Thursday, June 30, 2011

Quasic Field Lensing


Quasic Field Lensing L. Edgar Otto June 30, 2011

I may come back for even more commentary on the last three posts beyond the photo of the notes. (or in the interest of my non-English readers type this out for easier translation.

Interestingly I conclude June's bout of creativity with Sn! and Sn!! my signs for speculation needed (and doubly needed) as is appropriate for popularization for the prospects as well as the achievements of the discussed publication of the enquiry.

The Depth Telescope... it is a surprise such devices as simple as they may be could be a physical reality as it is surprising to me the new principles of light and camera manufacture- no so the slow development of quantum computation a surprise to me without quasic creative principles of some sort- On the other hand, from a more philosophic view see the end of this post or the first July post on Multi-brane multi-polar intuition:

* * *
Thumbs for June Illustrations:



* * *

As a point of clarification the lens is here considered dark regions on clear regions which are transparent- of which I had planned to include a descriptive video of such nodes of focusing (sunlight). But the use of it for data and particle observation is to be done on a more abstract level- gravons or that effect for example will be much more difficult to construct as if some implied internal but opaque structure.

* * *



I may post this July 1st- Perhaps a related theme Dipolar Intuition more a look at what seems to be a better understanding of the reported phenomena of ESP (after all that has come up in some quantum interpretations) as this general philosophic idea of similarity of anything as division yet dynamic vibrations. But in view of the elusive persistence of experimental evidence as fundamental, or if it is in a sense a moving target, and that the connections if any are themselves elusive- this concept of space at once denies the mystery of such intermittent phenomena yet may ground it as a possibility as a science- that or to a deeper extent than we think- ground as well in the fixity of the genes for behavior, our intelligible ideas of physics including the structure of the vacuum is coextensive with the structures and evolving notions and coincident parallels of our minds. With at least a familiarity with the quantum world and questions in it (admittedly more intellectual) and perhaps the creative view offered herein, these things are not more of a mystery than the quantum view can seem. Yet with an incomplete understanding of these borderline and frontier logic's we will not make it a science in itself of which one can make any definite idea of a fixed and useful focus and the shoring up of personal identity or collective destiny.

Science, in my view, is in the same elaborate paradox where our core beliefs change but of which we are unaware- and as with ESP to be so aware at some place in time is to change the local scale observation at least. Yet it could still be that these connections even if they do not transcend the dimensional and energetic physics of the universe, could still encounter our intuitive folklore beliefs intelligibly and true to its own fictional inter-logic, the possibility of whatever this generations so called experience of internal or external spirits are. Or does it turn out that as a science these things do not become such a mystery either once explained and once focused on how we adapt and make coherent our own here and now structures of soul and mind. What are we that part of it all we experience intimately and at a distance the mechanisms of symmetry breaking? More needs to be considered here.

* * *

The Arquasic Structure and Evolution of Galaxies


The Arquasic Structure and Evolution of Galaxies

It would be interesting (these maximum dimensional centered orthogons) to work out the case of the fields and knots in the six dimensional case which is 4 hypercubes arranged in the 64 arquasic grid...

The general hypercube in this 4D case contains a flattened cube of 8 points which we more or less apply to the disc form of the galaxies. The same topology seems to fit for particle levels (ahh the intuitions of my old frined galatomic on philosophychatforum com) This natural way to see dimensions as projected down I call flangulation and the symbol in the notes is fl.

* * *



In general answer to Lubos synchronous question:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/06/realistic-physics-from-d-branes-on-del.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

* * *

Otto-Motl (OM) Statistics


Otto-Motl (OM) Statistics

This sort of relaxed logic as physics grounding was on my mind. It addresses philosophic and science issues. After all, by such radical statistical grounding Newton was at a loss to explain how the planets moved in the same direction while the science of chance seems to make a natural case of the arising of directed spirals and merely as a result of the shifting of ellipses. But have always had this dispute as to if there is something sacred in the geometry of say a sunflower, or it just a result of more reductionist ideas like pressure between its seeds to make patterns.

* * *

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Rethinking Warps, Solenoid Soliton Thermals


Rethinking Warps, Solenoid Soliton Thermals

I will expand on this post later- but the general structure so to consider what is the spiral in 2 space as a transfer of energies and a helix in 3 space in the mechanism of say tornadoes, including what analogs are spiraling jets around say, certain stars, should be reconsidered as some of our foundational physics. A tornado in a sense is an electrical entity, yet it is most obviously and thus less obviously a thermodynamic entity. But in the unification of such ideas, it is first and foremost a topological entity. The method of direction to take for such an analysis is the representation of the tornado as upon a pseudo-sphere.

Why, for example, to fiercer and smaller vortexes form inside the greater spinning vortex?

