this is not clearly sorted out as to how much physics itself is independent of something like string theories. Most certainly in computing the concrete privileged positions permutation of point like things with some assumption of order is required.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Lithon Fields, Peak Dot, Rock-n-Roll... (Number Theory, Geometry, and Quasi-singularity)
Lithos- stone, [from "Peter" rock and Row lands] and Peak Dot the cattle brand from Zane Grey's novel, The Raiders of Spanish Peak.
It seems a paradox to ask how the world or life began if the negative vacuum was completely filled. Perhaps it can be partly filled, that given the intelligibility and unity of geometry and number theory applied to dimensions to the extent it can be for all is not known and I suspect few are generally aware of and taught this simple foundational unity.
I googled the queen problem and knight tours yesterday (instead of googling my mind first) and could find very little that treated things from the view of this post- yet some issues were already explored. I find it interesting that in Rowlands in three space what might not be symmetric in three space is so in six. But I have a hard time with the simple idea of symmetry breaking as defined by the Fibonacci numbers (still, it may explain why the five or 8 nucleons are a sort of limit to a nucleus which obviously is not a limit so there should be further geometrical mechanisms.
Most of all I find along these lines begin with Coxeter who leaves long shadows in many different dimensions of his intellectual descendants.
Now, in the and-or of it, we have five planes of 11 x 11 or 121 and we take the central peak dot away and so recover the duality of 5 x 120 or 600 tetrahedra of the five fold polytopes. It is simple arithmetic.
It is especially significant that tau (phi) with its 0's and 1's notation does include the recursion ideas (mentioned in Rowland's book first time outside of my own contemplations I saw the notion) that the 11 Fibonacci number seems to be a limit or sum like a dimensionless constant at the number 89. 11 is in a sense 2, and 121 is 4 in notation of which 4n+1 is Fermat's recondite property of numbers that seems to apply to these ideas of queen problem structures especially when one is the center or peak dot of the finite cones.
I imagine a lesser quadratic the square root of 11 + or - 1 / 2 or eta in Coxeter is involved in the coordinates of peak dots in five space as to dihedral angles.
In a crude intuitive sense I suspect there are analogs to the icosahedron in five space and beyond but I am not sure if these in a sense are complete or regular nor if nature somewhere can express them in intelligible physicality. I do know that between dimensions say of the 17 lithons of 8 dimensions the idea of a center of some structure may be a quasi or multiple singularity. A classical black hole may have no, one, or some partial value of singularity. It remains to be seen if these 8 dimensional structures and their dualities have much to do with isotope numbers with intelligible calculations.
The 2 to the nth Clifford algebras in defining dimension comes close to my view, maybe the closest similarity or cultural precedent I have encountered. Again, the foundational ideas and their interpretation even as to the translated language of physics may be hauntingly close and yet not primary in the idiom and notions of such philosophies.
Five tetrahedra in the tetrahelix determines the chirality but it takes ten over all- which was Fullers explanation akin or isomorphic to the stacking of the ten faced deltahedron mentioned in Rowlands. One of these as a color cube like game I call the Lithon and there are variations of course with this labeled directionality (for example the complexity can grow enormous for all symmetric possibilities yet with this natural ordering we may consider mirror images of natural subsystems relavant- that is in the alpha beta gamma delta epsilon planes we can have these treated as if a form of dimensions which of course have two sequences (as does the two space of five things)as geometric density of the permutations.
We also note from a purely algebraic geometry note where this 10-deltahedron may be isomorphic to the null case of a dihedron, the Pentagon solid without volume. I would like to further understand if these have Moebius analogs and how they are constructed and how they relate to the general peak dot theory.
* * *
One Way Mirror
L. Edgar Otto July 29, 2010
My sky is clear as I touch Antares
my pinhole eyes compass dividers
that sees the lesser and longer motion
of the moon, feels earth in spin
My mood and poem interrupted
by the jet dark haired girl in the distant
surrounded by her cloud of smoke
I must check out her velvet sheen of darkness
She sees through and past me
her sky the grayness of the moors
her moral law within, her eyes disguised
doubtful of love yet churns the dew points
We know the hour's past for forgiving blemishes
we draw the blinds save for a last star at night
* * *
I knowing you once close in dreams
but you cannot know that, I but a stranger
in fantasy our soul's encounter breaks
doubts can only rob us of our healthful sleep
You of the apple when its ripe tease me
give me only shadows knowing I see them
as you lift your thin arms to wash your breasts
I cannot bite so green and bitter to my belly
I am the sun and source of clarity and light
you in your spin give sparks, store the songs
of meadow larks and shun the cacophony of crows
our bedbugs of time grow past our wars of pestilence
How could you know I was the one when our shared love
in each one way its melting fun house mirror?
* * *
This is where we were before, where we were expelled or
came in to some point, cycle in the play
when the world has changed, not renewed our love
as our bodies betray us, empty your hourglass form
I do not know if you got the message yet you stood there
so long by the screen and soft light as I
opened and closed frantically against the line wind storm,
you before the screen hearing the sirens
The I heart you cut out from a cereal box that only
the brightness stands out, sheet lightning but it was
not thunder to give you but your blue glow silvered glass
as I cannot just leave in anger, you alone
I passed this way who loved you or said he did
All you would let me give you in your naked singularity
* * *
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
And, Or, & And-Or
Today I am just intuitively exploring some aspects of space and am not sure if things like it exist anywhere. Just as the most difficult last post it comes from casual and random exploration of an idea- simply to find some variation on chess games that may not be as complicated as my n-dimensional ones. This fascination philosophers have with the dice and their symmetries is at least good as analogies to how we see some physics ideas or how we may from this study find new ways to see physics.
As you see in the illustration the 16 chess pieces are arranged on the 61 cell board such that the knights and bishops start from different colors. After all in the case of the bishop the parity does not change, and in the case of the knight it changes regularly and alternates on the whole as a balanced parity (that is color of the squares).
Furthermore the queen moves are an either or proposition of motion, and the knight moves which covers what the queen cannot is a and or situation. The main diagonal of the Conway matrix area in the case of this board is turned 45 degrees to make it the edges of an 11 by 11 lattice of squares. In a sense this is the limit of physical things if we are to regard 11 as the knight shifting density number in five space. How we see five space is after all not that more complicated to draw than four space if we keep the dimensions clear as to our vision and notation.
In such an 11 x 11 board we have the properties of the color alphabet which suggests to me an idea of the light cone only a more discrete version which includes and gives meaning to the imaginary color space outside the light cone. Now maybe the shift down the main alpha-beta diagonal has to be assumed moving and thus a form of causality. Maybe this directionality arises from the properties of the cone, or maybe- which in this case I doubt it by definition, that property of the fact of three space and one space. But in a sense with the proper ordering we can see even three space as a linear one space.
We imagine then the 9 queen problem as an orientation of some cube (and for all such theories involving orientations in some space). From any one queens local perspective and or or, it fills the space and in a sense much like the directions of cells on a surface of a polyhedron these are the shadows thus number of dimensions the symmetry is involved in.
But it is not clear such ideas of orientation and parity apply beyond some space- I mean it is one thing we need the proofs of so to find the variation on the notions suggested. I feel it does apply. Given this my alpha and beta quasic time directions plus the general distinct but similar 11 orientations we find an intrinsic difference in these times as far as the expression and unification of these orientations go. We know when this matrix and its methods of expression are mapped to the genes that there are distinct and I feel topological differences (which as Rowlands points out) involves chemical bonding numbers also- that is beyond the 2 or 3 or even the hydrogen bonds.
