Sunday, February 27, 2011
The Unity of the New Physics
The Unity of the New Physics
I find it most interesting in the face of new data that we can debate and defend cherished positions of physics at some level of concern on fundamental questions. Many speculations on the frontier have remote merit, but in the sense of the unity in physics if this is an error of the "wrong" or "not even wrong" it seems to me in many cases of a more unified view of things the more scientifically minded among us have overshot the compass of their theories. A sort of dark super anti-speculation then.
I found this reply to Lubos post today most interesting, and Lubos did seem to coincidentally address several of my issues and I thank him for taking to task those who would bias the data. But after all we seem to be reading the same science news. I am not sure the metaphor of gay as to unseen dark matter applies but the varieties of gender in the fundamental particles, like the anti-neutral ones, is the stuff of off Broadway plays. In any case the Kaon violations in 64 were discussions I was lucky to see just after declassification of the Livermore papers in the Charlotte North Carolina library.
And the reply to Lubos was this:
"What if both MOND and the Dark Matter hypothesis are wrong? Just because MOND has some limitations, that does not mean that the Dark Matter idea is right. The major competitor to the Ptolemaic system before Galileo's discovery of the phases of Venus was Tycho Brahe's Tychonic system which clung to some of the tenets of the Ptolemaic systerm. Thus there is always the possibility that both the MOND and the Dark Matter idea are wrong. If both MOND and Dark Matter are wrong, then what we need instead is a new gravity theory built up from a sounder idea than mass. For 1500 years the followers of Aristotle (or the Peripatetics) believed in a theory based on the assumption that an unspecified property of the Earth was able to make all the objects in the Heavens rotate around it in a 24 hour period. Similarly, we have had for the 300 years this idea that mass possesses some mysterious power to attract mass or warp space. For those interested in a theory of gravity based on a reasonable foundation go to http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018 ."
Of course what we are looking for sometimes we find. The question, as in the idea of politics that decides the depth and span of how far a democracy makes laws to protect the minorities, is a matter of judgment. I find the possible viability of this theory (any theory has to be dealt with if it can be conceived- but the fact seems to be even with experimental evidence some theories are questioned.) There are many great speculations that manage to seem intelligible by some method and rarely do we question the why this is so- seeing everything as points, or as connections of electricity between the planets, and so on. Certainly the gas nebula data at least as an idea is something to deal with. In what sense the new physical ideas and forces can be material objects is also a more general question of philosophy especially about singularities. What I immediately see in this paper is that it explores things in the still unanswered questions of symmetry as it relates to thermodynamics (one of the still open questions mentioned in my string theorists friends thesis along with the possibility of the Exotic group E8 maybe the relevant representation.) These densities, looping or gravitational in itself or not, quantized or not, do describe a sort of innate density ideas of the vacuum which may be an analogy to heat for a fundamental particle or for that matter its return again as something happening a the surface of black holes. So, how do we dismiss or incorporate the notions of this paper? Gravity as a sort of topological and arithmetic symmetry breaking, octonians and so on and maybe 16 dimensional effects, seems to me the most likely explanation along with what restrictions fall out of the counting.
* * *
Damn, Ulla I see your post today and it seems to show things along the same lines of my crude explorations last night- so maybe it will not be so long before I find something worthy to post again. Simply I considered dividing things along planes say of a cube which gives the square root of 2 x 1 in such a way that we can make 4 or 8 pieces and of course we can readily divide such a rectangle by two in the same proportion but what is perpendicular here is important as well a horizontal slice. I also explored using the factorial rotation and inversion numbers so as to map them on various orthogons then make them part of some interesting polynomials. In the future discussions here on the 24 cell (and what is it doing there with no analog in dimensions lesser and greater anyway?) exploring its group 1152 leads to interesting other numbers. I also thought more about the mapping of the dihedron to the cube surface and in the 24 of them in the hypercube as to what identity would be describe in the hypercube rotations, was this trivial or not? Would it imply still further multiplications of powers of 24 to pin down the orientations in some space? The 24 squares for all practical purposes as in an earlier illustration results on but one side of things thru inversion- but in 4 space they seem dihedrons so in a line of four of them we have 2^4 or 16 possibilities while in totality we have 2^24 for a notational like representation. Are these not new number properties as understood also? But as I say the theory is too informal to post explicitly.
I gave a little thought to my relation with counting. I recall, in the third grade, one long day and evening playing in the alley at grandma's that I decided to see how far I could count- a couple of hours or so I got to ten thousands, got a feel for the numbers, and then decided to count by ten thousands until I finally grew tried of the project. I am now wondering how it was I counted so well before school witch keeps the uncertainty of such smooth and natural addition in doubt to double check things or perhaps trust the calculator. In school, as I have posted, the apples and oranges concept of apply numbers were a whole different way to count. I do not think this universal ability of finding some whole as if watching the numbers go by as if on a gasoline meter was just a matter of reducing to counting by tens, nor of some sort of exotic base like 60 as said of some savants, nor of the reverse order of adding things. But I had this thought- in the depth and span of space which are intimate with the restrictions of number logic itself as well as operation axioms- that division is of course a form of subtraction where we can subtract down the number from the highest value- this is subtly different than the idea of multiplication as multiple addition that seems to have more room in the span.
