Friday, December 17, 2010

*PiRho Peter Rowlands et al

*PiRho Peter Rowlands et al

Last night I picked up Peter Rowlands book again having read other versions of what is fundamental in the physics. I cannot praise this book enough and feel that some of his insights are too important for other theoretical physicists not to address for their philosophies. Still, I seem to be in disagreement with some key points- and even wonder at the whole enterprise of such thought save for itself perhaps. If we have a selection of fundamental ideas it seems the various bloggers and physicists can pick and choose items from this or that area for a default setting. Where I disagree in some things it is beyond the scope of his book- more of what still is the application of metaphysics- although all this much to do about particles and the new interpretations of evolving models seems almost too abstract.

Nothing much else to do really, I dreamed of several passages again as if statuses on facebook by a few nerds who said the obvious trivially. I read a few of them and realized that in their own way they were interesting and profound- I resolved to read them that way and perhaps to collect some of them as sayings for in that simple light they could be of use to explaining our purposes and raw human activity.

I disagree much on the concepts, even at nil potency, of what makes a line or a curve in the abstract- but I very much agree it is a problem of continuous and discreteness in the world. I am not sure that in a linear operation information can have a direction or flow or that on some level spins become trivially renormalized and equal 1. It remains to be seen if this unique philosophy will stand the various tests but the notions are truly in the spirit of the search for fundamentals. It makes some of the other self-styled pro-scientists read most speculatively.

I also see, in that part of my development coming late and not before in some deep physics concept as to who discovers first (if indeed that matters or even means anything) that the idea of a double zero, a null principle as a thermodynamic law, also applies as a more generalized possibility beyond the zeroth law. (I do not recall off the top of my head what fourth higher law I posted on philosophychatforum but there are several and the need for one is also one of Rowlands concerns.

In some places where Rowlands explains that certain views if held would undermine the very idea of the unity we try to reach in physics and its methods- I feel he stated too soon- but it is a good logical exercise.

* * *

Our lives sometimes seems to go through stages- in this enterprise of leaning and living as if punctuated equilibrium (not to assert assent to that particular view) and at the foundations and fundamentals it is normal that we in questioning our reality and what grounds it that we question what we are and why we do things ourselves and if it were worth the spending of our light. I can quite imagine, in my own ego time-line at least, certainly not an endless spiral well defined but then not a cave with fleeting limitations (each remains an open case) that given as much change in another decade if I live that long that just maybe some of my own gaps in understanding or the feeling of the need for it, will find better answers to that which is still to me an irreducible mystery.

I am not sure I agree with the holographic principle as it applies to the asymmetry of the bra an ket- nor that in the nilpotency formulation such metaphysical balance is a clear statement of an indempodent like grounding for memory and its ranges. The foundation has to be deeper and open to exploration.

I did conceive of adjusting my charts to what was ten years ago a vague intuitive principle I called the chiral theorem (of which I also think some of these abstract concepts are at bottom the heart of physics if we use the tools wisely) in that I could map the fundamental particles to the quasic grid with this clarification if it is fact of the right and left forms which were implied for the muon generaton as the center - and that as a consequence of my reading of the genetic code pattern rather than that pattern derived from the Diracian vector- twistor- complex formalism as Rowlands elucidates the mechanism and puts reasonable doubt to some ideas we now have for what are particles. In a half hearted way we may find the role of gravity as after all one of the more fundamental forces somewhere even without the better explanation for what is the physical involving ideas of locality and non-locality and conservation and so forth...

Whatever else my quasic grid is (and in the illustration the small avatars do show such things as nimbers, and Greaco-Latin squares, and subsets of quasic orthogons (again Rowlands speculates where I have assumed the truth of an idea long ago- in a footnote that has the potential to describe a wider relation of groups that overlap, his intuitive sense of this I feel right on. I do not feel the octonians are automatically symmetry broken in the most general conception of things and I do feel we need the four fold concepts as well as the 3+1 algebras.)if nothing else a useful educational tool that covers many if not all areas of our notions of what is physics or not- yet, in the abstract things even without the idea that so much is merely subjective, the realization of the significance is as if to realize ghostly qualities which we in our vague grasp of some outline over our shoulder faster than what we imagined was the illusion of motion seen most likely was perception of the real. It would go far to sort out the confusion of new words and the way old terms and terms in use limit our explorations for it is a raw geometry. One cannot base everything on the ideas of consecutive (and natural code) order. One can have a pure vacuum somewhere, a pure nothingness that is being and Nothing and not just in the existential sense of Sartre as if he talking of the metaphysics of muons of their Being and No-thing as the default of vacuum.