* * *

Related comment to today's posts on facebook:

L. Edgar Otto
Holding a small heavy object with both hands it is easy to imagine the situation upside down and you hanging up by holding on to it. We get disoriented sometimes as up is only relative to ourselves, and of course our view of the world and of others or theirs on ourselves can be quite backward and upside down.

* * *

Expansion and Some Concluding Observations:

In the sense that a pseudo-sphere or like objects have a diameter but are open on one end as if it is a loxidrome of sorts exponential and asymmetopic to some real or relative value, but the principle is this... that if it contains something, say as if melting wax that turns solid, more or less I assert that: it will freeze as a flat disc and not have the usual idea of a depth or shrinkage or a bulge- much like the arguments of Newton and spinning buckets.

Moreover when we imagine something filled- the relation between powers of two or those of 5 in the distinct quasic (or arquasic) grids listing the holofractal order of the planes factors (in the arquasic case both numbers are used and in the usual Cartesian manner rather than some fixed or clear depth of such linearity as a consequence of quasic ordering within a linear one dimension down or square root sequence rather than such a linear sequence).

Importantly, we imagine the flat surface in a sense dissipating the idea of "heat", that is toward the asymptotic end of the pseudosphere we experience a sort of cooling or a state to which at least in the fractal scale limits we reach what seems to be an actual or limit reached as if an absolute zero and not necessarily absolutely deeper although in generality that is not forbidden in the cosmological depth (that is height in my previous terms). We also not that a pseudo-sphere can have two halves so we find all the speculation as descriptive in notational concepts of lines or rays or the twists in a warp as a handedness- this intimately related to our ideas of heat and its analogs in black holes or particles.

When we sort the 4+1 or 5+3 or 2+2 and so on formalisms such loxidromic spiral warps may observe the Fibonacci count as with a general spiral interaction of sunflowers and other natural shapes- but these in a sense are a consequence of a dynamic system of distinct virial systems where the standard idea of symmetry breaking applies. In a sense we also imagine things at rest to be cold, that is potential energy as hot.

So we have at least the concept of 2brane spirals, discs, and 3brane spirals as not just a continuum of tornadic formation. We can imagine gravitational lensing or something like it at some location of space- such as a planet or particle or even a black hole of some level of existing. Such hyper-lensing is evidently intimately related to our view of what is the density issues in thermodynamic symmetry and the nature of the exchange of information where what quasically defines differences as if it is a creation or lost as a physics process.

One example of equivalent formulations- and we do not mean to suggest at this point that the universe as a whole can be seen as such lensing- not the one and only case in any case of whatever its general structure- is that of the "cosmology of Rio Frio mentioned today in a link on Kea's post. I remark here that in the tornado formation the ideas of Leo and the variety of the named creative entities do seem to have its place as some explanation of at least the origins of our physics notions.

Frio's, especially the post today, is an interesting speculation- the black hole at the center of the earth responsible for some changes, say in the climate. This way of seeing things is after all creatively equivalent to other interpretations of views as if say some light velocity changes while the vacua or gauge fields change. But I want to make this note: We can just as well, in these climate oscillations, expect of such creative field entities to be totally hidden or be actually in the position of somewhere else in reality- say the sun and its principles of transfer at an assumed action at a distance of momenta and so on. This principle applies to the reading of magnetic resonance images too between molecular structures.

But this fresh view of seeing things suggests to me, especially if somewhere or somehow the universe is more of a steady state flat and infinite one- of which Hoyle makes a count as dynamically ongoing in his creative field of say Protons, or of which Eddington is given a prioi a count of them (on the average) in what is perhaps a more boundless but finite quantum relativity universe, that in what sense do we understand the structure of protons as "immortal matter". Do they decay?

In a sense they must relative to the the limits of a dynamic evolving universe or in the sense that these may arise (and so the count of their charges) in a creation field- and if somehow they arose even if only a change in the symmetry breaking of the vacuum or some supposed hidden or general fields based on things like randomness.

So I imagine that in the proton (which in the old parton three layer model it had a neutral layer and a neutron a negative or electron to be ejected layer) in a sense may decay but can do so only in theory far from some ultimate infinity, beginning or end, pure disorder or equilibrium, that it mirrors the decay of a neutron in a sense these hidden particle formulations are only remote possibilities of a proton's demise. These are structural or virtual things that may be there somewhere independently and suggest many processes and symmetries of particles. It seems right to at least in theory to extend the standard particle tables of them, if not as part of a sort of super-symmetry then at least these more general symmetries of particles as if they an intrinsic phenomenon. In which case the ideas are unified on even a higher level than that hoped for by the standard model as equivalent geometries more so than just the (yet valid) idea of all unified forces somewhere.

