Hyloscope

The Hyloscope (or hyle, or hyla for all that I care- more like oxford way to spell things!}

Looking Glass Real and Virtual Particles

Friday I noticed Ulla in a comment posted this link:

http://uduality.blogspot.com/2010/12/x-particle-and-hylogenesis.html

After this snowed in weekend, reading Rowlands again with his great comments on physics and the philosophy that underlies it; really a read that not only reports the current state of the maths and physicists and their historical context but the why behind it- of course many agree here with some if his grounding ideas. *PiRh I shall henceforth use to remind me of an idea I post here of which my knowledge of it comes from that author.

Witten thought a twistor formulation of string theory had possibilities (*PiRh more or less)- why then all the conflicts with Penrose on the blogs?

* * *

So, night before last I had a significant dream twice. It was three small stanzas as if a poem and talked of certain ideas of physics and philosophy (especially a distinction and a logical proof) in what appeared common concepts- clearly the Jung and Freud interpretations of dream were not that far apart of our awareness of them. (as stated in Oxford Philosophy).

Alas, upon awakening I recalled the analysis but not the poem itself- I would have liked to recall that.

The question, and it is a metaphysical one if not a theological one- is in these ideas of creativity- of something from the vacuum into the "genesis" of matter. A idea *PiRh asserts Newton with his impressed force felt the opposite of matter in this sense was what he called "spirit" but today we call it energy or vacuum.

The dream simply asked if anything can pop out of a black hole (including briefly a human being) could say a divine being (as if one image of Christ) so pop out. The point is that given our definition of consciousness and person-hood (*OxPhi) the question asked although it seems very metaphysical and does encompass the scope of matter and consciousness- is not asking about this higher form of perception and creative structures or forces in the universe. But that such, there or not, exist is beyond the scope of science and experiment, and philosophy- nevertheless there is a vast realm between existing ideas of our reductionist materialist physics and what so many regard as metaphysics- or with vague relevance's imagined- dark matter and anti-matter equivalence, and so on... and what will prove a wider grounding for physics than what we now insist there is in the scope of things.

It may be of comfort (and in ulla's link below) to imagine some vacuum force or particle or field making matter via an intermediate and abstract idea of a particle- but the particle concept is not as fundamental as the vacuum physics. Nor can we relate all physics to some idea of zero-point energy or measure scale and so on- yet we can have a measure and an algebra of it in flatland and a wider calculation (even a higher law or so of thermodynamics-but who so far understands the third one- certainly my speculations on these new laws were deleted on sciencechatforum- one of the few post that were- even though other such laws were proposed on the net from working scientists. There was the zeroth law, and a null law, and things happening as a fourth law which we now are beginning to realize as a more realistic ground for physics.

* * *

The Hyloscope

In the crude illustration above, a little out of focus, is the idea of a Hyloscope, which is akin to the teleoscope, drawn on a quasic space grid.

The difference here is that we can take so many real objects plotted in pixels of that space in variable levels of dimensions and combine them by the various laws- for example an alpha and an anti-alpha would be an alpha + 1 or these may vanish or double and so on.

The holographic idea is powerful as a principle but really, unlike the statement here stated in a finite manner, it is a result or consequence not of the conservation or continuity of numbers in the vacuum, but of abstract geometric counting. The discrete and the "hylogenesis" is the measure of the principle that the boundary information is that of the space it surrounds. Thus we can represent a set of particles as two space or an equivalent in three space with identical abstract information which btw conveys several things about linearity and circularity and spin and momentum and so on from the abstract quasication geometry.

Of course the illustration is a very simple example and quite arbitrary to show the principle. Here two 8x8 quasic particle complexes (multiverses) combine to get the unique multilevel real or virtual coordinates of the abstract space. In particular when we analyze the information as a notation converting the quaternion and octonion parts into three space we get duplications (but limited and intelligibly formed)that are not just some idea of complex numbers but concrete ones.) In this sense we can show that the octonian symmetry is not broken (*PiRh) in a wider expression of Dirac's algebra. In other areas of physics and math we should think about what in a more general space is not a problem of the affine.

I must add that the idea of time flow and direction, beyond the instantaneous, beyond the fixed grounding of what may be tachyoninc. that in the hyloscope we have these ideas of a more fluid flow of time in many directions, yet a general evolution which does not necessarily contain a directed will. In any case we are not doomed to only an indeterminacy concept in physics any more than a totally determined one.

* * *

The Perception of the Super-Phaneron

This is a third very difficult posting to express or read. The last post concerned the level of perception of consciousness and the objective background as equivalent but not a deep as the proposals of such creative processes and being here.

In particular we can imagine what we want as creatively real or in imagination only of what we see in the background of space and the stars. In remote principle we may actually change this background universe by what we want to see (eventually) for if we can show the creation of one concrete thing deeper than the so called field of quantum foam (and other myths of particle physics)- it is not problem to say eventually create planets from space. Yet qualitatively this should not be considered on the same level of creation as that by God in that we now understand it.

What we see and interpret then can be directed to one or more areas of the quasi-concrete (quasi-virtual) or the quasi-real- or we so observe and learn from what we assume is objective in what we see.

Now these things can be programmed into a moving picture- yet, at the very heart of our deciding and moving and so on it that process of our creative philosophy and scientific souls. We are on the tightrope and fulcrum of all such processes.

