Monday, April 25, 2011
The Pre-Quantum Void
The Pre-Quantum Void L. Edgar Otto 04-25-11
The concept of a vector, a generalization of numbers, is also a generalization of the other subcells of dimensional space. A plane can be a vector for example. But let us analyze the ground of vector space from a less fixed view of dimensions. We shall go on to discuss the role of logs and exponential s and its mirror in use of symbols, that involving notions of probability and pi. Certainly from the methods of calculus, in P or vector space, in three dimensions in particular, at the gradient of one the exponential's meet more abstract M space beyond octonions, for these functions also are self recursive and fractal like, their own derivative in which they share with the octonions the notion of the operation of a sum and an inverse. I feel it a limitation of our notation that in the partial differentials for higher dimensions beyond three or four the structures only can be represented as sums.
Pre-evaluation of Vector Principles in Space:
*1 There is no guarantee a vector passes through and origin even in the "finite or discrete" singularity-as-complex
*2 There is not guarantee a singularity can be a zero vector.
*3 Four or more vectors and nth roots may seem to pass through a singularity in different ways, and simultaneously.
*4 A vector may have no clear direction in the depth and span of spaces
*5 Omnic limits, in phase space micro scales flat and directional, the rationality of e may oscillate between its identities as a rational or irrational number.
*6 Between to gradients at unity between log and exponential space, this property may repel or attract, resonate or average out at the interface of M-ality.
*7 Such a gradient may be multidimensional and inter-dimensional, and may relate as oscillating variable existences, even as quasi-identical singularities.
*8 As an ordered quasic space the non-existence of such omnic activity between quasi-logs is three to one existences ( a principle in multi-singularity complexes I style Yurion quadrant field or particles )
*9 Such opaque or hidden symmetries as singularity complex have relative positional structure at least unto the natural dimension number.
* If there are no Higgs-like objects to establish mass from some M-ality space, then there are no fields or mass, at least in the generals sense we think of them.
* Wormholes are not necessary in the quasic fields, but the mouths of wormholes may exist with the quasic idea of no action at a distance, nor a zero distant quantum like jump, nor the reduction by the joining of cubes in three space partial differntials of six degrees of freedom as a necessary consequence. Nor the idea of zero point from a quantum like field region, or some broken symmetry in Higgs like fields, may exist without further general theory made less ambiguous and vague.
* Dark fluid models and ideas like Preons, within P (for prime arithmetical) vector space of our reality (R), within that reality and a worthy and complicated enquirey it is, we may "gravitate" to one or the other poles of such models.
* Dark matter does not necessarily connect in a singularity complex but the opaque values or units may make n-topes or polyhedra as if made of matter and dark matter points, lines, and so on...
* A monopole like object needs no tunnel to ground or release in divergences magnetic fields, even as dipoles.
Conclusions on the human psyche for longings in cosmic understanding:
These sort of new level ideas at last begin to ground psychology more as a science.
It is clear to me that to some extent in the creation of theories that the same opaque models suggested here are at the heart of our psychological mechanisms and we as conscious creatures apply this in the soul searching within ourselves even if it may be a prioi and archetypal, these structures do apply to our projected ideas into the universe as physics, to others, and our sense of ourselves.
For example, I am aware that some of the archetypal and usual models I have pursued are things, even if they do not matter now, are too private to discuss- that is if these were known and the assumption being it discredits a theory based on perceived character, many would defecate goobers. Yet it is the nature of our minds in its messiness of diversities and evolutions, between the existing and the void or opaque, that corresponds to that we observe in the general cosmos not so ideal. But as part of development, even when such things in hindsight do not matter, we keep the ambiance of it as a metaphor to so continue the direction of thoughts if they dawn on us objectively and sanely as wise paths. This happens in development even when not aware of the fact that we if wounded by fate can get caught up in the wounds. As to our position or lack of them in society persisting such a theory of the opaque and overt may begin in our collective structure's to show where society if it does not make ultimate sense at least behaves by intelligible natural laws.