So the "cold" region in the proton internal "shell" is not to be just seen as zero.
But this is the usual philosophic stance as to the nature of "filled" or totally empty vacua, the idea of an absolute nothingness or not. In the usual sense of the idea such vacua may intrinsically be partially, even fractally filled and not filled in ways that the discreteness in topology does not result in the usual quantum concept of (anti-)particles- perhaps as a wave phenomenon only from a wider view. We have to distinguish these ideas of fractional dimensions from fractional mass and fractal ideas in general. How can the lack of a filled vacuum in a (Holye's) creation field lead to the very filling of a vacuum to so create a proton?


* * *



Epilogue: The three illustrations are more or less related to recent blog posts- I represent three photos of light taken thru a shiny aluminum pipe with three effects of which tries to point out the flat vortex of what is really a length of one in relation to the light. One is the partial filling of the circular view of which the grid of the window screen is the central and deep structure, there only partially seen as if the wisps of gravitational lensing. The other shows dust in the pipe to suggest around some shell regions the galaxies rather random. The last and this post suggests something in general space itself and how all the twists and turns and reflections go when we decides what is seen or happening between square lattices as discrete relatively and a general expanding and seemingly directed outward (or here the inversion of a pipe inwardly photographed) as if part of at least a linear continuum.

In this illustration for this epilogue it seems to me I am somehow in the center of the eye of the light taking the picture- not sure how this happened, perhaps from the window reflection, I holding the camera down at the end of the pipe. Also I am not quite sure what I am seeing when I randomly took the background to test the light at night as video (now if I can figure out how to make the resolution better, maybe try the fireworks again on the 4th of July.) Somehow against a deep grid of a theoretical background when filtered part way with the complimentary nothingness we find the bilaterally symmetrical form that is a metaphor for humanity, poetry, soul.

* * *

Bractals (Brakish Fractals)


In the explosive understanding of the relevance of new physics in the real and virtual worlds (or to what extent in the Matrix-movie concept we dwell in one or the other as the cycles of class structure seems to persist), we can imagine a new understanding of the grasp and control of information as an object of study and marketing, politics and war, economics and cure of diseases. It is not clear it is a basis for understanding the nature of the mind and its disconnects at this current state of the art anyway.

What is essential to know here about Brakish Fractals is that there are higher analogs to knots, at least conceptually, which can be enumerated and mapped, classified.

Moreover, it can be done in the context of fsub n quasic function and coordinates as abstract motion (see the many previous posts). These on any dimensional level also represent a distance between some coordinate positions- but this distance is a simplification of the richness of what happens on what changing states of space of that context of something in position or motion. We can imagine a point, or a line but it expanding in the normal dimensional way into a cylinder, or in higher space still into a solid cylinder and so on. Clearly we ground the fact knots only form linearly in three space but this can be generalized internally and thus in external context to the dimensions and superimposed dimensions of the grid.

In such abstract motions we can regard certain fixed paths while the context varies or the dimensions vary- or the space is the grounding while the paths seem to vary.

The quasic distance thus will have a better connectivity of systems and the evaluation of them based on abstract coordinates rather than any expression as a dynamic accounting of what seems at best disembodied principles of any action.

* * *

Odo128



In reading parts of the link in Witten, thinking of the colliding brane cosmology, and Pitkanen on extending or not certain fractals, It occurred to me that I had overlooked some representations in my series of hyper-dimensional chess-games- for these are also logical extensions of the two player game. My use of a division of the general quasic space as binary plays a role too as where one might abstractly imagine the interchange of regions and connections two smaller or two larger in a three space brane interaction. The latter is Odo256 or the three space game.

It is clear as an analog to field and pieces that the abstract motion of these pieces have certain rules and effects as to say what are excluded abstract motions- information that is not really lost but converted to the other type of grid representation. The functional structure of the pieces themselves as mass structure is also subject to such partition of logic functions. All of this in a sense under the general idea of what are the holographic and fractal principles where they apply.

In standard abstract algebra we note that the division of these simple binary sets of numbers makes distinctions and great use of the halving by alternate groups. Such groups do not but trivially explain the theory of a physics where the general and deeper theory of the physics can in a sense be said to explain them.

I make much of the initial cell to the extent of its high definition or irreducible unity- a matter of taste and our general idea of division of unity in space. This is as old as Aegypt where in the last halving of things the part that does not seem to add up that is small of a basket of corn is conceptually uncertainty so it is given unto the gods.

* * *

Let all who design the interconnections in the internet take note for this sort of mathematics can better do some of the things- that which monitors the corporate interest and that which is a service to personal interest, in the competition and privacy, in the more certain understanding the validity and more rapid arrangement of things delivered as news or entertainment or social introductions, economics, these not the simple neuro-networking idea while needing a more human scale of code.

* * *

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

The Quasic Frameworks


The Quasic Frameworks L. Edgar Otto June 28, 2011

*1 A particle moving across HFX (holographic-fractal) quasic states follows a combined quasic order (Qor) oscillating thru them or

*2 FX can be a closed "fractal string loop" over all states at rest (generational expansion-contraction as decohereing looping.

