Saturday, October 2, 2010
The same graph of yesterday Only rotate it or put the red yellow green blue in a perpendicular order to show in abstract two space different 4-space symmetries and freedoms (much like Ullas idea and of higher dimensions in general of something, an axis, magnetism quite possibly considering monopoles, as "perpendicular" to the rest)
Yesterday I went to the beginning of this blog- which also has a title "Theory of Everything" after some thought I saw it also as related to our shared hidden or general picture:
Surely the theory is comprehensive and seemingly complete, and as far as the arguments of measure and the equations who then can show them not of the quality of those of modern physics? It comes from a more relativistic side of the two physics and yet is solid on the mathematics as taught and applied. It has originality in the idea of a sort of static stereonometry principle- indeed, part of the links apply to a not-quantum justification for cold fusion (and quantum theory allows that possibility but the results are intermittent as a proof by experiment goes) In a way we can reach the more Euclidean infinities ultimately between static things (dilatons...) with all the problems of flatness- but much of this the way physics is done today is opaque and has to be asserted by and held by a sort of faith.
This assertion and faith is after all applied to if a theory of everything exists in the first place. Such things are not yet shown as a matter of fact as a science yet it covers complete laws that seemingly nowhere are violated. The same sort of theory applies to opaque things, like dark matter theories or if there is a multiverse. These can well be imagined as nothing at all as a vacuum- or they have some sort of hidden influences or symmetry.
The author asserts a difference once the calculations are carried out which seems to explain certain energy or gravity value differences. I have said this as not quite a chiral principle in balance as that design and mechanism which derives such differences from say the holographic and the fractal models of the mathematics.
But the problem is clearly one of how we see and apply complex numbers. As Lubos reports these are the heart of quantum theory and with good reason for it is hard to map them in the same way as the Cartesian field, they seem random and unpredictable, they are under the determinism of physical laws sources of mystery, non-linearity, and randomness. Yet a theory leaning to the quantum side is also comprehensive and intelligible as a theory of everything.
Let us suggest vaguely that we have the real mathematics of say a sphere. In its mirror like image as imaginary numbers we have also an (imaginary) sphere. In the article the model is one of an expanding space of four dimensional objects into a fifth dimension which at first seems a comprehensive idea- yet string theory would suggest this might be only a beginning of a wider geometric generalization as does my Quasic physics. But in the quasic grid one can clearly see other phenomenon stated as far as the structural arts of higher than the first few dimensions (just as structural arts are defined above the first few levels of a building like for bridges and skyscrapers- tomorrow I will add that as the photo as I am now in the public library).
The key point to make here is that the order in abstract space, static or dynamically kinetic or not (and this applied to DNA and other large organic molecules) when you reach four dimensions there is a wider freedom of things such that the ordering may be a choice of two ways to go for a mirror image in imaginary space. As long as we compare a real sphere with one of the imaginary ones only in the space we dwell we cannot make a decision (as if in some ideas of current politics as to whom to vote for) for either one seems to limit our compass of what we then feel is reasonably or absolute true of some situation. Thus, against a flat background of independent theories we add emotional stances to our commentments of intellect- it being less likely then we find an intelligible comprehensive new theory.
Stop then, some of you who study the topology as the ground of the total theory, and think about this. A pure four space (or for those in string theory who understand we may double the dimensions from the real to the complex, we can of course double the imaginary notations also in a workable algebra as Rowlands did) has two ways to make such transformations and evolutions of a system- for at that place as if the intersection of 4-branes some things are not included in the general quasic order just as in a lower space only no higher points are observed or if observed are superimposed. Who knows what is hidden in a supposed singularity of a black hole for example- some gap or hole of missing space or physics? Some dusty seed for to erect concretely or find abstractly the place beyond consciousness and time for the soul?
I know also that the quasic grid goes to 8 dimensions for such intersecting four spaces which reqire more than four quadrants as does the arithmetic of even higher dimensions. Thus we begin this sort of stereonomic more general freedom (not necessarily to be confused with our grounded notions of supersymmetry) in dimensions high enough and free enough and independent from physical concepts enough to erect abstractly or even construct concretely against decay and theories that rest on and convince of some final decay our creative human enterprise with its long building the cathedrals in real time, far from the string dimensions compression of the pyramids to the flying buttresses and fan vaults, our theoreticians of hyper-structural arts.