Saturday, November 13, 2010

Techneflangelation


Techneflangelation

Having reached a plateau of physics and philosophy thought lately, last night in play I found a very simple theory I am justly proud of. It follows from a remark in my last post of certain figurate numbers- an arithmetical form of geometry really-. I am amazed and satisfied mainly when I find some novel idea but not usually proud. I imagine, since it is so obvious that it must be explored somewhere with the equations of number theory- but I have never seen it and it may have been overlooked and in a few times even over a millennium some such theories are overlooked. No matter, part of the pride is that it is original for me- in fact raised issues of how I saw a couple of things at certain times in my childhood.

I even tried to find and fancy name for it- the poet in me I guess- techneflangelation, which was an intentional thing to do although with more humble theories I try not to keep it more complicated than needed to convey an idea. Anyway as time went on this simple idea (and I have to do a lot more work in the detail so I give you hints for now, puzzles perhaps, a call for proofs if anyone wants to play that game. The term comes from German for arithmetic in the general notion, rimcraft...like in rime and reason in these questions of law and order. But rim is a slightly different word than flange. Technoflange or even Tekrim will do for some things I thought as this simple idea like many others at a later consideration proved to hint at vast new pictures of space and how we relate to it in the evolution and development of our learning and notions.

In these times, with principles like Pauli Exclusion, renormalization, asymptotic freedom coming under greater scrutiny we do perhaps need to ground these useful ideas better.

(darn, the coffee shop is closing in a few moments so I must add to this post later)

synchronously I just saw a good post by Lubos to which in the topic here a paragraph stood out:


http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/11/quantum-field-theory-has-no-problems.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29


The asymmetry between the two kinds of divergences arises because of a simple fact: the physics at long distances is derived from the physics at short distances - because you can build big houses out of small bricks and you can deduce a useful approximate theory for long distances from the fundamental theory at short distances - but the converse proposition doesn't hold. In quantum field theory, you can't deduce short-distance physics from the approximate laws for long-distance phenomena, just like you can't extract bricks from a photograph of a building (with a facade). LuboŇ° Motl
Pilsen, Czech Republic

I have an issue with this concept as to with Riemann on the small we find the Pythagorean theorem- why can we not also build a theory of everything, or a TONE also from the small up? This needs clarification.

* * *

Theory of Techno-Rim : in any dimension one can intelligibly count the number of sub-cells of orthogons (and more) by taking the edge or rim and flange that is point and line, and taking the nth power in an n-space intelligible honeycomb of them. (yesterday in a hurry I only listed the three space case as the general theorem)

Continued in next posting:

No comments:

Post a Comment