## Wednesday, May 4, 2011

### The Null Law of Transitive Thermodynamics

The Null Law of Transitive Thermodynamics

(Mother-lode and Glory Holes of Information Theory)

L. Edgar Otto 05-05-11

Outline of Ideas:

The Three Physics and Complimentary (at a certain level, threshold or scale beyond the zero background we reach a directed loop or cycle of complexity between them in analogy to the zeroth thermodynamic law of things in equilibrium if one equal to the others that are then equal to each other.)

*Ql / QM

*Qm / Qs

*Qs / Ql

*Color Spectrons as Quasic Orthogonal Space

*The Grounding of Braiding Theory, Partial Color Matching

*The Independence of Self Connected Systems and

the Metalanguage of their Description

*The Grounding of Chance Methods

*The Global Threshold of Chiral Systems and Spin Direction

*Contiguous to Continuity in Transitive Thermodynamic Systems

*The Containment of Regions of Low Numbers and Dimensions

*When the Equations Reach Discontinuity and Unity as Indistinguishable

*Shifts and Sub-shifts in Quasi-independent Cell Differentiations-Integrations

*Decoherence and Vacuum Density at Dimensions of Indistinguishably

*The Spacious Idea of Non-locality Action without Dimension or Distance

*Sub-inversions of Ottonian Complexes and the Dihedral Planes (symbol - O^ng and O^ngx)

*Can more than one Spectron or Spectron Complex (Df: a quason or matroid grid divided into 2^N parts, symbol Cyrillic - Ch for chromoid) Combine and Interact?

*The Absolute Zero Grounding of Assigning Mass or Gravity, or Implied Physical Like Structures to Dark Phenomena and Their Wider Expression into Reality

* * *

again please refer to Matti's blog comment section for his reply and taking time to consider alternative views ( he would also make a great teacher )

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/04/octonions-and-quantum-physics.html

My last reply here also:

Hi Matti,

you certainly have given a good presentation both in how physics is done and for some areas of your new theories.

I looked up fusion rules, a sparse article in wiki really, thinking perhaps that was what I woke up and saw this morning, but it was not I am talking about other things that apply in other areas that will not accept certain decompositions and irreducible groups as a fundamental idea.

I posted today not thinking my decomp over relativistic one could have a sequel- in the for of an outline of ideas to which I may expand upon later- in short I used your format from your pages and now see the efficiency of it.

It is quite a burden really though things must have names to pin these ideas in the language of assigning a name to them for there are way too many names to explore. Not that we should not give accurate credit, but the legal credit at the end of movies takes up way too much space and time.

I do like your original ideas as approach to things and hope that, if it matters, I can find some links between our systems that we can make more breakthroughs. It is hard not to see where you are in agreement with say Lubos on some issues but I am trying. Keep up the work, I like the last posts on the flux tubes and dark matter- but from my view although it does not change anything- these are descriptions not fundamentally different save the current physics will not consider the implications of your wider ideas which to me does not make sense on their part.

The PeSla

* * *

I suppose I want to make it clear where the battle lines are drawn in these theoretical debates as that may shed light on what is needed to make progress- it is not clear to me at all that some decomposition of tensors for example makes sense when we apply the general idea to the human metalanguage of such competing notions. But I do agree and have for decades the multi-sheet idea of Pitkanen or for that matter the guiding connections as if wormholes as at least abstract but physical objects. Especially as they apply to biological organisms. I too thought of the cosmic ray source and so on as a theme for posting or that over a short period of time the cells send out nanotubes to exchange information (two recent articles) for how does the cell know to do so anymore than a computer circuit if self evolving will dedicate part of its circuit to make an antenna as if beyond it in the darkness it knows to communicate with others? But the physicality of such things is on a higher level than our needed grounding in what is thought to be proper reductionist physics. Such sheets come up in other places like the multi-ply densities of polyhedra for Riemann as far as that goes and his jumps in complex space. But I see Pitkanen here explaining he sees such sheets from a more general perspective- even more general than the brane idea, for he sees them somewhat like I do as quasic grids of many dimensions. ( I suspect ). And oh, thanks to Pitkanen for answering my last question on the outline above or at least showing me it needs better context. I suggest also that certain braiding ideas are about such ideal wormholes or even null quasic implied ones. After all the origin of some ideas of scale is that we treat the grounding distance as zero- I merely treat it a step down from that which I want to make clear is my use of the alternative name Null, or double zero. This sort of idea may turn out to be different for our styles of physics and as with the quadrant of things as to what is zero or infinite a fourth physics would also express this line of thinking.

I also wondered, in relation to lightning really, if the gamma like things or the cosmic ray things as timeless and structurally invariant as a sort of special relativity independent of perturbed forces for billions of years is after all a dynamics that speaks for some higher level of things than what immediately appears and might be explained by things like magnetism and wormholes and so on.