There is in a sense a quasi- or partial symmetry breaking- and thus a quasi breakdown with direction of some of the conservation laws short of complete annihilation. There is moreover against a dark background of contiguous phenomena a connection between those cells of one type of particle and the other in the sense of parity across the directed quasic Conway field where the state of things despite indefinite temporariness persist and most likely on the whole as to be measured as positive with a measurable chiral difference because of the discrete arrow of time and the quasi mirrored location of complex points which in a structural design sense my distinguish unto some dimensions of mathematical properties the sign of things (nature then perceiving much as we do our symbol system intelligibility.) In a sense this arrow is one of mass as well as any flow of signal energy. There is an analog of the inverse square law and space but in higher dimensions than just Kant and Newton's sense as a fitting intelligible design and reason of being for that law not necessarily in a non-linear sense even if the roots and squares are taken, and we do not lose this balanced obvious relationship with orientations, dimensions, and that property of inverses represented so well by complex analysis equations (albeit they are incomplete in the interpretation of physics at the foundation.
Then again this is an early insight of some sort- much like how it began with the four dimensional chess and thinking of some sort of inverse picture of the inverse square law.
* * * Idea left out earlier:
From the algebra there is no way to show the sign in complex space so yes we may interpret duplication of such spaces as far as intelligible numbers of dimensions go. But there is no good reason to assume such duplication is symmetric but can be quasi-symmetric such that there is an intrinsic difference in the parity, chirality, time, and charge conjugation so interpreted as physicality from topological terms alone as this field model above seems to suggest as a possibility- not even when all things are reversed needs the idea of symmetry as mirrored be balanced the same- yet this needs only be observed as imbalance on deeper and rather opaque levels than we in direct experience of the behavior of particles in either or both aspects of their definition in some space or time as continuous or discontinuous.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Hypostasis Color Principle, Quasi-observables
So the illustration includes thoughts on these informational and higher level language ideas.
If there are two chirally distinguishable directions beyond the mainstream vector of the spectral scale *(8 then our mathematics should be able to logical distinguish them as if they part of the complex analysis for duplication of intelligible dimensions and points. Such shifts can be subject to energy materialization of particles, conservation principles of breaking and building symmetry depending on the actual levels of creative source and fields. The field source intelligibility is also quasi-violated as in the concept of multiple black holes in black holes as if a fractal rather than holographic concept (when the actual measure of time, rather quasi-measure, is the fractal-holographic difference, that is time as entropy just as gravity is in a sense a quasi-illusion. Thus in this wider sense of principles of design (that is the intelligibility of design) other values such as time even as finite may seem such an illusion including charge, mass, and so on. In as sense there are only quasi-dimensionless constants if we look at the philosophy beneath these paradoxical terms. Such terms linguistically explain a lot of the quasi-certainty of our subjective states for interpretation of foundational physics.
When and how far can we imagine the universes in universes idea begin (even if these are quasi-observable with the surprising emphasis on observable (including intelligible notions with intelligible logic and math?) Such legitimately subjective probabilistic models (in the grayness) as anthropocentric global warming, is an example of this quasi uncertainty which as science may be only a political and cultural truth as science. The averaging or stochastic models also involve the informational aspects of what is local and non-local.
These generally metaphysical speculations today also respects the anomaly of the idea of dark matter and as such seem to apply to it on this level as conflicts of science and philosophy. Especially the conventional ideas unseen but used to possibly explain it or even to dismiss it at some level of explanations. How we feel about this speculation philosophically may set the environs of what we think we observe physically. Was it Sagan who said to have an apple pie we must first start with a universe? There are ways to look at things that is not the cleaver case the saying makes about the obvious.
In a sense we reach the paradoxes of Faith in the Intelligible of Design (thus mathematics) as it applies to that concrete or what is unreal and never possible to become real or even conceivably so possible as a quasi-denial of quasi-concrete quasi-subjectivity. That is, faith can have a solid ground without a clear object, and we can have unclear objects that are only objects because the notions of them, the science of them, has to be taken on an element of faith.
One experiment thought as in a previous post of mirrors is to record from a point all that is seen of the reflections in reflections and use it for a source (say a "baby multiverse") and project that back into such a mirror box. We note the discreteness of the regions as either a given possible space or one that takes time to become a structure. Can we have in intelligible design that exceeds the concrete in material physicality? When? and in what temporal direction if such a "future" is accessible? But that sort of "science" is a level up beyond our fairly familiar metaphysical foundations for now and perhaps forever.
We should begin with at least a TRANSOCTONION description of things but in the exploration of such math and philosophy not fall into the usual metaphysical paradoxes of what is the general result of certain ideas of space and methods of physics or our own state of control of our speculative understanding so influenced by such limitations of physics and mathematical properties.
As the expanded Conway shifting part of the quasic grid (cyclic or not) resembles the set of five crosses in the naval dispatch flag or of the city of Jerusalem, this sort of subjectivity in some poetic Byzantium I call the Jerusalem interpretation, subjectively.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Quasic Source Time, Imaginary Color, Hidden Creativity
As I have been away from posting the last couple of days three general ideas came up so I will just mention them in passing.
* Quasic Source Time - From time to time the idea that we are in a Black Hole and inside that are other Black Holes and so on comes up as it did recently again in New Scientist. But as at the beginning of posting and in discussions with galatomic in trying to make sense of his physics the realization at the source point that there could be whole new (thus fractal like)universes and these moreover complicated by the fact these contain particles and such universe, and by will or consciousness, and so on...) In fact this is a rather quasic idea of which if we just allow the relativistic view we do not claim to see such other structures exist. The hierarchy problem seems to me useful in exploring the diameters and energy possibilities of these opaque universes. It may assume a certain quasic time to the accuracy of pi in some structure or as a perfect number as the state of the universe and atoms evolve. Quasic time is also the same thing conventionally or not as quasic entropy. A dimensionless constant may exist and change regardless of dimensions as it is quasi-measurable or experienced. So what is a Higgs in such a sub-blackhole space?
* Imaginary Color - Well, giving some credence to the Higgs particle and field even if it is less than claimed to be, I also took a look at this idea of simply doubling things based on the complex algebra so as to find an analog in the color cubes notations. The illustration above is some of this. I note also what seems an intimacy with the structure of Western music. And that there is a more fundamental role in physics unification than Einstein suggested would be algebraic- it is at least arithmetical. The information of such colors are combined in a way that two colors are treated as one.
* Hidden Creativity The creative mind should not be self censoring as if finding the universe's secrets is a breach of forbidden (by the gods?)knowledge, nor should such states of minds arbitrarily forbid such in others in the marketplace of competing ideas. At a point of doubt and automatically beginning this project in the illustration for a chess like game these physical or purely instinctive or intuitive ideas found things in creative and almost unconscious exploration. Thus over a few days the intensity of the find mirrored the intensity of my measure of self ignorance.
* * * I may post more in these areas later or a photo of the raw notes.
