Saturday, December 18, 2010

Tongue Twisters: Dark Quarks and Dork Quarks

Tongue Twisters: Dark Quarks and Dork Quarks

Let me first post two links today on the same topic:

Let me suggest that these results can be had logically and rationally also- that it is not by experiment alone that we can solve some of these rather unabashed metaphysical assumptions, especially where as measure (*PiRho) what we are showing is a matter rather of epistemology.

Can we logically rule out Preons any more than show from a deeper symmetry and fundamental operation that somewhere all the vacua are filled, in flux, or not observable after a few differentiations, are one substance in a quasi-infinite universe? But nilpotency or nothingness is a neutral and scientific ground (*PiRho) and is perhaps the way things are and about as physical or (not metaphysical) as we can get- certainly a more general and deeper or "dork" space as a generalization of this hyloscoping abstract quasic logical stereonomic representation must seem even more metaphysical.

Now, to the extent we can regard a seemingly non-linear field as a particle (to use vague words really) can the LHC like experiments rule out Membrane theory? Can they even explain the results in relation to the idea of black holes and dark matter? I must agree with Ulla in her comment- that we do need a new era of hard science.

* * *

This sent email yesterday: To Peter Rowlands


Last night I took a look at the particle parts of your book again (every once in awhile I pick it up and as time goes by I understand more especially in reading others as on the blogs.) I write you to let you know I posted some comments on your philosophy of physics on my today, in case I have misread or misquoted your positions. I, for some reason, did not get the main theme of your book at first- most likely because I was not familiar with certain concepts- at last someone answered the technical question for me on why there were 8 gluons or 27 dimensions in one old theory I read back in a popular physics book of which the string theorist I knew could not explain to me- your book did. Anyway, from time to time in my blog your group is mentioned in good light.

I look forward to any new breakthroughs and insights you may have.

Have a very nice holiday! (no reply is necessary :-)

L. Edgar Otto

* * *

Well, two articles from the popular science magizine view- after reading some of the bloggers I wonder if anyone reading science on this level would get any deep picture. Then again if what is concluded in the articles is true then some of our bloggers seem to hold contradictory or counter beliefs as to what supports their own philosophic view of physics.

OK not as easy to find susy but it could still be in the game- or as Ulla suggests there saga endures and not the hard facts to move us on to a more realistic physics?

It is a staggering claim. If Mersini-Houghton's team is right, the giant void is the first experimental evidence for another universe. It would also vindicate string theory, our most promising understanding of how the universe works at its most fundamental level. And it would do away with the anthropic arguments that have plagued string theorists in ...

So do anthropic arguments plague string theorists? :-) as in the case of global warming? Or perhaps there are deeper things that string theory. Again, as Rowlands observes it is a question also of uniqueness in (any) universe.
linking to:
Even if just one of these spots turns out to be a bubble collision, it would be "a discovery of the first magnitude", says Thomas Levi of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. The finding would bolster theories – such as string theory – that call for a vast number of universes with different properties.

Again, if such data tends to lend support for string theory why are certain bloggers so soon to dismiss it or say its authors "lost it". But is this not the same problem of uniquess over some range, finite or not, and scale of things- the notions behind what is universe and multi-verse under the logic and semantics of it all?

In any case I too may appear to hold counter beliefs (although I try to qualify them and not assert what I am aware I do not know- or at least in some mental space we are sincere in what we think we know...) For I hold string theory valuable in itself even if but a stepping stone. But it cannot be a closed system and stay coherent nor one that is so wide it reduces its logical force to practically zero. One can see from the simple quasic map above that we need to ask why there is not observed say bbb or ttt due to things like energy concerns in a certain scale- but from an informational view, I too conclude like Rowlands that we have a hyloscope of 2^9 dimensions of relating or doubling the 64 values of vectors and so on- in fact we have 64 x 4^3 x 4^3 a triplication of the abstract space (once called trinx by me where two spaces of three players may intersect at a point and so on...) So this begins to explain some of the abstract generational concept in the information terms to which we may imagine planes of information that have analogs of quasic particles that also go through the binary powers- here a triplication of base 64. that is 512 x 512 as the grounding quasic plane to embed the particle objects.

A footnote:

It is obvious to me that the use of Foreur transforms has to have a more quasic or logical approach than just dividing space in to so many regions and adveraging them to some degree of accuracy. How we do this may determine how defined the data is that we see for example in the background radiation.

Clearly the idea of what is surface, averged or prefered in combinations, or of one linear opperation or not, the idea of a shell such as the classical electron radius or say to imagine the gravitational forces of the earth at a center point- requires a whole new integration of such concepts as informational physics in many areas where notions like symmetry of spheres (oddly used to adjust particle masses in equations) and the so called holographic principles.

Rowlands and I agree on the Riemann idea of 1/2 of certain values zeta- and I would say this is proven as much as any comprehensive theory that is universal or can be represented as so- that said, clearly in a multiverse scenario (especially one that allows tachyon like ideas gleaned from some string theories) there seems to be a place or a view contradictory where it universally does not hold and is not proven.

* * *

* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment