Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Unentangling Strings and Knots

Unentangling Strings and Knots

Almost nothing at all last night- but when I go out on the porch and watch the soft snow, sometimes an idea comes to me- usually like a gentle breeze to catch before I forget it may hold the secrets profound.

I recalled how, when the thin wires of our wire recorder were tangled, or for any series of knots and wires for that matter, my father showed me how to untangle them by loosely pulling at the mass rather than tightening and threading between the loop and ends of wires. This did not strike me as strange but maybe common knowledge- perhaps the knowledge of a working man who wants to solve things but knows there is little time for getting lost in a maze- or does not want to pull an Alexandra and solve it politically with a sword.

The string like (in the sense a loop of three things but which one is relativistic and which is the center of say quarks in an older model- none of the string models really match the remote maths of my iota point-lines and their scale analogs.) porons of double straws in the partial bounding and freedom should we connect them leads to some interesting links and weaves as connected structures. But to find say a tetrahedron or other structures where how many straws may come to some point, one has to work it loosely- in a hands on sense this can be meditative and relaxing-not all of physics has to be so oppressive in its formality of gravity. In a sense it makes no ultimate sense to define some string like structure as a point or a line or even a loop. If there is an ultimate gravitational particle (did I say no gluons or no gravitons- see Rowlands- of which I notices upon the recommended googling that Kea is aware of him so maybe that explains the similar equation forms). It of course would be a point of nothing everywhere and thus a good candidate for a gravitational force (particle or not) or as Rowlands shows a full 25 instead of 24 + 1 that is 9 and not 8 for the gluon count?

If we go into the depths of a theory long enough we find the holes or the unexplored places of speculations and unknowns. One understands a book better when most of it begins to read as composed of these sort of words and formulas. This is the case with further reading last night. Not to say the idea in general is not unique or even the best of ideas- but it is not just the real parts of Dirac and E8 and all that has a level of tanglement as isomorphic in forms.

Also, a lingering thought or mood on the quasimetaphysical. From one sense I found we could see the world as we so see it as children. We do not have to look so deeply into foundations, especially the metaphysical ones. We can take the world as it is without a reduction to some sort of idea of spirit or some sort of idea of materialism. This in a sense is a measure we could call the reality of things. If God is real, on this wise he would be part of the reality of things. There is no need for such ideas as renormalization- for there is an ultimate scale or notion of scale (God whose center is everywhere in the old metaphysics) nor of some sort of filled negative vacuum state. That is a partial theory to the suspected state of things at the foundation of physics where all values would be scalar and positive and unit spin and so on (if I understand Rowlands right, but I do understand how this works with laws of motion and distance in my quasication of space. Our relativistic and quantum views start out as partial theories to a wider view of what is real despite what we may think about it and each other.

One thought occurred to me- that in the shifts and negations and complex spins and twists of logic- Phd's who cannot see and call others slow or not relevant or worse, and the diagnosed crazies who tell me I am the sanest person they know ( how to these extremes know such things?) It may be that the slow cannot distinguish what is faster than themselves on some reality level as averaged out and common- so they would see the smarter person and even his actions and speech as slow. On the other hand, my roommate who has medication has a sense of humor, gets my jokes, and understands and says what he does not understand of most any physics or moral issue we discuss- and I make great criticism and interpretations of his art also so in a sense, emotionally attached to those who are slow and would see me as slow I resolve to make it so they no longer have me in their head. In particular I close the blinds since new year so the lady that watches me and - well, I am a gentleman, will no longer speak to me thru the window but not on the street- I mean I walking by her with a gift in my pocket (well, she said no to it- not accept even an xmas gift.) I have to admit something does not connect there. I think in general my resolution is to stay away from people who cannot handle their drink or drugs. Anyway, I got a lot more done lately but I miss the stars and snow and sounds and breezed and shift of light and so on in a bare room- what is light really, but that others may see it- hopefully as a beacon in the darkness?

* * *

It has been a long time since I played with Pascal Triangle analogs- and I had no idea such simple things could be so close to deep physics foundations- surely, I thought, there was more to all of it and a steep learning curve ahead. Maybe if there is nothing else to do I should continue this blog as some sort of reference to such explorations. I should not have assumed that someone drawing out say the four dimensional analog would be an obvious and easy thing to do- but if indeed these simple ones in three space apply (and that only a layer in the simple) to say something like neutrinos- what must these higher analogs describe?

