Sunday, July 25, 2010
Quasic Source Time, Imaginary Color, Hidden Creativity
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.