Arcadian Codon Theory Update

Arcadian Codon Theory Update

Today I will place here a speculation on genetics and science in general which only a few after hints of the theory published I find an application of (what I shall call Arcadian Theory, symbol Cyrillic I ) to further shore up these issues of triality. I see the online publication mentioned on the Arcadian Pseudofunctor blog and from the first glance at the synopsis I find these shadow particle issues already on my mind today in relation to other things than neutrinos. These mentioned by Lubos today with some rather basic numbers which certainly relate in my eyes to the new theory with its emphasis on algebraic topology.

It seems that in modern times there is 30 or so years that shake the foundation of our theories of physics- that, perhaps not a coincidence unexpected, seems the lifetime of one generation. (Was it Planck who said for a new theory to be adopted the old generation must die off?) In any case, the string theory as formulated has had its 30 year run and enters he bottleneck phase that the quantum theories did in matters of imagined and real understanding of cosmology and physics unification.

I, of course do not speak for the authors of this theory and I have to keep in mind there could be things I do not understand- the ideas in there ring a bell. I also think about the fundamentals (a sort of perpendicularity on the scale of intuition if not the details and tedious hard calculation, as with dimensions themselves (to which I understand the enthusiasm of Ulla, at first blush of any sort of mirror thing and what it may mean as real or not, that is can we have super symmetric particles that are not actually there to be found save thru the geometry contexts expresses perhaps thru complexification.

What does it really mean to be preoccupied with six dimensions, accept them and sort out the topology for one that may uniquely apply- if such a concept of dimensions, by my quasic formalism among other things, that this is also a four space formulation? And, if thought of as two three spaces we understand the idea of a 2x2 planes of intersection which basically means the fourth power dipole dipole descriptions between forces and particles. Where is the shadow to the electron as a monopole? Can we really say if the ends of strings are attached to a brane and shadow brain that that concrete M verse has as much substance as the one presumed we are bound in? This application of the theory in its details is too fresh to access its value as after all the usual tone of things introduced to this blog. I find it interesting that ideas (akin to the Hall effect, in models of graphene) can produce experiments that eliminate some ideas from cosmology and particle physics. This issue a matter of misunderstanding and debate between Ulla and I, but if I take that issue with wider eyes I realize that only makes this speculation in itself more concrete. In my consideration of codon structure I only count the atoms that surround the emptiness of that aspect of organic chemistry we call aromatic.

* * *

"Increases, decreases, what the hell does geometry care what the entropy does?" Italics mine to paraphrase a statement in "Mr Tompkins in Wonderland" replacing the word we.

I may have to revise some things when I read the body of the paper- but I am now creatively flowing with the synchronicity of it all. What, from a historical perspective, in creative work, to show how theory is done, can be more boring than poets who only reflect the brand names or of theoreticians their time or their academic breakthroughs of their personal experience so tied to such established prisons for the freedom to speculate? The collective of the times determine the nature and quality of the theories too. Ones that may, like humor, lose their relevance to distant immigrants from the future.

In my early poems, the age of space, the atomic age, the push because of Sputnik in our schools by the National Science Foundation I made highly speculative conclusions in that atmosphere of investment (a new one suggested now by the presidency as needed for the world itself)- but even then I felt reluctant and made it poetic in metaphors. From the illusion of Africa and South America seeming to fit in their coast lines I concluded the earth had plate tectonics before the fact. I concluded that something, neutrinos the candidates of the time, caused the earthquakes. I imagined by creative mechanism more than the idea of meteors that Mars would be pocked with craters... Sometimes I read things that has me recall these childhood day dreams which seem too simple on which to erect a scientific world view. On the other hand, with the microscopes and telescopes always handy, I, like I read later of Newton, turned a curved mirror into a telescope. Yet, perhaps the best influence in the good and bad of that time, was how much the world teemed with living things even in my back yard in the Tidewaters.

* * *

From Last Night:

We tend to be conservative with out use of words. The same words may mean widely different things in a change of context. The word mass comes to mind and that difference in context used by Newton or Einstein shows such shifts of terminology not just the province of philosophy. I have suggested several times that some use existing terms, like quantum, in contexts of theories not clearly limited to the old meaning while some may use these terms to add the sounding of vague speculation as if scientific. Others use them as a steppingstone to new meanings by which theories can become more fundamental, more comprehensive, and more complete.

But physics is not just a matter of linguistics in the debate of terms and ideas. I propose here a creative speculation as philosophy. As science, it if becomes considered as science, it is not as radical as certain of my ideas on the nature of vacua. While it appeal to structure that is taken as substantial as a guiding principle that it be ultimately dependent upon material. But this makes still a stark choice at the origins between reductionism and other views of reality.

This is a rare occasion wherein theoreticians may reinforce each other's concepts finding surprising and deep connections. I then take my own advice knowing the life sciences to be explained in depths as applied concepts of string theory and M theory, black holes, and dark matter, super-symmetries and so on are terms not clear enough - nor the general and logical conclusions of my quasic physics in relation to biology, as a coined term. These ideas have a certain evolving path where from time to time I find others suggesting and exploring them and often now in a formal and acceptable thesis context.

I suggest, almost as fast as its publication, an application to genetics, to the triality structure of codons in particular in regards to their bases- this theory of Kea which I style Arcadian (I imagine still peripheral) to distinguish such meanings.

Otherwise, new thinkers, welcome to the theory zoo. There are partial truths of what by consideration of similarity (in points of logic and metalogic) of hidden mysteries in fact like the particle zoo or by complexity arising unmanageably in masterful speculations. That is the M in M-theory.

