Friday, May 6, 2011
Natural Symmetry L. Edgar Otto 05-06-11
Physics, as we know it and in my take on its foundations, may be extended without necessarily invoking a fourth and greater physics, (the Phoenix physics for after all we are searching for an explanation or better grounding for mass-energy in the existence of things), Although these may be there as we expand upon our notions of things so as not to confuse simpler notions as that new physics, or confine physics to the simpler notion of the day.
Some things there are very hard to see and to sort as to what is a restriction on their nature or a natural intelligibility of freedom when things work together.
Thus we imagine symmetry breaking as grounding in a principle, accepted but really explaining not enough and if conveyed to others is not the presenting of an original idea but an almost religious stance in propagating what is deep and learned and requires years of competence, is a value in itself as all knowing, and from one viewpoint of it as to reach the masses in some form or other beyond its dead languages, it is a tool to restrict others and in effect hide the wisdom.
Yet the charge that those who preach and illustrate the texts are as if a priesthood against a more scientific humanism for a democratic science and language shared by everyone so it belongs in no special situations to anyone, is countered by the fact that in the seasons of history the dark ages occur, and those cloistered in the remote periphery of carnage and conquest are owed by the future generations their keeping alive of civilization and its light.
So, if our ideas of symmetry breaking are based on a more limited group theory, a language as a weapon or a projection of someone's competence to join the order of theorists, the elite in theory, then our physics will remain in deep trouble. For there are a little further principles and structures that do not show the need for a quaint notion of super symmetry (SUSY). Nor in these notions does it matter in our choice of depth and span as to what of the world's structure is generated from the microworld or macroworld view as to the elements of number, or topology, in a sense the string idea is turned on its head if taken as serious at all to its ultimate conclusion and not the idea that a string may be composed of varying discrete points on a more familiar level that imagines gluons and so on... The gauge like idea, even the Braneworlds as generators without strings, is turned the other way in a world where in the emptiness of space, things weightless may not find orientation.
To this there is a natural symmetry of things. A good model for it would be a more comprehensive and topological view for what is a living organism in its complexity. The natural purpose of an organism to the extent is relates and controls its destiny in an environs is not longer a question of the need for purpose beyond itself even as a principle of least action in the most general of symmetries.
We can imagine certain fields in the organization of tissues and so on, a sort of morphogenic field with or without harder question of memory through time or action at a distance. In the theories of space itself we may imagine sheets of things that vary beyond our simple seen connections of things. (My leonics and TGD are examples) but these are not as simple as the sliced bread-like jumps of Riemannian multi-ply densities when we exclude the origin and negative values of the x-axis to which any paths may not cross- an idea useful for quantum theory in the mathematics at least. Nor is this to be seen as a sort of membrane theory only. Things are deeper than this and our principles of finding subgroups are not quite enough to use it as a powerful argument in some debates of speculative interpretations. If the group theory is not powerful enough, as is the calculus also, what to we expect to ground our asserted theories of physics that has any sort of accrued scientific certainties?
In general and informally we imagine then the compactification of dimensions when the symmetry is broken and as an answer to the question where do the extra dimensions go? But there is also an idea of condensing of things as far as the information goes in which case it can be expanded back as if a fractal aspect of the physics. Not so the (data) compression which is more the holographic aspect. We might also introduce the word capacitation where the question is open as to what is lost or not of information as a form of energy in ideal and continuous systems.
Nature, despite its chaos and discontinuities, asymmetric directions and uncertainty of the grounding of the nature of time, does seem to intelligibly find balances even in the ongoing reversible and irreversible aspects as if entropy and thermodynamics (which of course means that these natural processes trump some extreme notion of physical law such as the ultraviolet catastrophe). Nature is by nature only a quasi isolated system of systems.
In the condenser aspects of a familiar and natural dimensional environs (the question of generations that arise or even the question of what is to be considered super as symmetry, even what is the dark or light aspects of opaqueness of matter(or matter-energy), we do not need to assert there are restrictions, usually of an algebraic group idea or as based on pi and reflections as to what is a regular solid for there is a hierarchy of sorts that naturally fit numbers and vector spaces of the sub-cells of things together in away that is not some operation of canceling out of values or even reduction to some sort of zero or forbidden extreme of its division or vague cloud like indeterminacy of all values. In this respect the idea of numbers as ideal is as numbers as intimate to the fabric of all possible realities, perhaps multi-verses or multiple even infinite path histories, and as such is a stronger sense of how our world is intelligible and our physics as consistent even in the face of the dimensionless numbers.