*3 Or in a sense Qor is an accelleration from zero (depth and span fixed) within the comprehensive flat multidimensionality of a Brane (quasic aleph2 q-brane plane representation)

*4 HFX looping and opening (and local FX crossing over) is a measure of decay and mass of said particles.

*5 Consider closed 8bit (octonion like) base crossover-unders, 2^n and n= 64 or 128 as noted in the doubling or halving of the virial principle. in which case:

*0 The kinetic and potential energy difference can be part of the holographic or fractal lattices or frameworks of representation- fractal potential energy may equal holographic kinetic energy in one combination for example for global quasi-symmetry.

*6 Quaterion-Octonian ordering in HFX may act in oscillations in an asymmetric directionality locally, inertial rest and motion abstractly a quasi-directionality.

*7 2space Qor HFX frame systems are intelligible (plus or minus one or minus pi to pi as a principle of grounding in the total count. -1 means a dynamic shifting or reading of a code or relation to colorless zero neutral initial pixel cell (nilpotency) Even if the abstract idea of 3space could not be intelligible and non-linearity in systems not necessarily capable of being grounded.

*8 One cannot resolve 6space compactification without the (5+3) biquasic framework save perhaps by some rare lucky encounter with some pattern (without higher systems understanding) - one cosmically rare exception as a grounding of any system as unique may be needed as a solution on the way to a more general system and if it exists as some imagine say for the 6D compact space, would guarantee some of the unique properties we associate with numbers for the code and core of what we are individually and what paths here and now we may discern in its abstract mapping.

*9 With respect to HF and Fx Mass or gravity as quasi-continuous inertial motion or rest (absolute position) as acceleration (visible, recognized, or not) is a quasi concept of wide non-differentiable infinities, Omnically.

*10 At the remote micro or macro worlds, the Pythagorean theorem holds as fractal sub-branes as things become in the compass of flatness and Fermat's theorem holds or is approached to the sum of square powers. But in fractal quasic like frames we may actually observe a variation on the actual and perceived distances not necessarily traceable back to a more intelligible crystalline order save perhaps in real shifting oscillating but averaging absolute time.

*11 Thus at it is a step along the way, we may want to map the spaces of the 6D manifolds- but by knots or braids we need a more general frame or parallel frame of reference grounding that also.

*12 Clearly these are issues of entropy as abstract motion and in a flat sense the relative evaporation may only quasi-creatively leave the compass of the over-brane as the Fundamental Theorem of fixity and change explores new generalities of what seems in the vagueness of the metaphor of anomalies and aberrations in our physics models.

* * *


Note: I looked over the link on Kea's blog Of Witten et and the uses he finds for knot and braid theory in the context of Brane M-theory, including self dual, the complex and four space equivalences of representations as suggested may be identical as Rowlands and others suggest... In it are many ideas (from what I can read or understand of the rather long winded presentation around core notions) to which I find similar if not identical methods and conclusions. The use of different systems and so to describe things in general as if multibrane intersection (ekpryroitc models where the vectors are rather cigar shaped of cosmos over the general idea of inflation like models.)

But also, in a comment on Lubos blog linking to his much earlier post on the nature of flat things in the structure of black holes- he shows certain ideas of Penrose along these lines (rather types of planes and the relation to say hyperbolic invariant spaces) to which again I find similar ideas as so discussed herein- and it seems a more general or unified view has to consider not just the intermixing of the q-brane as multidimensional and ultimately a unification of classes of numbers by which we imagine them very distinct in our equations, but multi-brane also.

I have not in this post considered the quasic framework in itself of which there are deep thresholds of intuitions for such models as TGD among others including the original conception of quasicity itself. That has been pretty much covered in these postings. Let us note from an arithmetical viewpoint that such pure quasic spaces may be self contained and represented by the binary numbers, the cells of a quasic grid and the coordinates, which would exclude the powers of five (4+1) models of space in the Witten at all link does not consider the arquasic frame as explicitly different- but these holographic epsilon-delta factors (or beta-alpha blends in the purely quasic system ignoring a containing grid system) have to be distinguished in the system of topology of such brane notions and equations.

The idea of complex symmetry breaking for example is not as general as quasic symmetry breaking (or not breaking situations) nor can we with a sense of certainty guarantee what reductions there are (which Lubos understands the use of string theory as such in the flat low dimensions). Yet in a sense the matrix treatments of the various forms do show some narrowly focused phenomena of physical effects in the various forms of the traditional matrices and the derived quadratures of different notations (my Yuri quadrant idea). But is the general quasic grid not a very wide and adaptable matrix which reduces notions quite will that they can be better communicated and understood? We have such simplifications before in the various suggestions of mapping such things and debating what happens to the quasi-information and meaning of real and hidden structures- what can be understood as if information is gained or lost or in a sense fixed. Penrose, Feynman and all the new physicists seemingly heading toward the same idea of a third physics of quasicity and perhaps physically and philosophically beyond...