I got a nice reply from Rowlands which I find encouraging at a time when I am in the heat and feeling like I have a cold and being July (As also in September and Memorial Day I want to resolve conflicts with the university- at least know why I cannot go after all these years (not that it really matters as what do I have left? 8 to ten years?):
Thank you very much for your message and for your confidence in my book! There are different ways of thinking that can yield insights even into fundamental physics. The idea that the first thing to do is to write down an equation is a fundamental error that, in my opinion, bears the main responsibility for the fact we haven’t made significant progress in mainstream fundamental physics since the Standard Model of 1973. At a fundamental level we have to get _beyond_ constructs like equations, and, in this respect, use more ‘primitive’ ways of thinking. We have to stop worrying about our status as professionals, and macho displays of mathematical power, and get to a simpler level where we might have to use different parts of our brain to the ones we have been trained to use. Colours, shapes, symmetries, etc, and many other ways of approaching the problems are needed – the professionalism comes in making the _connections_ with the highly developed physics that we know about. So what you and your colleagues are doing is a valuable thing to do, and I wish we could get away from the bunker mentality adopted by too many physicists, and create a general climate where such things could be appreciated. So keep up the good work! Maybe at some point we could meet and discuss some of these things face to face.
* * *
On further concept- other than just how far down if not forever the black hole like structure in structures of the multiverse go- why when we imagine the identity of dimensions and vectors as the same they are not counted as different- they can be quasi-different transitive over the quasic space. But these creative quasar like fields are on the pixel level the idea of such identity of objects that reaches to some higher general space which is as quasi vacuum and quasi continuous an open place for what in our evolving states of universe is capable of permanence outside the assumed censored unity of our local and seemingly low dimensional and complete space? I am not maintaining that at every point of singularity there is erected a continuum- it is somewhat restricted and these methods may compute the numbers filed wise as to what is intelligible. But is there such a Conway like space possible? Or is creative field intelligibility some ideal to evolve toward or some ideal point or goal? But just how much more elaborate can we imagine the structures of space and time? We have to integrate the ideas of complex and absolute space in these ultimate ends and beginnings of field and source questions.
Note: I very much agree with Rowlands on the writing of equations having seen some variations or what would be required as variations in the usual notation. But sometimes the physical interpretations is only as good as our mathematics and symbols systems. For the authors of popular physics who by rule limit the equations in a work there is a great contrast in the diffusion of light in the deep seas of speculation to which the best we can do is approximation in contrast to those who show such methods and equations (the idea of monopoles as a what if for example) such that we can grasp the notions better of the model of the physics in question.
In this sense Penrose and Rowlands and the original works of many other scientists rather than abstracts of their work gives the widest scope to the general understanding of what science is and does- and may eventually allow us to do.
Friday, July 23, 2010
String Theories and the Hierarchy Problem
Lubos posted on the hierarchy problem yesterday and put up a great video on the Higgs particle. It cleared a couple of things up as to how the physicists see the standard model (with the exception of Rowlands who suggests the Higgs is one of many spots in the periodic table of the particles- with the suggestion that the gravino fits in there somewhere and that from this view we might achieve grand unification with hbar c G and charge the fundamental constants. In both Lubos and Rowlands I am amazed at how in the intricate formulas we wind up with integer numbers as if matter has building block levels and between them there are some modifications or adjustments- in this respect the hierarachy problem as I understand it and Lubos presented it is a godsend rather than a problem on how we derive the masses of things with such unnatural balances of numbers. I simply do not buy that zero points (ie field points virtual or not) are totally discrete and totally random especially if these models cannot be reduced to sensible and intelligible Newtonian ones (as Rowlands suggests in his methods with the addition of some small things and the suggestion that U(5) may be the place for grand unification.)
Oddly I was leaning toward this sort of problem in my cube game presentations- only now I feel more sure my speculations have a sound basis. Eddingtons 136 or 137 ultimately is the same hierarachy problem. I note in Rowlands 2592 as applied to some idea of a Higgs like particle and cannot fail to note it is 32 x 81. Thus the center of the solitaire game if it is open or not, if it is multiple or not, is the source, especially amplified source of the complex numbers at the infinitesimal as if a radio amplifier circuit, It is a "source point" to the discrete field of background numbers of this remarkable property of orthogonality and its simple arithmetic in many dimensions. I disagree with the background of things not being also in places an absolute vacuum- the video said there is no such vacuum when the world is filled with virtual particles coming in and out of existence. Also Lubos is most likely right on the value of said Higgs particles. Let us not forget also Dirac used the square root differntials as operators unto some such number of things like say 136- but did Lubos in his example of 163 take that from some theory or was it arbritary- it looks familiar. Indeed, it may mean something from a four space view that 136 + 27 (again the string degrees of freedom) is this very example.
So, with the video fresh on my mind I wrote the following as a statement of principles, and I also tried a Spencerian sonnet but could not bring it to perfection at all as if there is a sea change in my level of writing or thinking once seeing these beautiful theories:
Quasized Dimensionality and Source-Field Mass (Distinguishing zero 0 and 00 points)
*0 - A field point source does not know what quasicallity projected field dimension it is in and may in fact be structurally bound between such representation vector like or may shift between them to actually define and measure something continuous as discrete mass.
*1 - From some perspective beyond the probabilistic idea of virtual particles the phaneron background can be absolute vacuum. In contrast to physicality continuously engaged, certain laws such as the Lorentz group space and multiple slit experiments (see newscientistcom yesterday) are complete universal descriptions where the vacuum is independent and can be quasi-filled.
*2 Would a Higg's-like particle cycle by directed dualism (points to lines?) shift between the five Coxeter delta-n honeycombs but as a physical possibility and description be akin to the 1/2 thermodynamic entropy law (Rowlands) (I wish I could access the extensions of the thermodynamic laws the founder of sciencechatforum saw fit to move or erase- just what was it I said about a fourth law as well the zeroth and double zeroth law and nth law?)
*4 Does this shift, consideration of mass and mechanism to explain it independent, not apply transitively symmetrically at every spatial-temporal point for at least 5! cross brane varieties?
*5 On the same 120 spherical division (and recall that what we hold as conservation laws by symmetry is really half a law, that is in the quantum fields things are half conserved of matter energy- even that law falls, especially at supposed origins as grand source) in each reflected region simply connected may we not find another such sphereical region and so on...?
* * *
I wonder if English can no longer be contained in the sonnet form so no matter how perfect that form comes near it must in notions and feelings be the sea change surpassed- or maybe I am getting infertile and old.
Maybe the act of writing and sorting this crude attempt at a Spencerian sonnet (and forget the iambic pentameter as it is enough to count the syllables) that may one day seem profound and I may understand it as some breakthrough of strange and original mood hinting as a notion we dame near. Or it must practice and busywork way out of practice with forgotten and neglected mental resources now limited and wounded by loss and rendered obsolete by my heart in understandable reaction to new awakened understanding of cosmology now far from the possibility of tragic love, poems then not so much about cosmology when cosmology is the poetry and love's longing in itself...? Only in retrospect do I see in a line or two of my early poems something startlingly profound that seemed unclear at the time. Very much like the creative in physics or hope for that mystery in an object of romantic love.
Superconduction Supercollider (For Your Love, Pedestrian Hitchhiker) L. Edgar Otto july 22 2010
What was bound in Heaven let no man break
Drawn apart in dreams colliding genders
By doing nothing win the fight, forsake
Our hearts taking the jolts of fender benders
Survive the lean while Love's heat fat renders
As our chain mail takes dints and scars of stars
Trapped in fate to lesser love surrenders
Comfort laughing at other's bumper cars
Immune to pain ourselve's electric fires
At the cross road each with right of way turns
Until our shells we mar without spar tires
Sideswiped that all must fall, everyone burns
I like your chipmunk teeth and parrot beak
Love walks, rides doomed, of it God does not speak.