Geometry, in and of itself, is much too abstract as an empty grounding to base one formulation of it to the exclusion of other conceptual possibilities based as well on a sort of emptiness, inner relations, hidden relations, and enfoldings of endless variety.

The New Arcadian view, tachyons as a metaphysical utility and not that initial problem arising with string theory - one that moreover leaks the problems and structures of cosmic and particle field theory (strong force) into an explosion of directed and inflating space - resolves while not arbitrarily restraining what are possible laws of nature consistent to intelligible information theory and algebraic topology described over the logic of space (as my quasic field of Jerusalem crosses as scalar roots of unity, a unitary grid) a description thus of quaterion and octonion differnces grounding or the reason for properties like gravity or particle mass (thus like Dante and his spheres of Heaven, or Mohamed and his point of departure into the seven levels as if a Fano plane at Masran) we also have a more fundamental theory of looping and a theory of general stereonomic unification on all scales.

This theory moreover, as the triality of dimensions under consideration being more fundamental than the idea of natural dimensions themselves, involves tori structural aspects, of which the extent into spacious reality, or deep into our hierarchy of spacious singularities perceived or as illusions, may extend indefinitely at decision points in the general universal encoding as continuous, isolated, or even contiguous in preferred directions and dimensions (a torus polymer stretching in effect with of course the reaction in matters of substantial tension of mass like geometrical objects.) In itself this does not address the more holographic boundaries as absolute and influential, but as a shifting scale- that is, these notions are in paradoxical non-necessity as to being needed axioms for the theory.

Let us not forget the ideas of hypercomplex numbers, or that of roots of unity can be seen as a description of mass and so forth as consideration of momenta collectively. While these may loop, geometrically within themselves or extend into spaciousness- the geometry of tori even in a purely general relativistic model of the field of spacetime, we can imagine exceeding the flatness of the geometry as if to jump over to helix turns thru time and thus, albeit possible directionality is biased not toward the past, we may even compute the angles involved, (Godel said around 37 degrees).

Thus, just as the string theorists appeal to the perhaps ridiculously oversimplified idea that strings contain two ends even when cut (no isolated quarks) we may appeal to some multiple level of things like fractals or any such general methods of mathematics of things successively contained within things and so on, a chromosome has complicated ends that allow access to coherence's of the whole between them as an intrinsic and natural encoding. But as to what in the virtual like spaces is substantial, what for example is gravity real and opaque (dark matter...), that is still a matter for creative philosophy.


* * *

I just finished reading the body of Kea's (and friends) paper and posted a comment on her blog (if she deems it worthy to allow posting).

I forgot to add some basic calculations here to show the link between her 3x3x3 cube and triaity of three colors RGB as that inspired the photo above of last night (actually I was up at various times when roommate could not sleep well so I wrote at various times until the windchill died down enough to walk to the coffee shop.) Oddy I keep dreaming of determining the sign of some things by a simple method which upon awakening I realize is not needed nor an issue at all. Maybe next time I will write it down and see what it is trying to tell me.

Consider the bases and the rings of atoms- there are 9 and 6 or 15 as in the intuitionist counting of things- and three of them make for 45. All these sorts of numbers show up. Somewhere, perhaps counting the shadows as if some such particle is conveyed or sustains the coherence and the reading of trialities on both directions and so on- even 27 or the 56... to be found. This includes at times the abstract possibility of imagining more abstract particles (or perhaps my wildcards) within the rings. And we can link this threeness of things as chains of codons and fields for to allow the intelligible working of the biology system on many levels.

Still, within such a single ring or base itself- perhaps considering the actual possible elements involved, that a deeper theory in the upper reaches of Coxeter and his mirrors and reflections in depth. I find it interesting that physics back to the drawing board again in this golden age of cosmology rediscovers on steroids the old expanding, steady state, and oscillating universe models debated and thought put aside but back in modern form. Hoyle, I am still proud to have met him and stood with him against the dawn of the experimental data of the background radiation as dominant. But we did not talk theory in detail, just shared his bread and cheese at home for tea- and he signed his book for me.

* * * *

After rereading this poem that I wrote in the middle of all this- trying to make a song to play at the open mike again before it closes and the house band moves on: This in relation to the last posting:

Little Buddy L. Edgar Otto 02-08-11



[This was the start of a new song that came out better on the guitar- but I made it a poem for now to save some of the ideas. I think I may have included too much or it was way to intellectual for a song and not quite what I had in mind. Maybe too much time on the physics in relation to my post on peslablog on the dimensions of subjective time.]



I feel that day we shared the sunshine

and felt the snowflakes on our face

Knew our world would last forever

to laugh and play with time to waste



Now the years go by much faster

yet our brief years but yesterday

Where I see the world through your eyes

life long as mind, time enough anyway



Save the shadow echoes of my weeping

for what you took with you from me

My drive to live two lives, yours in my keeping

hold her twice on earth, your never know first love



You my guardian angel where I stumble in the dust

whispering the world forgets and no one is watching

The empires even made of silver turn to rust

the ice storm's unknown paths a praying mantis crouching



Life got busy, full of there and then elation's

as I in turn built a nest, watched over my hatch-lings

So I sent you to spring break, Daytona vacation

you released me from your bonds of earth and the beyond



But my constant dreams are changing as we meet again

the seas of entropy colliding, will our memories stand?

Or be forgotten as your sibling's to me out of touch, not moved on

who could not face you through the granite slabs and plaques of brass?



* * *