Knot theory in its notions are even more complex and wider than its use of the abandoned lower dimensional string theory as far as the countable landscape and the great plateau regions where the cosmology seems at times an empty desert. For if the Arquasic grid with it 3+1 formalism (from one side of a multi-mirror view) is any indication than the simple classification of knots and brane like knots even in the abstract are to powers infinitely wider than the great numbers that exist as to choose from. Still, there may be reductions possible, and reductions in reductions, that allow us from any perspective including variations as such in time, that we from our center of thinking can sense or intuit the totality of all these pictures.

I find it interesting personally if there is anything in my theories that these are done in a sense mostly with words rather than formulas- and the struggle to make things clear to others and so discover clarity in the self has been equally difficult and long winded and obtuse in its abstractions and hidden meanings. Is the measure of intelligence and knowing a sort of limit or invariance also in whatever languages we so try to frame them in?

* * *

Arcadian Quasics


Arcadian Quasics Arquasics and (a follow up post planned): The 5+3 Quasic Frameworks L. Edgar Otto June 28, 2011 (for two posts of new ideas a day for the month of June project)...


Let me start by saying, as the creative scientific and philosophic intent of this blog, I do not want to be tempted to take part in the name calling or dismissing the competitive theories of our deep bloggers or the great minds some talk about. I do not know if I can live up to this ideally as I do have my favorites and do think some are indeed (to use the current term) crackpots. BTW, I regard John H. Conway as our greatest living mathematician. But in the end we are all human with frailties. I am not sure where all this comes from in my recent themes on the net- but then from whence a poem?

But I must post these things before I read the link today on Kea's blog on Witten so as not to change the original concept any further. Lubos post today was like a Titanic undertaking of which as with all of you so much wiser than I your insights are nine-tenths under water and only by some luck at the dawn of new physics can I fancy my theories are unsinkable :-)

I have to call these philosophic distinctions something and I see a pattern that reminds me more of Kea's approach. It compliments the more fractal like patterns of quasics and TGD. I essentially see two interacting systems or frames of things which have a certain dynamic unity under a still wider topological and numerical framework. These can also be in combination's as products of our (3+1) and (2+2) formalism for a start. But the universe seems to have its depth and span, rather ultimately a ground and height to which one soul's potential infinity is another's lazy 8.


Lubos,


There seems strange analogies and speculations about the Rubik's cube- like the corner twist represent the 1/3 and 2/3 fractional charges. These have become more respectable by some authors lately. But this post is amazing in its report of speculation.


Since lately I have considered such things, the role (extended at the foundations) of the Monster group symmetries and how it related to our ideas of banes and so on, if Witten is enquiring about this then I do not feel so out of the mainstream.


I have second thoughts this morning about our emphasis on the six space ideas and compactification and all, this it is a worthy goal on the way to better exceptional groups in that the structures (of which if the vacuum like insides of a black hole if it has an inside as such) should be solved and useful for some unique physical phenomena if they can.


Sometimes I feel that if I had formal training I would understand such abstract reach of our intellects and the differences in them- even why some think they have mastered a subject. But surely there can be other approaches until such problems are understood- and string theory in the sense you seem to grasp its insights is still in the running even in its lesser forms.


But of course the frontier is about the nature of symmetry and thermodynamics as the string theorist have known all along. Thank you for this post, if it is shown as humorous or solid, I feel less speculative today in my explosive postings of abstract concepts. As you say, you keep your eyes out for new methods of breakthroughs to contemplate their value- a noble service to science.


ThePeSla

* * *

The Quasic ordering is more of a fractal like (tablecloth) ordering in he depth of he n-dimensional and even complex flat brane. The Arquasic ordering is more like a flow thru the span of that plane which can be seen as a not differentiable fractal paths open and closed, quasi-looping and quasi-generational changing in fact. But this is not to say either the holographic or fractal views are unique to each area of grounding. For it is clear that the orders can be combined, the former more static and the latter more moving. The former more symmetric and the latter an emphasis on the asymmetric of abstract and real motions. It is clear that in a sense these are binary notations that allow for expansion and oscillations between quasic levels as if generations of things in a wider sense such that the octonion and quaternions can in a sense to be interlaced in the description of quasi-finite space. What is mass and what is our idea of gravity seem about the same thing at this threshold of metaphor. The question of where the information goes from a black hole for example or into one has to be asked on a much deeper level- where does the information go in the height of the comprehensive universe, to use my and Penrose's term, the OMNIUM ?

BTW the speed of writing took some of the luxury away from coining needed and more poetic terms so I am now using a flurry of shorthand ones- the expediency of time.

In the general Unified Quasic System, on the flat or brane (q-brane) level the count of the elements is intelligible in ways that are not prefect as far as I can see into pattern analog of such mathematics generalized into higher space or hidden space in the usual and natural sense of the idea of dimension.