Another example is that in my poem lately concerning the Witch of Endor: The point of that being from some string of words, thought perhaps or treated as holy, we erect a culture and tradition, glorify a particular view of some minor poetry that is not just a local or tribal concern. So Samuel bands all the witches who believe in the spirits, talking to the dead, and so on- as an affront to the one and nameless God. Yet after doing so Samuel consults with the Witch of Endor himself. Is this his satanic verses?
Well, there is no point making plans over too many pitchers of beer as if anyone will recall everything (actually my long walks and poetry written down after a walk and keeping so many ideas in my head at once as memory and even if they are lost the discipline of it leading to not just coherent connections but whole themes in booklets of poems almost ran to the ground for some of the images and metaphors- has helped me immensely in keeping thoughts and not losing them in the extended typing, although the coffee shop closed early last night and I have to recall all today.) This true of my roommate who is in his nasty cycle lately, a sort of psychosis brought on by prescription drugs and reactions to alcohol. I know the cycle now. So, he comes to me aggressive, I see some of what he says is really about his own view of himself in the world. But what is the point of debate with someone in that state of mind? Still, he tried, apparently with some sense of clarity and even superiority in that state of mind, schizophrenic if that means anything, to ask if I believed in the spirits around us. A trick question actually, for if I so believed then I too would confirm that such voices he at least hears are real and even compelling. But if I say there are not such spirits then he must as the priests interpreted for Samuel later about the Witch of Endor that all such does not exist and it the work of but one great evil one, one devil. He is caught in such a strange loop, one that unraveled into himself when even his logic of confabulations made no more sense to him and he went off to sleep. Let us hope, while I know he at least knows there are no such spirits in this building as he now locks the door, let us hope that he does not dream again of his father the anti-Christ as if only the devil exists to torment him if he does not heed or believe in the spirits.
A Metaphysical Resource on the Frontiers of New Space Insights:
*One thing about the idea of Void or absolute nothingness, to be welcomed or avoided in our concepts of history and our ideas as such in relation to philosophy and science where these are inspired as metaphors from religion- if that not the actual case to some level of wisdom of concrete grounding for religion itself, is that intuitively it surpasses the ideas of space- that is it can fill all of space to the furthest reaching of infinity- nothingness and infinity the omnic poles as well in the living world experienced the philosophy of limits and changes in themselves.
*Another thing is the idea of quasic space which like the nothingness may extend beyond the idea of scale and measure, beyond the idea of any singularity complex to which we might if limited by fixed vector and geometry ideas.
*The new and creative religious metaphor then is that our concept of God when taken to the ultimate we can now, as well is thought to extend the cosmos and in a sense be that- the God Particle an apt pun in fact, is that the wider God is outside the encompassing of vector cosmic space even as multiverse as well beyond the encompassing of null space and most importantly greater than quasic space structures. God, as the archetype for physicists needs to go beyond his useful conception as the ultimate inertial system and fixed frame of reference.
And as we have suspected from even an opaque and nameless God, beyond the null in a way that we still do not fully understand as we face higher theoretical models and the foundations, the World itself perhaps beyond the creating of that, quasi-opaque. Our lives but a footnote that contains a large volume to be read and is quasi complete and unique as in the omnium we point toward the potential infinite and the zero in some as yet untapped vector space and its dust and fluid dynamics.
Reading some speculative and formal papers with the new physics approach, the presentation of the mathematics is almost trivially standard, only in the suggestion of its application might someone object. The use of e periods and Fourier transforms for example, and loops when we negotiate higher space, are part of the standard undergrad curriculum and are expanded further in courses. As physics, and as the language of differentiation, the grad, div and curl of things we see that these are not powerful enough or trivial enough to truly understand the nature of Maxwell's equations, and their extension say in to gluon stings, nor the edifice of the relativity's- as if physics is a subjective thing only with an objective and usually reductionist background- and yet in reading recent biographies and articles we see that in the creation of a new physics the characters involved were very much dramatic dreamers more than experimenters and interpreters of experiments. (I see no errors in Kea's paper, so why is this not understood, why does it not get a voice? Why is the simplification so artfully grounded genius not recognized by those who speak the language?)