* * *
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Particle Physics in Solitaire
Next day and I have almost too little for a new post: The reference frame has an interesting youtube video on the Higg's mechanism but he whole theory seems somewhat alien to me- I wonder why the author says there can be five such particles? I wonder if this sort of hierarchy problem applying to dimensionless constants with the distinction of the continuous and finite fields such as Rowlands sees fundamental explain 136 and 137 as a correction by Eddington? The comments on the topology of tori by one poster could be asked from a much more intricate viewpoint. So I will ask my it from my one numerological thought of last night:
In the 3+1 to the nth formalism (I agree that the complex quaternions and E8 systems are isomorphic as Rowlands also suggests.) But what of the solitaire games in various spaces, I mean there are 33 of the holes in that game in two space and that divided by three is the 11 orthogonal unfoldings. Now if the 27 dimensions of string theory as degrees of freedom are that important then what of four space. The core orthogon would be 81 such points and thus we add to it 180 partial orthogons that is x 10 of four space which is in a sense flattened unto itself so it does not divide by 3 or 4 but is what it is for the unfoldings of the hypercuble, 180 + 81 = 261 and of course there is hierachy variation of the center point as a source or sourceless field. Such corner solitaire points are in a sense both the bare mass measure and the background of continuous levels of mass as mechanism in quasic space concepts. That infinite groups correspond to finite groups is not a result of physics of particles but a result of the primacy of geometry that is quite independent on how we interpret probability stochastic or not as vague cloudy disembodied structureless fields in our ghost of physicality by just the quantum theory which we are here in the time flow discretely but not in a way that the mass actually organizes our world by consciousness but that for this state of things our consciousness is a fact of experience of these vague geometric models of time flow or complex continuous reversibility.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Metaphysical Interlude (Stalking Sophia)
Of the three foundations of Aristotle, the physics, the metaphysics, and the lost book stereonometry (at least as I have attempted a recapitulation and interpretation of logical and historical recreating the notions in my posts from an independent standpoint on the philosophy chat forum) the trend of current speculative physics is its reductions decidedly seeming to converge to theories of stereonometry. (In a sense all is boson and scalar).
In this sense physics does touch directly on the organic models of things long before the questions of the nature of consciousness. The idea that life is a sort of anti-entropy, as in the first blush of general systems theory, can only go so far in its comprehensive applications and coincidences. Life force, as generally a metaphor and "quasi-vector" (distinguished perhaps from pseudo-vector and the metaphysics of weak particles with their lepton like aspects- surely if the so called Higgs decays into gamma other photons new technologies are around the corner on what ever quasic or vaguely generational nth dimensional idea) such a vector or matrix idea as analogous to such treatment of space and number is like the gravitational force- if that comes after and seemingly emergent from source and vacuum structural processes of physicality as stereonometric relations.
We should not be that surprised as an independent phenomenon or not, that living things have intelligible patterns and relations similar to these of the physics of coherence, the cellular integration and differentiation further explained as a foundation for organism. Yes, on the face of it this notion still speculates metaphysically. Yet, what we learn from the atom smashers about space and particles may pay us vastly in return investments with knowing ourselves if not our souls and desires as the how and why of living and thinking things.
We come again to the fronts with an opened question of philosophy that asks just what is unique in such grounding symmetries and what patterns are preserved, endure, and are possible in what sort of physics that just out of sight follows from what such theories possibly imply? But who maintains such a separation of our enquiry deep down where our scientists with seemingly more certain views of the world are in many creative ways poets who know it not, rebels in a world of disembodied polemics and politics without the cause where all such culturally based causes touch life universally and with smoke and mirrors for the individual and the social glue of some species?
* * *
On Reading the 27 degrees of Freedom in Peter Rowlands on particles in the standard theory and the notations involving them and Dirac.
Thus I send him a letter today with my thoughts on the matter. I imagined I was doing some sort of string theory and particle physics but I did not realize that this was as deep as we have gotten- mine from informal methods- nor that the similarity of symmetry elements does not necessarily mean they collapse into triviality if we see things globally and as Rowlands suggests there is the possibility of such global particles well beyond the idea of simply the Higgs. Maybe some beyond that of which my word quasics is still pretty good.
Which came first, the idea of the ground we walk on and relate and merge into and exchange things with and touch and store and so on... or some right or left hands of the Gods?
I wonder at the use of speed reading if even if one recalls it in their head it still takes time to read and ponder it. It takes awhile to learn the terrain and language also. And it is hard when things are so similar and remain the same or vastly change- either of which puts us in a world of surprise. This the source and field maybe, where they meet.
Last night I looked deeply into your discussion of the standard theory and found my color things very close to how the matrices were applied. The double quaternion algebra and its possible isomorphism with the E8 symmetries I feel right on (and I speculate there are even higher levels that go beyond the periodic table of the particles and strings.
Does the crazy person realize he is crazy? Does the genius know he is above the rest who somehow and sometimes look up and need him? But I take little stock in this question of our universal dimensionless human experience of intellect. Still, your analysis of Newton seems to suggest some cornerstone for genius. What surprisingly little genius I have reminds me of this analysis- that I am at home with the sort of thing Dirac does (I did not know just how close) and at the same time the sort of thing Eddington does, Both aspects of qualities of viewing the world apply on the higher levels and there should be at least an extension beyond standard and group ideas than what is now contemplated. I still long for a little more after these foundations are mastered.
Thank you for your book. It is clear to me a lot of professional physicists should be aware of your view before they utter words you spoke first in concept. I am sorry my eyes glazed over with the i j k notations (as I imagine my color codes go psychedelic to average eyes trying to live or deep eyes trying to make sense of things.
I will share your satisfaction of knowing where you were right as it slowly comes out in the science news still further even if it is written there in the vague hieroglyphics of our inadequate notions and symbol systems.
I had a doubt that chirality was the key to mass and the evolution of galaxies - that neither gravity nor mass is ultimately the creation and reason for being of the world- but I am not ready to address these points of metaphysics yet.
Oh, it was the further investigation of the ten faced deltahedron that led me to write you and touch base today- one that I constructed as a fourth grader and thought I discovered a new shape! I am not sure of my most recent ideas on these virtual particle thingies but If I continue along these lines I imagine I have to deal eventually with the complex space of such deltahedra.
Leonard Edgar Otto Eau Claire, WI
* * *
Krist J. Martin who worked with me on art and science on the philosophychatforum as Eyes_Only
After 29 hours without sleep and long rides back and fourth to Kansas, we still manage to catch up on our theories involving his "Regulus Space"
I saw him arrive this afternoon back in town while I was in the pavilion near Racy's thinking how much the view of subcells of some geometric structure if duplicated was like the way he sees and draws things in that space coming up with the right structures I know of even with a hard to see and I think original way to draw. Perhaps these ideas are not difficult ultimately more than ideas of geometry of which it takes a knack to become familiar and comfortable with. I was looking in the quiet afternoon thinking I might compose a poem but instead counted the ways the trionimo or first piece of the soma cube of the 27 thus three from that is the 24 of the other pieces in the sense of color along the lines where Rowlands suggests these colors may represent in the Dirac formulism those of the Higgs like particles and mechanism where the colors cancel in the background- there of course being 6 into the three. Oddly enough Krist thought about the 21 dimensions and I see that if we multiply by three to the Conway Matrix we have beautiful intelligible numbers that perhaps extend things into even more complex ideas of what are particles. Krist however is thinking a lot about the time and time travel aspects of such spaces which I imagine is more the gauge or more general relativistic viewpoint.