* * *

Monday, June 27, 2011

Hypernumbers, Branes, TGD


Hypernumbers, Branes, TGD

Comment to Pikanens blog (and I am not sure the K is the same thing in the notations as Coxeter used for the K-circuit so forgive the mix up of symbols if they are distinct:

So, Matti,

I understand why hypernumbers have no special role in the TGD framework. But I am not sure what your excellent post and links like on the D 9 brane string like ideas have to do with it either.

Other than the 3D extension I think your question on the Mandelbrot fractal a good one (branes in a sense seem to answer it, at least suggest a vision of it. But such compactions of space for me is too limited in the first place, a dead end if the only view.

I am also amazed at the analogy that Branes can be considered charged, or is that a higher metaphor- do they radiate.

In numbers the square and cubed things together do raise the question of something like 6 space and so on... but that deeper than branes that always are n-dimensional in fact in the first place.

I think hamed asked this question because there are 9 such hypernumbers which are based on the idea of a root of unity which is not necessarily positive one.

And quite simply space does seem to be filled cube-wise and sphere-wise at whatever they think happens at nine dimensions.

But with all left over interpretations of just a QM theory as a method- such hypernumbers were (in the 70s) thought intimate in the description of consciousness.

The PeSla

* * * *

In a sense, reading the link on Matti's post today I have the sense that Branes are sort of treated as generalized waves and particles. But how would we know if they decayed by the obvious loss of discrete electric charges if in fact the mirror forms by complex numbers are also contained in the dimensions of a brane?

I should add this small bit of numerology. In talks with my new computer partner yesterday on the developing of new forms (she also has a program beyond maple or mathematica and it will be interesting seeing if it can handle some things of my concepts the others cannot perhaps as a matter of programming- I thought about the slicing for a three space matrix for a coordinate system as she suggested but found it rather wasteful of the desired methods of notation.

Basically, the rather difficult chessgames that can be played in two space even if n-dimensional (I plan a program for this and my chess buddy and I play it on line but I still expect he to be the first 4D chess master. We talk a lot of theory on the nature and its history in the game. It too has a depth of focus and even a special relation like the use of time (see the link in mattis post on tachyons).

So the 2^2 game can be planed in 4^3 of 64 cells. Now in the consideration of these higher space structures I note that: 16^3 = 64^2 and 64^3 = 512^2 both of which came up in playing with the integral numbers last night and seem to me hardly a trivial observation or even some accident of binary or nimber considerations.

* * *

The Following is posted from sketch of last year in correspondence with Rowlands, as our differences, his the 20 codons from the more complex and quantum way to see things. Here for easy reference in discussions with my new computer friend for the domain projects:



* * *

Social Gravity (Brainwashing Troubled Minds)


Social Gravity (Brainwashing Troubled Minds)

Today on the Sci mags:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623130946.htm

This is of course a most expert and hopeful research. But from a more general view than the reductionist (oh some will praise this as a neuroscience explanation of memory or even suggest it can lead to a sort of brain washing or even adjustment of memories so as to show some false). But this is not the ultimate explanation of memory or where they are stored as if a field with intelligible geometrical restraints in the vacuum or at least the general quasic structure of an organism. Will any pattern of learning be encoded into some elixir to drink ideas after all? Of course things may be a little less out of focus to the point these are not just swept under the rug as non-linear problems to be solved.

The field or vacuum has structure, that is so there are 28 forms- an important number here, or this molecule is more or less dodecahedral? A certain space filling finite area? Will old memories come back once they are erased? Could be, even the jumbling by shock treatments have been said to return. But it is clear that the encoding for several proteins (informs?) vastly awaken the metaphor of gene and protein encoding even if the possibilities are read in a positive direction and not a variation from the looping back from past history.

Still, the idea of synapse strength is a good one- speculative as much as say between them NH3 or so is a vibrational quantum source as precursor to memory and I suppose the realization of consciousness. But quasic structure also can describe the paths as good as the physical in the realm of notions. The same logic, and the same link to physicality that initiates the possibilities of gene expression. But is that code the container of memories as if at least a possibility to lead out or realize at some point in time as well as distance of space?

Does it go even deeper, most likely, between the properties so aromatic like in the steps of the helix and its phase jumps Riemann style. But of course as constrained as the inheritance of the genome as a totality against excessive internal mutations the unity of the organism has to have these considerations to explain things against the quasic and quantum and in a sense the classical relativity of the continuous and discrete models over the metaphorical threshold of such numbers and geometry...the sixfold of things that stack space between the purity of more symmetrical polyhedra.

While experiment is nice and needed, a comprehensive algebraic approach would get us a lot further along, we n-dimensional bilateral beings, in knowing what to test and perhaps how to make a cure. So much of apparent transmission at a distance between cells and organism is like short range FM frequency- and the scale can be seen from some views of complexity, even of hypernumbers to 9 space, as isolated and fractal.