Clearly we cannot say how many of even the virtual particles there are, nor what is the ultimate nature of entropy or energy (there is no residual Maxwell flux necessary even if there were and aether! *PiRho) But we can assume their equivalence and in our simple formulas without hidden philosophic assumptions even determine the ratio of such things in a given region of multiverse. We can measure the infinite after all and ground the measure of the finite, physics, on sounder metaphysics than the scandal of what some today suggest half-halfheartedly as new science.




Lubos

I am not that impressed.

Surely one notices that the scale of a human is in the center of scales on that map.

While string theory implies super-symmetry, we can have super-symmetry without the model of string theory.

On the other hand your link to the discussion on E6 shows you are open to wider considerations of the universe (multiverse?)

Of course no one said the universe is such an isolated system. Are you accepting the third thermodynamic law as certain fact or as with math in general the only boundaries are approximations?

ThePeSla

* * *

I also put a comment and got a great reply from the site Ulla led me to. Interestingly in one of the adds on that site a book was offered that spoke of our choices of reality in parallel worlds- more like the remote viewing thing by a young guy- such things are close to what is possible or implied as so by some of the ideas I have considered here in a vague and more metaphysical description of things. And yet, so much of this physics as a realm and subject in itself reads to me as very fanciful- even if it is recent in the publications. Again, is this sort of super-gravity a concept independent of string theory? The kind reply does point out to me where I am in disagreement on some things: To start with I would allow the groups, (finite), to work with at least 16 dimensions (not the closed idea of the 8 for the exceptional groups). Also that for all the beauty of things like the reduction to matrices of something like linear processes as the diagonals it is not enough to describe the more complete picture. If on the other hand we can say there is some sort of informational theory which senses the jumbling of the less direct relationships between complementary diagonals of say the orthogons in any dimension then this simple principle of observation is way beyond our quantum ideas- it should be raised up as a deep theorem of physics- one I have called quasic. In any case how things work is the issue- and one that will take more than our too restricted ideas of applying the physical interpretations over R and C. We need in fact to better define the idea of qubit as a unit of information (quabit?) especially when we make the distinction for the types of information in particles when they take time to establish instantaneous transmission as in Penrose, the idea of quantanglement. But in these matters a coordinate event or particle, other than its own reference, does not know what natural dimension it is in- I suppose I am asking just what is gravity and just how super do we think it needs to be? It needs a lot more clarification as to what grounds these interpretations as physics let alone as metaphysics. But when you think about it- the concepts of mass and vacuum are rather philosophical. I merely suggest that space, as a creative think from some view like the quasars (hence quasic) is a structured vacuum to some extent. The division arithmetic is more fundamental than the division algebra. Let us not forget Rowlands formulation of nilpotent Dirac algebra as well as those of the idempotent variety. The question is, can we distinguish anymore between what is a fanciful and consistent theory or groups of them and others trends of deep speculation? Information theory should not be radically distinct from physics.

ThePeSla said...

Hello,

pesla.blogspot.com

I find your binary pictures interesting but cannot see why anyone would connect such simple diagrams to "supergravity"

We can label orthogonal points like that to any number n of dimensions?

I do not see new mathematics of physics here.


Sunday, December 12, 2010 10:04:00 AM PST
kneemo said...

Hello,

The math and physics is not in the labels. It is in the invariants involved, which appear in both the quantum information side and the supergravity side, with different interpretations. On the supergravity side one has a quartic invariant, which is interpreted as an entanglement measure on the quantum information side for three qubits. Such a quartic invariant, in general, is invariant under E7 transformations, which generalizes the results for three qubit entanglement, which is normally described by SL(2,C)xSL(2,C)xSL(2,C). Hence, this is a new result in the physics of quantum information theory coming from supergravity. Specifically, it proves the existence of quantum mechanical systems (SUGRA extremal black holes) which transform as three entangled qubits under a generalized SLOCC group, E7.

Remember that with exceptional groups (G2, F4, E6, E7 and E8), their properties stem from structures based on composition algebras that only exist in dimensions 1, 2, 4 and 8 as vector spaces over R and C. Hence, such qubit/supergravity labellings do not work generally for n-dimensions.

The intimate and still mysterious relationship between composition algebras and supergravity goes back to the early days of supergravity, when Freund and others were classifying all consistent theories. See the classic paper in 1982 from Townsend and Kugo Supersymmetry and the Division Algebra

* * *

I would add that the generation problem of triplication should be explained better from the abstract quasic space structural n-dimensional array than finding some trick of algebra in lucky exploration or exhausted insights. The illustration above of the hyloscope is a triplicate of coordinate systems 2^6 x 2^6 into 2^6 but we can see the possibility of more things in this sequence of things within a 2^8 quasic field. I do not think this is all a matter of the fundamental way of things being derived from 3 space (*PiRh)even the 10 or 11 dimensional forms. This will work but only so far. The success of lower exceptional groups in string like theories does not depend on they shackled to ill defined dimensionality. It is not enough to postulate parallel worlds where the laws of nature could be somewhat different- there can be these principles where such laws are radically different- and from a subjective view our notions and experience of such worlds is not in a distant scale or remote place- nor can they vary apparently from some statistical norm once the quasi-infinite and directed sense of things exists or becomes established. We should not be earthbound to some idea of compatification.

For those who do not want to muddle physics with ideas of biochemical models it would have been hard to predict the join influence of genes in an information system. But that is no reason to lump everything into a "non-linearity our physics and math cannot handle."