Of course I was not aware of this as being something that could have been of interest or depth to write about- I mean, like the poets we are or deep thinkers we may be for most of the time these things occur in the background, some of us write them down and some do not, some recall them later as if in a dream- especially if we are engaged with the real business of life with boredom or leisure enough to think or read. Our process of counting likewise a natural flow of things of which the unity we find before the last melt down is in the comprehension and awareness to which theories fall out like snowflakes and rings in the accelerating background.
I looked up creative science and philosophy in the google images and found so many of my illustrations there- (as I said, I had nothing to post at all) and I found a beautiful lady in the middle of them, a PhD who has always loved science, a neurologist who is promoting the learning of science on her own science show. Let us praise those who do such work for our futures despite petty politics- and for God's sake and the kids let us reward them too.
* * *
Art and Thoughts posted the next day:
(entanglements with local politics usually shut me down for awhile. That and minor flu's sometimes. I am also wondering what happens if I reach the limit of photos here.)
Counting seems to me a strange thing in the sense that we are to infer what something means. How often do we count in a group of people and forget to count ourselves? Or if we make mistakes considering there is no year zero or if we cannot find such an absolute notion then go on to see that the plane is not as simple as we thought it was- going on to develop the complex plane. Gibbs paper on the 24-cell was something I feel very much at home with, and with the statement there are some things we still do not know about. In a sense this where to begin in counting, if it makes makes a difference in the unity of the total picture, evidently has higher analogs when we consider more complicated space. At times I feel the intuitions on how space and numbers behave with certain restrictions- like Ramanujan's or the first levels of Fermat primes- may be there after all as a lucky accident or coincident of numbers- just how it is- and not just some departure point of counting. We do not yet fully understand enough explicitly to say. Even if this is the case we can used these restricted and contained models to calculate what is within their compass and more or less intelligible certainty. I do not think it is just a matter of projective planes, although with 6 and 2 we find such exceptions. Am I just taking the (zero) or ideal point at infinity and treating it as reached in some sense? Here we find the paradoxes and even breakdown of formulas as if the Omega point of those who count as if a computer method of mathematics and the almost mystical idea of some as if final infinity of Cantor, or Chardin in philosophy although the last I heard such an idea was a little obsolete as a thesis.
Let us also add to the last illustration the importance of 24 as validity when we reduce the syllogistic logic and note it incorporates information (and this certainly is part of the picture in consideration of all the qubits and other bits) the propositional p's and q's - certainly something we might expect applies to an intelligible physics as well as such more classical ideas of logic as the Venn like philosophical or modal logic. So the question again is what are the system of these abstract higher dimensions makes for a higher analogous logic of validity?
The ten base can be confusing when zero and five comes in soon in the calculation and continues into much larger numbers ( I regret and hope to remedy the language and use of the usual notation of things like n!(n-1)! and so on.) At what point do the triangular numbers pop in to make various higher freedoms in the calculation and is this a universally valid way to do things. 256 + 128 times ten is 3840 for example, and we have integers everywhere and at times the simple integer fractions arise. This counting even before we put them into extended algebraic equations or naively try to place them at the nodes of some graph.
I saw on the science mags today the idea that our reward center also is a form of addiction in the negative. That is, the thrill of survival is sought for the risk undertaken. I understand now what the addict lady meant by her "death insurance". Either way she caught in a loop of sorts. How is it we as a collection of cells work as if we are one object- a sort of consensus that other brain cells take up the cry at a thought, an anticipation and elation- much like the emotions of politics?
I saw a video yesterday showing the variation in the sizes of stars and then the galaxies and then the universe. It ended by saying you are not the center of the universe of which it did not feel right to conclude anymore than those who show the vastness of the stars and would have you prove from that there is a God. Again, what we mean by the center of things in our counting is more complex than all that. Maybe emotional reasoning is all at work here and not the scientific. Yet, I find it amazing in a way that in the normal business of life and its close calls I have survived and whatever core visions I have entertained have endured- that and over the hump of mystery wherein I am optimistic and expect great things from the next generation. We have shared a burden, and deserve peace in the rest for such a dramatic and golden age of enquiry.
If there are further frontiers that make our new physics seem a little quaint it will really be something...
And what moves in a direction in the on and off, three plus one, the light or the shadow? The repeating pattern of threes in the qs plane fills the first quadrant of 16 count begins at three, and we add the shadow 4th quadrant to = 22 as if to say something of planes in three space in relation to the 000 ideal point thus 21.