Such foundational notions will vastly affect how we do science and he party line will not deliver the miracles they claim at as speed all may benefit from in theory for the society of science itself is a meme like problem of the grounds of transmission and gaps, the laying down and recovery, of that learned or forgotten.

It is not enough either to find some magic bullet and test it as so fundamental a level of tinkering with the nature of time and the genome- for some rare event we may observe would be from that dark and hidden world within us and a mirror in many directions- more the norm as if QM leaping or genes jumping, or one thing in two places seemingly at the same time.

* * *

Footnote, comment:

It should be clear that this realm, a generalization by various means scientifically beyond the threshold of metaphor that new physics is explored in ways that will seem as surprising as the unforeseen complexities of the genome and its many parallel forms and layers.

For example, and with all these theories natural isolation and restraint in the format and methods it uses, a crystallization and focusing that has captured something new and for us in our limited realm, creative and original, the work of Kea and her emphasis for example on 14 and so on of the associahedra- even the significance of 13 and 7 and so on as enumeration of structures akin to string theories and ideas of symmetry reduction, breaking, looping, braiding... and of course what to exclude on levels above and below as outside the scope of the discussion for now.

Even the intuitions of Ulla and the hexagonal forms of Carbon as dynamic in an organic system- so too these molecules with their symmetries do appear to be a focus of torus or genus principles and related lattices. In space we divide a torus into 13 but as far as the colors with six points of genus 1 we get seven regions all of which relate to projective spaces and so on...

Hypernumbers- the hard to grasp idea that there are positive roots of unity which are not one... That which finds its nodes again in the 70's as if an awakening to ideas for the nature of consciousness beginning with Dirac matrices with an ambiance of the youth culture of the new age. TGD of Pitkanen indeed exceeds this while all of them acknowledge some form of the possibility of some out of focus hidden chaos or uncertainty as a part of the philosophical underpinnings.

* * *

The Metaphorical Observer


The Metaphorical Observer (New Principles of Physics Notions) L. Edgar Otto June 27, 2011

This morning on the local news there was mention of Ken Ng and his new light field camera.

http://blogs.forbes.com/tomiogeron/2011/06/21/shoot-first-focus-later-with-lytros-new-camera-tech/

I do not know what the nature of this marriage of digital and photography works and I wonder if there is a blurring here of the hardware and software in the sense of patents and copyrights as a legal matter. This is not exactly the things in the back of my mind about new ideas for cameras or ways to see better the particle data and so on- it is a reassuring different path down a direction that makes it even a better metaphor for some of these new principles of physics as viewing light and space. Ken Ng has given us a most welcome invention and the notions do touch on the foundations of the thresholds of metaphor where we so interpret physics. This local news segment with examples comes just after I had decided to post this title from last night- another seeming synchronicity!

* * *

My last thought after this jumble of notes through the night which I had not written down concerned the direction of things in space, 3D. The thought of the church steeping I passing on the way to the coffee shop- that if we had such steeples throughout space on planets- my old thinking was that they would point toward each other in a way that shows no direction can be said toward a higher Heaven. But religious ideas aside I know question this, they point through each other in a rather perpendicularity to all things manner- even in a flat infinite world where the idea of an Olbers paradox is not to be observed for whatever general reason (as Rowlands own observation).

But a lot of our modeling of say four space is the analog of the finite but boundless and even expanding sphere- that is our ship on the oceans seem to have an analog in the next highest dimension of spaceships thru the stars.

But for now let me just list some observations from my notes not in any particular order.


Observation 1 - It is not that the nature of space as three dimensional in the natural sense determines the viriality but just as well it the space- for we need a little deeper grounding viriality itself in terms of arithmetical properties along the singularity prime lines at least.

Observation 2 - In general a distinct fractal or holographic space either cubed does not sum up to another cube. In fact by considerations of the epsilon-delta honeycomb frame if taken from the q-brane or quasic space plane (Indeed, can physics exceed such quasicity?) cannot add a third difference cube that is an integral value. While some numbers approach this if large enough- Fermat's theory less true if done with such on a calculator where values seem to approach one for example, so this may amount to a simple proof in a sense by infinite descent- at least in the spirit of the notion of how it applies to space and dimensions. But can there be digital or finite exceptions much as the super-singularity primes find coincidental numbers? Can we show or prove this in principle?

Observation 3 - Considering, in the raw of a new concept for me so hopefully in the process of trying to understand it better I too find some useful alternative path of observation, those limited primes that make the 196883 set- I not two things, that the number as if three space is the product of the last three primes 47x59x71 but more than that if this is reduced into the q-brane in viriality terms note that 47 + 71 is twice 59.