* * *

So yesterday afternoon my post of the 24 things in a hypercube and the spinning of the cube relating to them was after all a very simple idea that may not have much real application at all, in fact the results could have been an artifact or accident of my labeling. This morning things feel much more profound and just perhaps when it is all said and done, even with our grounding ideas of theories by statistics, that some theories like the standard one and descriptions of particles are after all the artifacts of our incomplete notions and arbitrary labeling.

* * *

Imagine the diagram of the previous post on this containing squares of the 4 color quadrants in the hypercube. The squares of course quasic ones (and we can so divide the cubes as 8 octant's in the next level of complexity and so on and even show where in the low dimensions and numbers these may be restrained (are there only a few low primes of a certain form as some of the greats have casually suggested?) These squares are given four colors and the question is, how might they combine so as to exhibit the loss of certain functions or identities of fields and so on, of certain vectors and so on. These may even be in random and not overall symmetrically arranged (and this I suspect is a chiral level of groundings where say the apparent mirror cube in the hypercube is overall at right angles that all colors ideally match). In any case, ideal, vanishing, or at a distance for action, enduring or vanishing connections, level of quantum like computation up to the question of our examining a single electron determine if here is a multiverse where all such electrons can be quantumly thought as of but one, we now ground those ideas that involve the approach of braiding theory, concrete or abstract, with laws or not of asymmetry beyond the expressed cases. Or in general his idea of the types of particles in the main as of what condensates or statistics and so on where perhaps even the nature of connectivity in the quasic theory might break down. These then the new considerations of locality and non-locality which may not easily be grounded in that distinction between the quantum and qlassical physics of the continuum as with the other thermodynamic possibilities.

Ullas last post on the zone-reflex had some interesting concepts like is a photon superconductive- this as a notion is worth looking at deeper both as to the nature of light and the deeper way we should ground the idea of such particle wave motion beyond just the arbitrary power of mathematics of sin and cos and such. Why is there no more complicated form of light? Were not cosmic strings thought superconductive? Given a theory of particles, standard or not, it may be easy to account for wispy neutrinos, momenta and all- but how do we then account for photons?

If in a sense the 2 space colors of such spectrons match (or between whatever dimensions of space which intuitively seems to ground the holographic and symmetry action principles ideally but does not quite do so) of say 4 colors we note that if spinning in space, globally, that 0 1 2 and (3v4) colors may match. Thus we have the idea of fractional charges possible too, in the last case if we match 3 we match 4 that their vectors for example cancel out. This is an important distinction for three and for space as to how we read labels.

Now sometimes it appears that I get some things backward- some students told this by their teachers if I had tutored them at all- but at the same time in some matters like the hypernumbers that I was right! So, we can have 1 2 0 spins and 1/3 or so on considering the oscillating of a cube over its 4 squares toric circuit and so on, but we can have 1 /1 as an inverse unit spin or 1/0 which is a sort of potential infinity and for various reasons dealt with or forbidden as solutions. This concept should be seen as backwards- that is motions as quasic motions in such space that is not a dynamics as such but a matter of position. In a sense the velocity of light is relatively an infinite invariant in the scale complementarity of Ql/Qm systems. Here again we have to deal with the unity (as if we regress to thinking of heat as caloric in the simplification again of what seems irreducible notions to explain or worse an sort sub-caloric in only and infinite regressive space that we insist by mere subtle statements to avoid contradictions or uncertainty in notions is a sort of constructable proof by infinite descent.

Of course let us not forget the ideal brane, sheets, or quasic planes also is after all the abstract idea of Psi^2 for the wave equation.

* * *

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110503171734.htm

So, nature also decides to do different things with a film or membrane within its span and depth of fields of vision. Between the zero and the infinite, the digital and the analog, the negative and positive for way dialectics of feedback...

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/05/christian-boks-dynamic-dna-poetry.html

When is a poem worth a life? Perhaps at some ground encoding life itself.

* * *

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stein-the-mathematician-as-an-explorer

* * *

Well, I copied the text of this blog for a CD-RW. 80 sets of see older posts- and it is amazing really how much I have typed over the last year or so. I quite imagine one could get lost in the complexity of it. I also found a way to recover some things on former forums and poems on yahoo as it is rumored to close soon. Luckily I had the videos without compression on the coffee shop hard drive before their biweekly crash and lobotomies. Well, the development of the ideas and the encounters with others here is there to be seen- odd storing it in reverse and the photos tend to help but they will come from a separate photo blog more easily. So too some of the ideas, most not in a more formally developed form, were there all along from my independent view- as so the remarks of the old forum and the large book of 1995 hand written called Instruction and Being. (4000 pages that all seemed to be summed up in one page called the quasic grid.) This is a most interesting thing for on such a grid you can summarize so much that in effect it turns a normal computer into some sort of super one. But then doesn't nature herself do this?

* * *

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## No comments:

## Post a Comment