Thus, there seems to be, informational at least(meaning our coordinate systems as absolute values, of singularities and distances between them in a quasic grid) where we apply the validity's of the concept of the Conway matrix, there are symmetrical analogs to the icosahedron that seem to be on sheets or levels, the vibrations of them more like a shifting cleft in music. One moreover whose scale seems a star grounded on some center or note in the next dimension rather than symmetrically reduced loops as heard so seen as beautiful but isolated from touched contexts in a world were such forces everywhere or from default including vacuum forces touch the loops and the loops do not bring with them necessarily a change of forces. Between the disc and the reed is the natural symmetry of the universe as bilaterally symmetric.
The expansion then of icosahedral objects may shift into still higher space systems in which the coordinates may themselves be thought of as if a Clifford dimension on steroids- a hidden information that say on the 5 dimensional level could be seen as the ten dimensions. But such Conway prime (or squared higher dimensional color matrices) systems are a natural extension of the symmetries involved that even return again intelligibility to natural dimensions as if a simple shape we have as a given to start with. This in effect abstractly generalizes the quasic grid. I suspect it allows for the organization of things like atoms from their parts, or in a way the molecular systems, things in reduction not just thrown together so as to wait for a discrete threshold for star formation or explosions. In this super quasic stance on space the generations were of course explained or a very trivial problem to ask why nature did things more complicated and less Ockham like in design.
Of course these considerations are still not as deep in the known structures of geometric objects in the application of the coordinate informational formulas- we for example could use the natural four dimensional great grand stellated solids for wider systems- It is also, in turning the notions and structures inside out in the span and depth of representations, that we get clarification on how these structures appear, simply connected or not with a center, to derive the nuclear and electron configuration shapes and symmetries.
* * *
[One can notice on this illustration a complex of things with string like or linear objects in the center surrounded by a 5D orthogon. This suggest to me that the ten and ten objects (as well the 40 of the close packing of 5D spheres) in the heart of electrons spinning on the 10 shell may have such an explanation. Now I just posted a comment to Leo and came back here to write this- in that illustration one can also imagine an antiorthogon although technically like on Leo's blog it is not just a question of dual symmetries as in these solids but at least four fold. So we can have the higher space orthogon in the center and the lesser ones going outward as if on his blog Leo imagines a tangle of things in new symmetries of space that sort of sink to the a core- and yes the lone zero point outside that can be thought to explain so many things not to at least mention that an electron and proton by charge, discrete charge, may be seen to remain connected or at an action at a distance. Nature apparently does not default directly to the center of things in space as well as with the particles so why should evaporation of such entities not go into several stages depending on the overall average threshold of "energy" and the differences of photons and so on where their number is conserved?]
* * *
A reply to Yuri, and the discussion on the link he sent:
Ahh, Yuri, I think I understand the answer:
He organizes the plane in two directions but does not see your 3:1 ground of information in such a plane- an idea which of course can be further expanded beyond that of hydrogen and helium. Some models where the small scale is discrete, and can be made from simple shapes built up like the tetrahedron to a large continuous scale (he knows the pattern extends indefinitely) is a two way digital and analog situation- top or bottom down in the flow of the physics of it all. Some think we cannot build the cosmos this way but is that not the idea of a unified physics?
It is not we lose things in the holographic 3 + 1 roots of information but a part of the quadrant not seen in itself. It is basic logic really. My point in fact, save for Penrose, is that the confusion of the 3:1 and 3+1 ideas is in fact what is now being done. It is still a question of if the information is lost (as into a black hole) and in many ways I thought this info could be found in the linear roots and sequences but forgot how or if I did not see at the time some sequences that isolated themselves in to loop that only the plane would show us- it is much easier to organize the information in these planes anyway as to the order of things.
But if, as with other purely holographic ideas, in a higher space some things are an illusion that will not show up in the linear reduced information of it all- then what are we to make of the 3:1 principle even if some sort of point dance on a tetrahedron makes sense- are you saying that your principle is merely an illusion like some say time is that only exists in some next higher product dimension? What explains that there are discrete things in the world in a sea of chaos and indefinite descent into continuity- it certainly is not the assertion for every infinite group there is a finite one- that tells us too little.