I find so many principles of the standard theory on a vague basis that seems to work on that level- for example the lesser (5) forms of string theory (Rowlands) and the addition of say an 11th or 12 dimensions because we need a higher space to see the string. Still, as in my span and depth, an almost holon idea (Wilber) as he definition of the Higgs, Rowlands is right on with the distinction ultimately of the terms field and source.
* * *
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Quasics and the Discrete View and more commentary on the word of Peter Rowlands and Lubos
Tommyhoi of sciencechatforum com posted links to this most interesting article:
and today thereference frame of Lubos has an instructive article on the prospects of supersymmetry or further dimensions and that it may exceed the standard theory but that theory would be included in it- such is scientific paradigm progress of gains.
But in both articles I see echos of Peter Rowlands on the foundations of physics. For one thing in his system, 3+1 and he primacy of three space (after all a simple knot possible in three space does tie into the five fold symmetries) suggests that even if an electron has no spatial dimensions the classical radius becomes useful again as a foundational concept- so why not, as in the first article above, accept that electrons can have the property of being irreducibly a dipole? In any case Lubos of the reference frame who also seems to be addressing the visibility aspects of dark matter suggests some links with the weak force- but this is after all Rowlands position and we do have this issue of what are the higher quarks and neutrinos and for me if they are as mixed as thought in this realm we infer to see.
But today I had no new ideas, a situation from my posting over the last few years rather rare- but not like I face writers block on a blank page- sometimes the blank page is most welcome. I rather feel like I am just beginning schooling again rather than the BS degree syndrome of school is over and I assume the role of expert. This feeling is especially true in these recent posts on the compactification of virtual points in the vacua as structured and visibly affecting observed matter from the frame or rim of higher spaces, my flangelation.
I note also that early on I assumed an alternative to the relativity as I understood it and where there is some sense of motion, a displacitivity- a word I no longer use yet seems to contain the ideas of many who look into the more linear view of motion, especially the common sense kinetics of discrete particles. So taking a rest from a long walk before another long walk I cut out a small cube from cardboard with the extra face and found it to be rather stable when physically taped togeher. OK for study rather than manufacture it will be a good model that is not so flimsy but what do I put on the face of this one cube. It is then that I did have what turned out to be a small and uncertain idea- what if in the labeling of the sides I used the alphabetic notation, that is CHL instead of the six colors separately. what would a cube specifically mean if the x y z had opposite sides with the C H L hypercolors? In simple surface of two space I found the roygbv on the triangles of the equator and two other points the gin and bkd half and tri colors.
Of course this sort of duality where the same color used twice for the twelve 1 1 and square root of two sided triangles has its higher analogs in four space where things like Conway's stellated polytopes have such a symmetry of measure- after all it only took the reversal of a star to form the congruence of the 50 star medallion, that is a wide view of the natural dimensional field is obvious and not all the orientations of the stars are to be thought to be taken separately.
But now on each of the six points that color the equatorial triangles we find the exclusion of one or two colors, these are the alternative axes say H. Again we generate Conway's matrix. We also have thirty of cubes colored this way. I am intersted in the ten triangular faced deltrahedron very much as Rowlands is in the stacking of DNA bases- but we can make a sort of fat vector diagonal of the octahedron with two tetrahedra on opposite faces such that the internal faces vanish and some of them on the outside become rhombuses anglewise. But what if we treat them as a ten faced deltahedron (and btw the lack of an 18 faced deltahederon becomes clearer now for the reasons why- I suspect, intuitively)? We have an alternative design based on the alternative in literal construction of such objects idealized from the geometry of space.
If by the way this direction of speculation proves to have value one related thought on my mind was just what it means that the tauon and muon levels of generation of neutrinos and the use of such in describing representational models of quarks etc and not treating them on equal footing means- an issue which after all strikes me as the frontier of such questions as to on what level the intrinsic asymmetry of generations of particles have real effects. Surely we may assume this sort of counting carries over to all the dimensions of orthogons if not into some supergroup space of the other sorts of polytopes.
* * *
Monday, July 19, 2010
Compactification + flangelation = compflangelation which is a rather German looking word but for now I use this word to combine two concepts which were already combined geometrically before it bifurcated into the relativistic and quantum views of things. In general my Greek and Latin crosses from a purely secular viewpoint symbolizes the enfolding and the unfolding of certain geometric shapes. A reference frame inside another one as Einstein pointed out in his first book without citations as it was an original approach is a different situation from some frame at rest. Such further generalizations of a scientific paradigm makes progress in dealing with new interpretations and definitions of the terminology, a modification scientifically as with the general flow of philosophy of some idea, in this case mass, especially rest mass. At the point of a priori unity of these sciences- somewhere without the general or special relativity distinction, somewhere between Dirac and Einstein statistics is the conceptual flatland. To the extent it involves vacua it is still the frontier as metaphysics.
One can imagine a space in relation to changes over infinity with respect to finite measure and an emphasis on counting that the space, from a Greek centered or Latin extended language (Novaglossa) inwardly as expanding forever or shrinking forever as a theory that in retrospect can come from first principles in an intelligible world and one that is no better than the power of our existing mathematics- for example that nature speaks in differential equations is a concept today a little too narrow- so the theoretician is only as good as his creative mathematics and language and symbol system of some logical design.
BTW the video from linford, the Phyziks guy! on the octopus predicting the soccer game winners (something he says he cannot imagine a system where this is a mechanism of the possible- and thus assumes anyone who took that seriously- and I doubt anyone did as well it not a worthy topic if popularization is intended to advance the cause of science- tells me at once there is a lack of creative imagination needed for deeper science as well his belief in the probability only of things tells me why. Is that the sort of science, a political polemic really, that our universities are producing these days? I do not buy his so called division of labour nor that in the end the science from theory is there to serve the production and better life of the general population. This is some sort of priestly economics that probably affects a generation with false expectations who have not done their homework for Phd's the old fashioned way, original and fundamental additions hopefully toward a new open area of research for the greater addition to knowledge.
If one is to demean those outside the web of rationed results for rationed funding off hand then one is simply brainwashed politically and in the end, despite the reaction and backlash against the fundamentalists, it will retard science.
I note on the reference frame blogspot com that both results, at least experimentally of the rumors and news on the bottom quark and so on do not pan out- and yet within the theory as stated and in the language close to current meanings and theory, as theory I see no reason these ideas cannot be a possible situation, especially the idea of intrinsic asymmetry in particle nature. Of course in my language it is not enough to assume vaguely there are infinitely filled vacua and that exceptions illy defined for chiral effects define the mass. It is a beautiful idea as it stands but it leaves the speculation way to open, and the left also seems to be anti-science- to think little of say the discovery of some new particle. But such progress is made at the cost leaving only the moral spirit as right of the old theory where the paradigm is similar to the new - a social thing really, a political thing, that is a messy way to establish scientific accrued realities.
So, linford, what after all is an historical reality or even a causation in any of the theories- for if we base it on probabilities as the only way to decide things and not on the foundations why not the great coincidences of infinity where the cycles of intelligible things of the universe corresponds in its dice to the prediction in the now of some future state. Yes, the experimenter, as if the octopus had some sort of cue or extra-sensory perception can influence the outcome of the experiment and the octopus is a rather advance nervous system for a mollusk. In fact having eight arms one might think his thermodynamic synchronicity and quantum watched pot does not boil co-intelligibility to the general states of the universe is the limit to what the octopus can do with his octonian number of limbs- this radial creature does not have the advantage of the crustacean's ten fold string theory view.
