Thursday, May 19, 2011

QsTGD (Quasic and Other Systems and TGD)

QsTGD (Quasic and Other Systems and TGD)

Is it really that hard to take a step beyond the ideas of Riemann in his mapping a sphere to the complex plane, that we map spherical hyperspace into a quasic plane such that one result of low numbers and the simple intelligibility of counting is the generational way nature works with her dimensions and particles?

In the concrete and real creation of material things, such as stars and planets, we have a shell like analog- not all stars need be part of a galaxy of which we imagine them flung out, nor for that matter the moons and planets part of a solar system (again under such general topological views we can arrange the interpretations in some modified form of our choices of physics. (see recent astronomy article on planets as isolated, or as the stars.)

So, it follows that in terms of raw distance (and perhaps in this super or dark realm the multi but limited Plancks action idea makes sense, including the shift of the distance state or action states and from the validities of higher views the idea of what we mean by charge involved (as Pitkanen imagines) in the octonian state.

Let me refer to the idea of Croft yesterday on which is an example of trying to relate to the prime numbers and abstract spaces, particularly those involving E8- (We all seem to almost arrive at the general picture part true in one system or the other.)

Abstractly the dark-like or creative structures too can have this Riemannian analog that can reach perhaps even beyond the octonion idea. In a sense the properties of the sum of three cubes as in the cubes of the digits of 153 are intimately involved in the what I call the "Eddington Principle" wherein we adjust the Euler counting of subcell objects to the nature of 1 or 0 things in addition and subtraction as a representation of what is a deficit or surplus as if a mass defect. The count then occurs as in the non-locality of the quantum theory excluding but on at least three levels (the fourth generation idea now becomes something we can see more clearly to investigate or even assert for some reason it may not be there) the 000 v 111 generational unities of combination's of which things are to be considered for these states of evidence of such a quantum effect that extends or is beyond quantum theory.

The count also involves in the mass defect the condensing of structures and the vanishing or not when two of the subcubes merge their adjacency. It also suggests another way we can interpret symmetry breaking that still involves Fibonacci numbers. Also when we have a doubling of points from some view of a polytope we can add or subtract the independent superimposition to the count of things of which the all important 30 and 32 and so on apply on all possible generational shadows of how we arrange the sub elements. df n means the difference or deficit of subcell count:

16 df0 28 df4 16 df2 3 df3 1 df 4 = 0 4 8 5 0 for 64 + 17

24 df0 44 df1 26 df2 5 df3 1 df4 = -8 -12 -2 -3 for 100 - 81 = 19

In the case of three of 8 cubes in a hypercube then in 5 of them

Or we can imagine these as 4 and 4 cubes but the analog into surface space may not be as clear as to such symmetry breaking as intelligible save its root factoring.

* * *

Pay attention to the comment on fractals and scale and perception of matter.

"Georgi suggested that a property known as scale invariance - seen in fractal-like patterns that remain unchanged even when you zoom in and out to different scales, like the branching of redwood trees and the jagged edges of coastlines - could apply to individual particles too. The charge and spin of unparticles would be fixed but, counter-intuitively, their mass would somehow vary depending on the scale at which an observer viewed the particle."

* * *

Hmmm, Einstein wrong about gravity but right about "the greatest mistake of his theories--- the cosmological constant.

Yet, would this not point toward a fractal and hologram difference along the lines discovered in the above link? keep in mind.

* * *



    As Nima Arkani-Hamed has noted, the twistor approach to scattering amplitudes is revealing a deeper mathematical unity that Feynman diagrams obscure. The mathematics so far involves the Riemann moduli space of surfaces of genus g with n marked points, Gromov-Witten invariants, symplectic geometry, quantum cohomology and motives.

  2. As I have said for years and here recently. And yet very few can grasp the further generalization of Riemann to which the article refers and of which I follow that blog, let alone what in fact is that deeper unity to which these authors have suggested a hint and just what theory would limit such things from some more general perspective.

    Needless to say, even when we are aware of having to keep the options open "the look for the simplicity and then remain skeptical of it" as complex as the connections to my illustration today (it was much smoother flying thru such space and calculating things in last nights dream) there is one more level of the complexity of things to which we will also find hauntingly similar number relations.

    If, anyone follows this (and thank you for the comments Ulla, this blogging is just a forerunner to a much larger project to come to which our arts and contents could get wider audience and scrutiny) you might well question the non-standard way I related the factors across the equation as a discrete thing much like the interchange of imaginary and real numbers in the transfer of heat.