Clearly Rowlands objections to the too wide a view of string theories is one we all feel to which we may question if that path of research has the probable power to resolve things soon enough- or if it can be a foundation that would set the empirical and rational world in the proper orientations to ground things to the quantum view- to in fact as in Rowlands preface- do proper reductionism as one of the attributes of a successful physical theory.

I do not know who can or will read these posts. But I know I have read them and thought as best I can, and in a way that is perhaps not a work requiring genius beyond overcoming obstacles of circumstance and effort. I can say this- it is in its own way a beautiful awakening of beautiful images- and an affirmation of the amazing thing our minds and private lives and sacrifices are as humans- you know, I hope, long after our generation is forgotten as not that special and significant- that too seems part of the big picture of physics- that someone who reads this in the light of our finite presence and pointless or dramatic lives- that they find it an interesting, informative, and entertaining read. Intellect can be a part of our love also, for that is a story still to wide to write about and find the unity and certainty of our value with and within each other- so soon its loss, so soon its stillbirth, so arbitrary the turns and twists and reversals of birthorder and failed stars. To the extent this enterprise was religiously grounded and motivated I can only say the answers there are still open ended- I am still waiting for what to do next if anything and for what consequences my choice to explore such things. As the great Heraclitean in his psychotic novel, John Fowles said I paraphrase in his book the Magus "They were alone only with each other and no one watching them or telling them what their loving will be or do. How like God to load the dice and walk away."

* * *

Some recent and relevant posts I have encountered here lately:

* * *

Sometimes what appears in an issue of a popular science magazine as separate articles all seem to have common linkage to my eyes- this is especially true today of these related articles on science daily. It seems that despite the speculations that the hard empirical sciences continue to make useful discoveries which in turn can aid technology and speculation. Now, if in our analyses of the fundamentals of foundational physics we learn to see a little under the hood of how the things in it works or could work, such as magnetism... as wave vs other quantum formulations- you might agree that these articles today seem to have at least a common underlying geometry link. Such a link for higher resonances of particles for example would be like riding light or vibrating in a lattice of our imaginations- and yet as if in the rings that hold together in three but not two, and that idea of knots to be extended beyond the linear possibilities in mere three space (rrushius and I explored these in terms of psychology, Lacan, on the philosophychatforum) this would be a journey in such higher spaces looking down into the various fractal like, or Pitkanen like, or quasic like levels in a restrained but still rather diffuse pure four space grounding of perceptions as the general first default.

* * *


  1. I am very fond of metaphysics myself, but it has nothing with science to do. In science we try to link things we know, or think we know of, together. Quite often the result is something very alike metaphysics, but they should be kept apart. That they are alike is to me only a proof of ancient peoples good brains, and it fills me with admiration. But metaphysics cannot be a model of science, it can only be compared to the results and we can seek the similarities as some kind of indiciums.

    This is obvious if we realize metaphysics has evolved in ancient times from intuition or 'prophets' seeing things not ordinary people could see. Jung talked of 'seeing' through a window, that is a small area only, at a time. No coherent picture could be there, and so they filled in missing parts by logic. This window is far from logic, so the result was inexact. Religion arouse also in this way? Some experiencies of 'God' or the window-coherence + fantasies. God is real but not where or what people in common think he is.

  2. Hi, Ulla

    I was beginning to think I was alone out in the blogsphere- thank you for the comment.

    I am pretty much in agreement with you and feel I moved on a bit from metaphysics to stereonometry (a form of geometry really).

    God is real and so on- I have said the same many times in my philosophychatforum posts.

    I wonder if the atom smasher will find truth or fantasy in those little windows of measure?

    My next post has a simple chart on the nucleons- now I ask you, my awkward words aside
    what is illogical or metaphysical about that?

    I am hoping one day when we all evolve a little more that those looking back might have a brief moment of admiration for our brains :-)

    You know, I was thinking of stopping the blog having said so much- why do we do this?- but thank you for the interest.

    Best of holidays to you!


  3. Your language is unfortunately a bit too difficult for me. But usually I read what you have written nevertheless. It has been a low tide now. I guess everyone is waiting for results from LHC, and also how they should be interpreted, what is a pity. Educated physicists should be able to think themselves. Results are however pointing at no SuSy, what is maybe the reason for the silence.

    It is nothing wrong with metaphysics as long as you keep physics and metaphysics apart. Metaphysics is more like an analogy.

    Why we do blogging? I guess to educate people, and ourselves. At least I learn much of the effort to put evidence together in a new way. Fortunately I do inspire someone.

    If we find saga or truth at LHC will only future tell us. I hope that many fantasies will have an end, so that we can begin a new era of physics based on less sagas and more reality.

    Have a good christmas season to you too.