My speculative notions today give me at least new directions to investigate.
Ultimately there is no difference between a centered finite frame and a moving one in extended relative space (although we may crudely distinguish them as fermion and bosons and so on). Thus on some level the clear distinction (say of dragging the frame or space by spinning or influence by an influencing structures and particles in a nonlinear manner- clearly the swastika and Shield of David are ancient moving and fixed signs that can be derived from the same cube symmetries) what is the need for a focused or centered assumption of general vacuum zero point or otherwise compflangelated mass, that it has a definite orientation, probability of existing, or finite value seems to me the key issues of what we are trying to understand in today's physics. The mass as levels of structures as in an atom which follows the magic numbers (in high school I read they were not explained) as a frequency classical or not as that does not matter in applied theory- close then to the idea of magic squares in the counting- 2 6 10 14 and so on represent deeper levels also of compact and flanged (we as nature see the outline, shadow or rim of some geometric object and may count them more than once linearly if they intersect.)
Note a typo in an earlier post 153 370 371 407 for the cubes of digits equal to the number itself. Such and a hundred other numerological coincidences occur to me too messy yet to make a definite statement formally but: since we see a third of the nine dimensions and 50 is thus tripled as well the three center points of some discrete set of (regulus space restrained like treatment of points or even lines in a controlled triplality) we find 153 and so on. That a centered structure like a three dimensional game of Solitaire needs be empty, full or equal to 1 or two suggest to me on some structural level that 135 136 137 138 do relate to the coherent real and virtual abstract points, fixed or moving and in whatever direction as a nucleus of such a cross polytope in motion to modify such numbers.
I note further that these + and +- 's can be used as a notion themselves but in structures and in powers of things. I note also that the color encoded orthogons as modification of translations, rotations and beyond of symmetries of groups may be used as operators between certain sets of space structures.
* * * Later this evening from New Scientist:
Matter, virtual or concrete, as I have suggested here, seems very similar to the just of this article as do things like twistor theory. Now, most assuredly some sort of new physics is in the offering even with this sort emphasis. In what sense however are we to call gravity emergent and not just the physical results of the organization of space, overt or concrete? Is this an atempt to resolve the symmetries of entropy (thermodynamics?) if so it is a very bold attempt- after all with big bang problems and the ratio of styles of atoms or their production why assume the structure of inflation theory to apply to real concrete particles- yes the false vacuum can do work but in what sense is this different animal, gravity independent and as if a limitless source of sustaining motion (dominos falling)
more on this perhaps later and pay attention to my take on such organization of space and matter and what the holographic, fractal, and chaos spaces are as I modify the concepts of them and apply it to, among other things, our organic cosmos.
* * *
July 20, after sleeping on it the medallion arrangements of stars were not as difficult to draw with five fold symmetry as I attempted yesterday... the global metric of the decagon derived from the five points of a star in various ways then that inverted vertical. But I do miss the old photo program lost in the netscape-microsoft wars where I could set the angles of shapes not just in the four fold symmetry. But the drawing as such where the tilt of the stars balance out globally across the plane simplifies the local logic of things- the global view a surprise to most of us when it seems like the generations and dimensions of the same sort of particle cannot be distinguished in the vagueness of our reach for dreams.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Double Implosion Mass Defect Principles and
the rewards of understanding abstract systems such as the standard model, plus
alternative interpretations for the so called "Higgs mechanism".
[I will be posting more here on all this today...]
Well, the sciencechatforum com religated me into the blogosphere so I gave them a blog (all such internet chat sooner or later reaches some sort of entropy of the unfolding of moods and bad hair days) so I gave them a blog. Anyway here is a new youtube link to linford86 - I still have hopes for this boy, that is if he can understand that popularization intrinsically should have a little social poetry and realization on what metaphysics our science rests before we raise the hammer to nail the coffin closed of that philosophy:
* * *
What I am about to post I thought rather speculative over the last couple of days of normal dreams and reading old Zane Grey novels found at a rummage sale. This morning I am not so sure it does not have concrete applications.
Topons and Toponinos - why not still another general word as abstract as anything they have, especially Higgs and so on? But it is a holding word for the concept, one that may exist in the literature already or the obscure mathematics. Yet I feel this perhaps is describing, and indeed measuring the dark mass rather than the various ways some such Higgs mechanism may describe the normal mass- for if we accept the numerology of 11 unfoldings of the octahedron and cube into two space as a general number of string dimensions, then (and it is a good thing there may not be unlimited higher analogies to say the icosahedron) instead of a ten or so fold ration of virtually dark matter to matter we have, 43380 unfolding's of the icosahedron and maybe the same number or a fraction of it for the dodecahedron. Now this is well under the maximum 248 symmetry group at least for four dimensional matter- but as a natural dimension over these various matter theories the 5th degree is to be reckoned with more as a grounding dimension. Thus these theories involve the orthogonal and anti-orthogonal aspects of physics over n-dimensions on which we in our dimensionality try to analyze and ground physics as concrete.
* * *
July 17 and July 18 , 2010
On the Rewards of Understanding Intelligible Abstract Systems:
As far as historical continuity we can moderate the influence of relativity. For the excess influence of quantum theory it will take us a little while longer.
This can be done without the assumption of an influential Deity, but the denial of such influence is an influence vaguely divine that limits our understanding of deeper abstract systems of the vacua quite independently of that assumption.
You do not know of me, but will have to deal with my contemplations independent of my existing popularity and historically or not- this occasionally in relation to evolving enlightenment gives me personal satisfaction provide my work as results as well as gives me despair over the pace of progress of our collective intelligible enlightenment.
The satisfaction of understanding the world (or of some system that focuses a connection with our subjective reality) is also the reward of knowing oneself.
Geometric orthogonality precedes complex analysis in principles involving rotation.
The measure of inertial mass and not just the mechanisms of "fields" like "Higgs" or "double implosion density of space or charge over some unit of the classical electron radius or Planck radius) is explained by discrete measure of integer and fractional quanta over dualism of topological "points" and connectivity between the dimensions.
The universe cannot divide totally into unfolded or enfolded space (even if the formalism of absolute values results in all positive algebraically only as a justification of the finite mass and corresponding discrete potentials of the vacuum for renormalization, quark confinement, and so on) Nor in subjective space not exists all relativistic or quantized in the storage of free states of historical causation and dark mass-vacuum structured memory.
A toponino may or may not (as irreducible) mutate to sub fractal systems as quasi-finite. One can ask but not isolate the principles of metaphysics grounding physics. Even one such principle assumed for these are transitive across all fields.
The expression of this is evidently by such principles only and indirectly observed in the still regarded distant particle resonances states as a general system (of which the issues of supersymmetry needed or not can be asserted intelligibly as well the concept of what exists as higher physical dimensions than three.
To say null space quasi-includes concrete existence rather than in concrete (physical) space as either-or for what is or what is not, is a gray group logic in virtuality. After all this is a realm logically of principles metaphysical.
A moving point (abstractly or in perception, and not necessarily in kinematics) in a still plane between continuous curves is the prime model for topons or geometrical particle physics.
If we accept 1 + 1 = 2 as consistency derived from numbers then the abstract consistency of discrete measures in the structured absolute vacuum systems can be accepted on a foundational level.