    In the dream some of the ideas were real values that also considered the multiple density and genius resolved into familiar spaces as a questionable method Fourier explained for the
    transfer of heat. But it is not that clear in my awakened world just what happens when we enter this slightly wider hyper-genus space. I can intuitively see Matti's assertion of charge in these more hidden realms but not pin it down either as if even the momenta quantum ideas are not enough in spinor and twistor methods.

    Nature also, in places, obscures the dynamics much in the way Dirac did not think one way or the other mattered much, the way Feynman did- otherwise how could his simplification work?

    It surely helps to mark any sort of space in the proper use of the informational or assembly code coordinates to truly see what is the relationships in simple spaces and number.

    Of course, invariant is a term that needs further clarification of meaning like information and dimension.

    Cheers... The dimensions are like going to the beach, the checky shores that Newton felt so wide in one of his more poetic moods, a vast beach... but learning to swim in the tides and surf only so far out as to keep our feet on the bottom sand before we are comfortable in such higher space and are able to negotiate the undertow of theories.

    The PeSla

  3. Albert Einstein's concept of gravity is wrong, and gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive when acting at great distances.

    The attraction comes of measurements? At large distances they are thorn apart?

    But light would not change although gravity changes.

    A changing gravity, also as a ZOE (gravitational Plancks constants?), but no gravitational waves are found, only Penrose rings:)

    What makes GR if not gravity? Is it all on the quantum side?

  4. Ulla,

    My guess is that there are three levels of dark-like forces just as there are at least three generations of particles.

    The attractions and repulsions involved alternate with the generations.

    Penrose? Well, his model has the stars in a relation with the black holes as far as entropy goes.

    Yet, it is not quite clear if overall there is a higher unification that brings these things together again. Numbers have such properties too but it just cannot be a simple matter of the ultimate description of physics as symmetry.

    Would there not be a ZOE on at least the three possible levels as well as such constants? These averaged out in a mixed and quantum manner? If there are higher forms of relativity and gravity there can be higher forms of uncertainty also.

    Penrose rings- as with anything philosophic as much as observational- these could be an illusion of perspective.

    My next post addresses some of this. It is from conclusions similar to Pitkanen's only I did not deliberately go into that direction.

    Planck's is not a fundamental constant in even the current physics in the first place- nor any such constant that can be adjusted to some scale of unity. It is after all these deeper questions of unity and the context of theory.

    Let us also keep in mind, as you have read the article in the news on this, that mass itself may vary in that context even if not observable as such in order to accommodate the fact of dark forces.

    How is it that galaxies come together in a space where they fly away from each other eventually beyond the observation at light speed? In a sense we are in the middle.

    Now if we only have one level it would follow that eventually the galaxy, the atoms in it, will be torn apart- what happens when the last immortal proton vanishes or the last mini-black hole evaporates?

    What exactly do we mean by the remote great distances anyway? Are they the same from any perspective, us, and a galaxy far away?

    "To see eternity in a moment...the universe in a sea shell..." that is not enough for our visions the moment we step off into wider and freer seas. For in the last drop of concrete continuity we never reach, we in the middle of it all can literally hold all that is intelligible in the palm of our hands- and that just might include our fractured fractal consciousness and some higher force as if God.

    So rejoice, do not despair of the weight of wisdom, you are doing well, friend.

    The PeSla


  6. Ulla,

    interesting link but I am not quite sure if you have a reason for showing it other than general interest. Is there something you want to point out about it- It clicks to the last posting?

    I found the description of the geometry involved, a factor of such constants of the three as 9.

    This is a step toward a more general view but
    imagine uping it to 27 or more to enter the space from still a higher view.

    In such a place it seems to me that if we can grasp it the sense of physical reality, hard to see as physics, seems more so and less reduced to the materialist view only for the sense of what we regard as a scientific stance.

    That said, you post was most interesting on you blog. In the reality of it or not- the very subtle scope of consciousness you presented with two quotes- one of needed complexity (Penrose) and one that is a fact or a metaphor for the physics of what can be or of vanishing (death) for a dark matter notion. I suppose we can image if we want this as a physics of the soul or psyche which seems always beyond the current physics and wonder about the universe.

    But our other side of perceptions are not necessarily the perception of the other side.

    As with Pitkanen's mentioning of memes (and my study under Cloak of such things called "Instructions" I asked if death was in a sense such an instruction or meme? The short answer is yes but it takes much deeper analysis no matter what confirmation bias we may have in our trying to form a unified theory as to if there is a supernatural ultimate concern or not.

    I am wondering, as it is about content, if we all should set up our own forums and domains- I really have not aimed for profit or traffic here more like an archiving. Art would be part of it also- let me know if you have any ideas.

    L. Edgar Otto (thePeSla)