Footnotes for Thermodynamic and other Models of Entropy and Dimensions:
* A sort of thermodynamic glue when two 6 degrees of freedom object meet and only quasi lose some properties for these would suggest quasi-gluon like objects only restricted perhaps by the dimensional limits of the inverse square in general three space (which btw as virality of Rowlands is not the cause of three space but the result of it)
* From my view of these omnic, quasic, and abstract principles, scientific or philosophic, it seems that the notions evolving in our various blogs are converging more and more even when the bloggers are lagged to admit it.
* Or I may state a simple theorem with a little more faith in my intuition:
By advanced structures of mathematics, it makes sense to jumble and match the color cubes so as to get results that teaches such maths- and perhaps maths beyond this. Or asserted simply: Playing with the little labeled colored cubes can be seen as a deep and useful recreation (as if the true enthusiast needed justification for a foundation for his hobby). But even here this is a shorthand for wider spaces of discovery that can see into the depths and span of complexity of which our notions and symbols and equations are somewhere stable and grounded in the quasi-finite and quasi-contiguous in a space that within the world of the natural existence of numbers
we can intuit beyond our self what is truth as intelligible.
* * *
So, we come again to this question of what is after all a quasi- (continuous and combinatorial discrete) view. Thank you for the link Ulla on the part code that without loss encodes the infinite whole in the algorithms. And to Kea's paper today on matroids although I can hardly regard 1991 as a classic paper, its too new. Guess I have considered such things already, in a way, and from my view of inter-dimensionality would give them a better concrete grounding in whatever application we use to describe real particles and how in the varieties of manifolds we may circumnavigate the knots and loops and quasi-directionality of time dimensions. But I just read on this idea, glad the braid stuff confirms some of my intuitions.
But I am not exactly speaking from a quantum view here, although we might question what is a path or point with some idea of uncertainty that certainly sounds like the quantum world. Again one has to consider the whole polywhatsit as well as build up from some idea of a vertex- and we need better to count the singularities and the contiguity of the lesser and global matriod dimensions of a space structure. And lastly we need to enhance and revise all ideas of looping integrations in higher space around such structures. Would such laws hold intelligibly in structures that were composed of both normal matter (including virtual matter) and that opaque or dark for the elements? BTW the matroid idea for me can be corpuscular, of that sort of absolute but at rest space in which point of sorts move between fixed curves.
But after all, the fundamental idea of quasic space is the ultimate, or seemingly considered ultimate, concept of the sum and the multiplication one logical unity in the description of our ideas of motion- if our calculus cannot explore such manifolds except by sum only in the higher space we need to change the calculus. From and Euclidean view, as with that of Coxeter, ultimately the sum of orthogons is the same description as the product of said orthogons.
* * *
I just posted a comment for Kea to read I post here (but not my email in other areas to Ulla) as it may not be appropriate in length or subject matter. But as a creative endeavor it from my perspective is certainly dramatic.
I watched the first hour of Arkani-Hamed but did not get to the above figures, just a few minutes ago.
I am surprised no one has worked in this area for so many years.
The third physics of which he speaks then goes on to explain, as far as I can tell and with no exceptions is what I have shown by "Quasic Physics".
Thank you for the link for something that I can say I totally understand in pictures if not in the standard language.
The key results of residues and looping, the minors and so on, even besides recursions
is also something that can happen if we try to count all trees of things in our heads faster and faster, until these grounding ideas precipitate out. But I am well beyond the obvious intersection of just two plane vectors in the fn notation.
It was a little boring but got progressively exciting. It was a bridge to what we mean by the usual ideas of measure and physics and to our abstract methods. I liked his way of looking into the foundation of things as well of what we know already on some level. Why do we do this work anyway?
* * *
The Universe, I well imagine, will be here long after we have moved on... But I must say for those of us with such a commitment and interest for so long and in such interesting times- it was quite a ride...
* * *