Imagine then the 9 cubes of the tesseract, the 9th as in the virtual superposition or identity is made from 1/6th of the unfolded cubes. Imagine then as a tesseract that we have six mirrors and not five, or two fives as cubes stuck together and a central light source- can we actually see virtual light sources beyond the group symmetries? Would this not be equivalent to six mirrors in six mirrors of the eight cubes unfolded of a hypercube where in the center of a cube the surface has a reflection? I would be surprised if this were the experimental case but as a concept of what perhaps we cannot see we certainly find some in between step of understanding the complexity of general topological spaces of symmetry when in fact the five or six mirrors to reflect the source of light so many if not infinite times already.
We have in a sense the extension of Pascal's triangle not just to the negative and thus alternating signs as Newton did, but he quasic idea of the extension to null as a generator and thus the difference between the simplexes (1+1)to the nth and the orthogons (1+2) to the nth. These can be non-linear zeros as well as they involve the last face of concrete folding of cubes and this extends to say the folding of the balanced 4 edges of a cube and its 1/4th x 4 fifth cube of which of course in 2 space it takes five objects or squares to match the centered variations on all possible axes, in three space seven and in four space 9 (but in the ninth dimension the spherical volume already exhausts to the orthogonal grids) and of course 11 dimensions as the limit to five space- all such grids of geometric density thus determined by matrices of dimensional labels by the knight move. Again is 11 the limit or is there more than the new string theoretic physics approximations? In general by the way plane lattices of cubes balance the topon numbers. But what of taking it to infinite dimensions?
What after all does 1 3 3 1 count of the triangle? and of the square where is the one that seems to apply as nothing at all to the polygon structure?
In this sort of quasi fermion space (even more intrinsically the role of chirality than say as in Rowlands) is the metaphysical idea that: There is something between, a rather grayness of logic, to what can exist as an excluded middle and unresolvable superimposition of 0 and 1. This as a monad window that attaches to the measured values of mass like things where by absolute exist or not distinction these are unmeasurable (as not quasi-finite). This question then of why the world is rather than why it is not has a connection to our subjectivity and ultimately our identity as sentient beings.
I considered Boltzons Zaneons Boltzinos Boltzanes as alternative to simply topons although it rhymes with tampons (as we prime the cannon of new physics).
Of course the idea we see only three of the present 9 space dimensions becomes a little more credible- and that we see it as nature does, expresses it.
I also made two more alternatives for the 50 star flag, one a medallion of 10 10 10 and 20 stars expanding outward and one of 5 x 10 stars in a group with 5 in the center of the various golden ratios.
I have not made it clear and did not write the poem due to social obligations and a sore heal from so much walking and worn shoes of the sense of satisfaction and peace in the understanding of not only how some see the physics in terms of their fanciful names and concepts of things but the idea of our being as quasi-existing and not- that virtual gray but concretely intelligible grouping that in a way allows on many levels the freedom and certainty of our subjective self in relation to the world also as quasi-existing rather than either extreme of metaphysical stance as to the value of and reason for our existing. The uncertainty principle is useful but not quite enough to make for most of us the world intelligible enough at the foundations to define ourselves as theoretical physicists and not just experimental engineers with no control of our scientific progress.
* * *
I forgot to add the quantum theory thought for virtual particles that these may arise not forbidden and so influence the mass calculations. I feel this is a general working principle on shaky grounds as best that can be done for now. Yet this same concept could apply to higher symmetric spaces as a working principle but ultimately we have to realize such virtual spaces and vacua are quasized or in a certain sense quantized such that there are limits to what is the perhaps unseen structures and influence of the vacuum, at least to where we meet the flatness of infinity and discount the possibility that such vacua have no restrictions on structure. But does it not seem to make more sense that such influences if they are concrete would be in the gray area of the quasi-real and somehow there be the freedom to change states between that continuous and discrete as absolutes? Still the standard model is a rather thrilling model to grasp, especially the philosophy under it and the physical interpretations. It is further comfort and satisfaction to see similar or equivalent principles developed outside of the academic mainstream and most of it well before reading. Let us not forget the concerned individual when we commit to the notions and terminology of our established collective institutions. The town as well as gown is the source of enterprise in that to some extent, in a gray area of political subjectivity as if seeing only the chiralities and asymmetries of the weak muons and what is everything else we dynamically relate and restrain the creativity and advance it collectively. That some notion is new does not mean it is original, if original not necessarily the source and origin to which so many individually and justly are proud to discover as if they were not part of the awakening of a wider social and mental space.
* * *
This was a rather full post for the notes and drawings casually put down the last couple of days but One more thing I might add just reading Lubos and feeling I am on a similiar topic (although my comment before this may have refered closer to his earlier post than the general topic at hand, at least not easily seen related save by the blogger himself maybe):
Synchronicity after all may have something to do with physics but other than one blogger I follow Intangible Materiality I am not sure this much is a part of physics even if some like Jung relate it to a thermodynamic mental model.
I am not one of the emergence thinkers you critique. I see the wisdom in your caveats. Yet, I disagree on many of the fine points of this post and in effect posted today on this matter. Only, in this unsolved problem of quantum-gravity (after all mass can be discrete storage of information against a background of say what is not the muon) which I regard as a dead end btw, we have to take in to account things a little deeper than the quantum theory. Yes the apparently discrete nature of an atom is associated with a frequency on some level. Yes, we cannot write it all as zeros and ones... but we can have a third situation, at least virtually which first of all solves the issues of superimposition (is the quantum cat alive and dead at the same time, for example?) Even if we could, and the nature of memory is important here and the more energy needed to recover it than set it down, there is no general model that suggests it leads to emergence in some of the ways you describe it. There is more to the world than the general configuration and Hilbert spaces.
* * *
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Depth and Span of Fields
I wonder if my curiosity for how the world is made was satisfied long ago - after all is it really that simple that we apply something like the Klein 4 group to variations of quaternions from Dirac, put them on interchangeable vertexes of color on some deeper understanding of the dimensions of the cube? If so, and without formal study even of such groups but of the geometry at the foundations itself I begin to understand on one hand the difficulty of such simple pastimes and yet on the other hand feel keenly how primitive our body of knowledge and methods of analysis are. The cost of theory can far outweigh the boondoggle cost of some experiments (friend Lubos).
Are we entering a new age for such things as dark matter (say applied to the dipoles and helix coherence of DNA) or do some of the New Agers in their parlor games of stealth and chance really work the foundations of concrete physics- in a way the depth of field and the span is after all a subjective matter of taste and as fundamental to the human psyche as Newton finding the corpuscular irreducible s or Leibniz reveling in the infinitesimal. But what is dark matter that it was not conceived long ago along with Black holes from the Newtonian model? And who was this Newton that he considered the non-linearity of particles with their own influence of charge and mass? Or he who saw the philosophic problems of a ever descending explanation of the hierarchy of particles. These philosophers who first thought about zero and infinity, vacua and the roots of things, the calculus.
* * *
Tubing On the River L. Edgar Otto July 16, 2010
Foggy whirlwind devils dance and spin
over the river's mirror and reflected within
Their depth and space dragging directed Dervish
soul that I change directions with my will
Or just that I change my mind's perceptions?
flip the vertex color, infinity the span?
All along the mayflies and dust motes,
fallen leaves and spent egg cases
Seem to spin both ways with the river's flow
upstream as well as downstream seeking levels devine
The further back in time flow to origins
the universe shrinks and its age grows, eternal its measure
Here now I float with the river its glass bottom with
my prying eyes on an inner tube and all is timeless
My brain is full of entanglement on a staircase
yet this too even save in some bubble I doubt as real
Where would I store the ice and rainbows of some
grander design from my dreams to build
Measure my soul against the aether wind of the river's water
even if my dust's nature is still lest than my artful hands?
