Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Asphodel and Retro-dictions
Asphodel and Retro-dictions L. Edgar Otto 05-10-11
Walking home from the coffee shop after posting yesterday and browsing some of the other good posts- things like chiral condensates or explanations of CP violations and the bottom quark (found in links on Kea's posts) that these ideas explain some of the issues raised and could have predicted say the bottom quark dynamics.
It is a question really of recognizing the fundamentals in a theory, and in knowing how these principles may fit together for a more general picture. The issue of CPT and it conservation or not- in itself Rowlands for example tries to put it into the sort of framework of which I am discussing here- only it is not clear that the recognition of such a labeling anymore than the designating of matter and gravity as part of the same rather Diracian formalism is more than a suggestion of wider notions. I wonder then if a theory that can focus the right way to place some of these foundational notions is perhaps the measure of progress and a superior theory.
Sooner or later we have to deal, then go a little further, with CPT and chirality is involved as well as parity and our concepts of things like charge and not say just assume on some level it is the center of dynamics in physics.
But I feel we really cannot see the bigger picture unless we fit in intelligibly the several strains here of the bloggers and scientists. There is really not a great difference between the mixing of things and the idea of looping in the generations, nor the twistor formulation, and the braids- well, the time and numbers and directions seem to be there to make the change to directions and understanding of structures in such change in relation to asymmetry and time.
Looping across the depth and span over the superdark quasicontinuum SQcm, might not be infinitely greater than Gravity thought to leak or be stronger in higher dimensions by string theory for example, when multiverse quantum looping insures local omnic transformation. (Hence the Deism turned on head in the link to a blog I follow at the beginning of this post).
At this juncture, btw, I come closer to understanding the concepts of galatomic from the philosophychatforum com days. Mind and physicality driving things and my disagreement although we complimented with ecotoms and so on as to the direction of past or future in the view to where it is in a micro or macro world. While it did not solve the duality problem of mind and matter and he aware it did not- it did not assert conscious beings or mind that build the next level of the universes as much as this a metaphor to describe the processes. galatomic, old turtle friend, we had the ingredients to reach this point then, sometimes we get lost in the vision or the steps.
Oddly enough, in my previous few posts I guessed the number on the next super dark level (which amazingly can return to the quasic idea of 64 again, thus on any scale the recurrent or fractal E8 idea of symmetry, with sub-partions and so on - that what is said, and this I said explicitly as a notion, of general space even across the multiverse is a property of the same pattern in this subatomic world (with of course the limitations, the galaxy and atom similarity range that sees the depth of field that does not worry over normalizations or singularities- in short, physicality of our natural dimensions and fulcrum of the nature of our selves.)
I did not notice that when I said 4096 x 4.5 what it equaled quasically as in the case where 4096 is indeed the Cw" background 16 times 1152. So on further thought it means 16^2 x 4.5 (the half means half of the binary number representation not half of ten necessarily) = 1152. Looping principles help make sense of what to count when things are not clearly in the same quasic level of structure.
The sixfold symmetry of carbon rings and the daffodils, and triality, suggest the ideas of both Kea and Ulla for the expression where such theories are seen as part of biochemistry as the history of discussion between our blogs will show.
* 256 x 4.5 = 1152 (the group of the 24 cell, so now in analogy to the icosatope I will call this the Trioctatope where it comes up in Super Dark space- and I have not found yet the analogous number in that space as in the dark space.)
= 8x 18432; if 2x = 36864; if ^2 = 192 (rigid rotation group of hypercube evidently and Plato's sacred number in music);= also 32x152
*Now in the Conway matrix 64 structure Cw^n here we have 2^11 = 32768 which is 2048 less than 36864 and 2048 more than 34816 (or 16^3 x 8.5)
*So in Cw" we have each of the 64 quasic regions containing 1024 grids for 256^2 .
thus we have 36864 for the 36 in the core lesser dimensional 6x6 region and for the 28 in the higher dimensional periphery 28672.
*The idea then of a surface or shell around the core, although inverted in a sense, as perhaps the link above for the idea of an inverted Deism, the alpha and beta breakdown or factoring of the binary numbers involved (apparently intelligibly in the monoverse containing a sense of mirror symmetry as binary pascal triangle levels do that extends through all levels) would of course be 0000000011111111 that is 8 things taken 8 at a time on the 15th row and so on for one is a sort of rest or null zero motion, a "nothing at all" when we count things as orthogonally and not a totality of simplexes as if a sub-space that seem to excluded singularities in their structures, a sort of making them intelligibly structured, as if their points or any such vector subspace an excluded singularity.
* * *
I just noticed this on Leo's blog:
In the looping of things (the idea of quantum gravity is way to simple to ground it all) I ask if the creative structures can merge and what happens- and on a simpler level indeed it is the chiral principles that evolve the galaxies.
* * *
A comment for Ulla's post today (which I could access easily again):
This is a good listing of the pro's and con's of the standard model in relation to other issues.
But we should not think that these conclusions are right necessarily because it merely points out problems with the theory so in a way talks still in its terms and does not save what may be of value in it.
Matti's ideas are way beyond these issues. And my own sees the list as cleaver but not good at leading up to a good explanation.
But this is useful in our explorations, a stepping stone- even if we are talking about things that we really have not made clear like what a "generation" means. My last posts have a wider answer for all of that than even I imagined a year ago.
Wouldn't it be ironic if you were in the middle of two very complicated theories at the frontier of things? What are the chances? What the arrangement and purpose in our human experience of terms?
I wish I understood Pikanen's 89 and such better but his conclusions I can read as right on.
Today, in my less readable posts I saw three aphodels at last for spring and thought of the war protests in cambridge and their six fold symmetry of you- and Kea, I need a Kea fix.
* * *
Of interest today on sciencedaily.com is this:
Which of course is pretty much my recognition of what I called Ulla's theorem in an earlier post.
* * *
* * *