Of course, way up there in the ceiling of unentanglement we begin to see that the paradoxes of parity and chirality resolve to some sort of positive quasic like reality space. Thus life is more general than mere concepts of local entropy and its directions and connections.

* * *

L. Edgar Otto The world is as it is despite what we may think on how it works. There is a certain reality far from ideas of vague spirits or vacuum and dust. We can understand this reality as we did as children. One day science will find this view again for at least what we can know about ourselves and the world, interesting with less earth shaking drama.

* * *

This poetic mood of the sense of the real, a conservation of the structure of reality of sorts, suggests that we have to have a higher sense of how particle like things work and force like things, for we really cannot make the ultimate distinction between field and particle or say what sort of thing a particle is if it is bound with asymptotic freedom or is free from the tangles with others and can change such states somewhere, perhaps at beginnings. I am describing a rather contiguous and connected region, a more general concept than asymptotic freedom as an ultimate principle- something real and concrete yet beyond ideas of a pure cloud of uncertainty disembodied from any angle computation or from an absolute solidity. But, saying the feeling as best I can for now, the idea needs further consideration.

Perhaps this unentanglement idea is useful to consider what happens say in a star or planet between its ultimate description as a surface or a singularity as a point.

1. Anirudh Kumar SatsangiJanuary 4, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I am one the chief expounder and supporter of Gravitation Force Theory of God. This is most scientific and secular theory of God. This is the Theory of Universal Religion. I have given Higher Theory of Everything. Sometimes back I posted this as comments to a blog on:
‘Fighting of the Cause of Allah by Governing a Smart Mathematics Based on Islamic Teology’
By Rohedi of Rohedi Laboratories, Indonesia. Rohedi termed my higher theory of everything more wonderful than which has been developed by Stephen Hawking. Some details are quoted below:
rohedi
@anirudh kumar satsangi
Congratulation you have develop the higher theory of everything more wonderful than which has been developed by Stephen Hawking. Hopefully your some views for being considered for Unified Field Theory are recognized by International Science Community, hence I soon read the fundamental aspect proposed by you.
I have posted my comments to the Blog of Syed K. Mirza on Evolutionary Science vs. Creation Theory, and Intellectual Hypocrisy. Syed Mirza seems to be a very liberal muslim. He responded to my comments as mentioned below.
“Many thanks for your very high thought explanations of God.
You said:
“Hence it can be assumed that the Current of Chaitanya (Consciousness) and Gravitational Wave are the two names of the same Supreme Essence (Seed) which has brought forth the entire creation. Hence it can be assumed that the source of current of consciousness and gravitational wave is the same i.e. God or ultimate creator.
(i) Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, Source of Gravitational Wave is God”
Whatever you call it, God is no living God of any religion. Yes, when I call it “Mother Nature” is the God generated from all Natural forces and Gravitational force is the nucleus of all forces or we can presume that Gravitation is the ultimate guiding principle of this Mother Nature we call it non-living God unlike living personal God of religions. I can not believe any personal God would do so much misery created for its creation. Hence, only non-living natural God can explain everything in the Universe. When we think of any living personal God, things do not ad up!”

2. Anirudh Kumar Satsangi ,

Thank you for your comments and insights and that point of view. I certainly need help thinking on these things as they can be disorienting. I do feel there is a core deep down in us that rings of the real and the truth and of God greater than we have imagined.

Maybe, like our debates on what is a soul, the truth of personality is somewhere on the surface in between so beyond that in depth. We need honesty in ourselves and science, first.

I am surprised at a comment other than from the physics of it all which to me seems much easier to think about. Thank you and feel free to criticize anything I say you think is an error.

I implied but did not assert what you discerned, that is as best we can understand it as something like gravity, that such a transcending concept is a reality here and now in our humbled hearts.

Even the paradox of misery and personality of higher concerns has at its fundamentals a real place that makes sense if we but see the higher view.

I wish peace and compassion for our coming new years... we as much its creators as authors of evil- we only have one sky.

I think we have a path or destiny but alas I am not sure what of such wisdom the message and purpose and reason we dream is yet to be.

The Pe Sla