The PeSla (posting this on my blogspot today called Natural Symmetry as it seems to relate.)
[I may look at this in the simple case of the diagram supplied in the link. There should be no question as to specifying the pattern in the grid 2 or > space in terms of the information in so many bits- or we can possibly prove it only coincidently possible (either way one wonders how it may relate in natural space to opaque matter)]
* * *
Another comment to Pitkanen regarding another commenter who gave him praise and clearly listed why on the issues (and Lubos of course did otherwise on his blog) on the dark matter observation post recently:
I think he means exactly what you are saying CP_2 but from M^4 view.
It is simply that it is a matter of choice to treat fractional charges or assume them unit charges and relate to the space and its mirrors.
While you understand the sequences in these spaces one has to see where these resonances default across all spaces and dimensions that seems to limit the possibilities of structures.
The generation problem is much more difficult to explain than even your stance on TGD and its multisheets and analogs of Planck- which too set to unity may not be seen as a fundamental constant unless it is set so.
* * *
I felt I had to add another comment:
Between us (and I suppose everyone else) I may not interpret your term non-trivial second homology of CP-2.
But from your description of monopoles I quite imagine it more of a dihedral group thing. But would the wormholes themselves be physical and would they be observable. In some systems monopoles are not needed although I could agree with the mouths or throats idea with only implied connections. As to how this may relate to dark matter ideas our notions are too vague and need to be sorted out.
If we scale up physical particles we can generalize further to scaled up and thus in our familiar space limited, atom like structures.
* * *
If the memory is stored in the vacuum state ultimately, or even in some complex state with connections to physical things, then the fact that such memory has to be organized would suggest that it is organized along the lines of the same sort of condenser physics I talk about and in our species perhaps it is a reflection of these still unclear laws of nature and its natural symmetries
This is a question in the first place of the foundations of the role of neural and other networks, and in the second place as to the theory of what stimulates or slows down from a see of information and forgetfulness that has the opposite effects. Sleep is a side effect not cause of so called chemical imbalances. Again it is how we organize sleep and memory as important.
for an example of such speculation from a holistic view perhaps. Take note all you absent minded professors! :-)
* * *
Gee, hot comments on Matti's the puzzle of dark matter post:
that was a very good read toward the New Physics.
I especially liked the essential distinction to what is within and without objects in the direction of their dynamics.
I am not sure what to make of the idea of gluon gluon merging.
Fractals, as if discrete strings are only part of the picture- the world is holographic too. Not sure if on this you can derive classical gravity explained in itself but is a fresh idea. Nor why we should not consider some things as not continuous value.
Clearly the physics up to muon and chirality is a good call.
This of course relavant to my fractal or quasic space since 1968 without the complex terminology or that relation to fractals.
www.pesla.blogspot.com covers the philosophy under such issues and a peek into the first of these higher abstract structures.
Integration in such spaces is not simply done as addition.
The PeSla (Thanks for the dialog Matti)
* * *
Yet again a comment but on Pitkanen's next post on evidence of wormholes...
I now follow but cannot comment on Leo's blog:
a very creative blog and ideas. The fireballs have been a mystery for ages, and early view and thinking about lightning inspired some of my own thoughts. I liked the chart on the new sort of micro black hole scenario. Certainly such things have internal structure (not sure they are technically black holes) Such things for now seem only to exist in the shadow of something that does.
But all these issues are in the same new physics ball park. Those fireballs are very powerful, one blew out 25 water heaters in my apt. complex after a storm and bolt from the blue as I was watching to see how far away my apt was and thinking lightning could happen because I had talked about it to my wife "what do you think, God is going to send a lightning bolt or something?"
Now here is a consideration, philosophy I guess, some reports say inside one there is sometimes seen a figure of a human form.
Of course I do not think there is some sort of creature inside- but I do think the bilateral symmetry is a universal and higher structure when we resolve the higher dimensions, as is the universe. In this sense the decay modes of things can make sense whatever we call these topological entities.
* * *
I place this article I stumbled on here as if a bookmark to self:
* * *