* * *
The vacuum in a sense has structure (as my 00 and 0 notations, that is the double square roots of things or like in Rowlands proper time and time) such is the roots of zero and one that some entities invisible may assume distinct dark functions and structures. Now three space has its foundational place as well the higher spaces but 153, 670, 671, and 470 as the digits cube equal that number is the example of roots of one or zero that are important to expand the set of such numbers beyond the also included 1 and 0 as sums of cubes in three space.
The quasic dimensional depth is also the natural dimensional span. The ideas of field complexity and compactification meet the "flangelation" in our geometric explanations of order and place, of symmetry and anti-symmetry, of the discrete and the continuous in a dance of spinning perspectives.
Thus in the span in the stillness of the simply connected plane concrete bits of light may move between the curves or between such planes in depth the ghostly particles of dark light move, enfold, and we do not see it directly- nor that these are in some arrangement of fundamental space not separate at all over entanglement.
Why is it hard to accept between choices in our mind that such topological things may be the ground of all we hold physical and then not to accept the "superior sperm" of longevity and intelligence of our species (new scientist article); yet not also accept the same reality of the experienced but also equally metaphysical substance of our mind. I either move beyond or ignore those who choose sides with the consequence of the broken symmetry of war.
So, in the aromatic places of zero probability to find some electron we stack them as if three or four cubes in the rotate then flip - and behold the nature or physis code, the cosmic code, and the stability and reading of it- in the threesome of the 3+1 and even holonic formalism (as all such logic classically beginning with Aristotle and the symmetries of Dihedrons and Klein's least not cyclic group) we derive the possibilities of path motions in the dimensions and between the centered or focused cubes of hyperspace we observe the mysteries of quantum logic. Yet that is but a cloud or fog along the way to new beginnings back to the foundations.
* * *
Another mathematical recreation last night with wide variations, 30,50 stars and so on for a simplified USA flag:
* * *
* * * A Footnote to previously mentioned hints at further topologies applied:
From the perspective of continuity and the world according to Coxeter what is in the actual arrangement of the atoms of the bases are also analogous in a relaxed manner to the general coherence of the space, especially where it is a discrete choice and application between the hierarchy of systems in a relaxed quasi-deterministic manner. Not only the Hydrogen bonds between matched bases an important consideration (and the process of the first star atoms unto Helium) but the actual number of atoms considered at rest mass and yes the isotope numbers that can affect the global field (perhaps the dihedral angles significant here are the square root of 11 plus or minus 1 divided by two and so on... This sort of thing may be generalized as a principle I suspect and should have a more formal treatment of what is going on at the foundations.
But the jewel is perhaps where Coxeter investigates the plane as a polytope, that is his small delta notation which has honeycombs of five such spaces which are their own duals in a cycle of five of them. Such a principle at the frontier of his geometry (in an Euclidean manner) most certainly applies to string like and gauge like theory's. Again, from the quasic generalization the order of the elements in a group may not be restricted to the idea of distance involving the square root of two. Certainly the fourth root of one half as a value for the Lambda with its added pion times the proton value seems to give intelligible and observed measure. The averaging of state values for say the Xi needs deeper than the usual statistical principles I imagine as a working idea it seems enough for now. This five fold-ness beyond the classified cyclic groups of linearly applying the reflections and so on embedded or not in some space sets the limits to cyclic things for a linear dimensional direction where parallel things are coincident. For example a two by two by three unit of cubes and five of them may contain the pentacubes of two space (12) so he intuition of what we can do with these simple cubes has deeper mathematics than we seem to be able to program with our current principles of patter recognition. Also, in fractal paths if we have an implied axis that may assume one of several colors there is no reason to prefer such in color effects on path directions. Of course the principles of symmetry and conservation as with Rowlands can be generalized- I suggest it can be so even further.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
I have only been in the coffee shop every other day but I have had a few thoughts, among them the idea of vertexes taken literally, topologically as the vertexes of the Feynman particle diagrams. But through the storms and my neighbor dancing in the eclipse like night of midday I managed to begin the classification of all my cube puzzles any of which would make interesting sets for playing. I also read more on Peter Rowlands method of foundational physics and continue to be impressed with his interpretations of the physical world and particles even though with my reading other places such as the net and from various institutions and people I regard physics of our time a a beautiful mess.
Up from the "so called" vibrations with the imaginary numbers we make the amplifier and so to imagine it as if a model of inflation, or better yet jitterbugging of the dark matter and related forces. Rowlands is right to apply the standard model to biological systems- but this is only the beginning to deeper models so applied.
We live subjectively on a higher level language of which we interpret and amplify the deeper truths of physicality (and even deeper assembly language of information) so what is true is perhaps a matter of social or political power only (as in a comment to Lubos of the reference frame blog today). My experience with those of turf and tenure for the most part has not been a pleasant one. I lobbied for the superconducting supercollider but wonder now what it really will achieve if it is not along with fermi lab strictly done without politics? The again no great projects like the pyramids were done without cost over runs- money is very abstract to me lately a sort of meaningless higher level language and in that sense is not a very scientific enterprise that makes the subjective experience of living and trying to do the work of science free of impediments for individual lives of enquirers. There is no measure really of the collective intelligence once it is political and a higher level language- for all practical purposes we are in the stone age still at the beck and call of crackpot priests and greedy overlords.
* * *
Comment to Lubos:
I think your analysis it right on. You look at the consistency at the foundations which as mathematics of the models or facts of vacua has always been an exploration by analyzing the inconsistency of models. Clearly, as Rowlands said, the fact of 1 + 1 = 2 brings the foundations down to deep and almost metaphysical questions of number theory.
Is there some model among the zillions that would suggest as a reality that the "as newscientist said was a rumor designed to make famous certain bloggers" that a gluino + b = b + Higgs ? I mean experimental evidence or proof aside is this idea intelligible in theory? Certainly the intrinsic chirality (my position from long ago) favoring matter over antimatter is a welcome result. But as Rowlands suggests the weak force does not recognize either the strong or the electric force. What does it mean then in your calculations the mass of such things if we share the same formalism on different physical scales?
I am here on the blogs by accident and not in academia- which on a higher level language seems more political than science as a method of sharing enquiry. Yours is a service to science.
* * *
New Scientist today lists a thrilling link to this article:
which ascribes the maintaining of the helix shape of DNA to quantum entanglement between the bases.
Of course more than once the sciencechat forum physicists and biologists chastised me and other for asserting any such quantum effects to organic processes especially the psychological ones.
In view of Rowlands et al trying to apply the standard theory to DNA and if we consider the bonds entangled in the way suggested in this article and in the alternative way in Rowlands of the tenfaced deltahedral stacking then this should send us all into true epiphany of what we are in design and further creative speculations.
Not to mention the idea of what entanglement is at the foundation of things (but I forget that work needs to be done on these levels- for me some of the more advanced relations in the topology apply also from the ideas of Coxeter - that is what is going on between the bases and the number and structure of the molecules themselves using these higher relationships.)
But if in a way the standard or some such model applies we should connect the dots for would not the predominance of matter and handedness apply to the biology as it is an analog of sorts for the standard theory? Where are our creative scientific epiphanies even if this work is to be but small steps doled out over the lifetime of a research scientist? Today's astronauts are tomorrow's underpaid city bus drivers! Apparently we can have bus drivers who bias the field praising their epiphanies as astronauts.
* * *