Observation 4 - For what it is worth the sixth root of 960 is close to pi and this number came up in considering the three dimensional case of both the HF and FX grids together if the side is 80 units.

Observation 5 - but from the round earth round universe dimensional analogy we in a rather holographic conceptual manner image types of matrices in two-space with the analog in three-space where the plane is the analog of the diagonal. So we know in space at least we can show we cannot stack blocks on this plane in the sense that we can so subdivide a natural two plane. Computations do result in matrices just off the diagonal in wider square regions.

Observation 6 - In the link yesterday that even in a classical setting we can show non-locality as a principle. Yet this spooky action at a distance if we were creatures more familiar with quantum world descriptions with no evidence whatsoever of the hard to understand classical world beneath us- we would nevertheless come up with a classical reason for the concept of non-locality (as a form of locality for between two q-branes there is only a point singularity intersection for in any q-brane all the dimensions are represented and may not exceed the quasicity of dimensions and their representations.

Observation 7 - What I have suggested then is an actual idea of distance as a matter of depth of field and brightness field focus. That is in the touching of what seems distant objects the measure of space varies as if "the looking thru a pipe" and moreover these pipes for light or sound have a certain frequency which seems shell like if viewed head one. We are in a sense literally closer in positions if we magnify the brightness. The reverse is true in that on a bright sunny day from deep in a well we may see the stars.

Observation 8 - Our preoccupation with 6 space is rather like a threesome or lovers triangle when we mix or not the ideas of 2 or 3 space.

Observation 9 - The light cone even if unbalanced in extent takes up 1/4 the area of a square representation.

Observation 10 - In continuous space just as the inside or outside of discrete objects leads to ambiguity literally, we have this phenomena insofar as we consider what is hyperbolic or elliptic in the representations- that is these distinct geometries and their sense of invariants can be mirrored or reverse the sense of each other as a quasi context for an invariant in which ever space manifold.

Observation 11 - (Written with difficulty in the "focusing" of a few further ideas saved until next morning) : In the details of a theory it is hard to dispute the intelligibility of numbers. Yet from an overview the interpretation in context by exceeding strict information- maximums and meaning-minmums (thus quasi-conjugate the meaning information as a new principle of generality), the numbers in concert do not appear uniquely relevant as a measure of a system of connected structures. Thus in dynamic systems the compass of a number is quasi-intelligible although contained. I style this Number Field Focus-distance, in a sense opposite the dissipation of decoherence and that measure as if of isolated systems. Including crystallization of subjective theory systems. Still, reduced entropy may lead to unique and evolving intelligibility in a focused time and space as quasi-singularity differences between regions.

* * *

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Organic Singularity Primes



Organic Singularity Primes L. Edgar Otto June 26, 2011

The Yod transfinite is such that the singularity-primes are both contained within either system and yet dynamically cuts through both the holographic-like and fractal-like views.

At the threshold of where these structurally meet or begin (as in the initiators of the genome and in fact there is some evidence for what are the terminators too with super-singular primes) in the metaphor, it going beyond the 24 of validity's and direct paths or superimposition's of influences, we can see these illusions of size and "brightness" in a more relaxed principle of what may actually seem a halo of sizes quite aside from ideas of charges or of some general ground of physical substance intelligible and influential by virtue of position.

For we can imagine three variations on a genome as far as the expression of an organism's structure that may all be viable, a triplication of sorts as are the natural dimensions. But this would involve a rigid idea of say the properties of the 24 cell in four space and its lattices beyond inorganic crystal concepts. I was a thought that this would explain some of the possibilities of cancer in the higher coherence of an organism- but from the fractal properties when these are intrinsic to the coding or to the roots of the brane square of the quasic plain information-wise, we have a more solid basis for the idea of organ specific morphogenesis fields of which certain cancers may only exist within the boundaries of some systemic wide tissue.

Thus to some extent a physical theory that acknowledges the role of ultimate positions also should see this principle in the context of the metaphor, of momenta and scalar considerations, of string like spin ideas and orientations, of non-locality or not in the metaphorical sphere and not just the classical or the quantum idea of a sphere (that is when the dimensions and subsets are in a sense centered abstractly as if a proof these close pack at a constant distance)- that this isolation yet intelligible embedding into a more general space expresses the very differences as concrete in the flow and changes of the "phaneron" or background as the Cosmology of the Omnium. For any positional description is both a given and dynamic, inertia-wise... Of course philosophically there is this higher idea of theoretical freedom at and in the threshold of metaphor as the Omnium.

* * *

A Deeper Grounding for Chirality


A Deeper Grounding for Chirality

Another stray thought of yesterday, that is in the general space or most general space as to we trying to find a unique (or set of unique) solutions- is this deep difference in the idea of longitudinal and latitudinal wave fronts especially as it involves the speed of light. It occurs to me, beneath and beyond all the turns and twists and ides of representations in polar coordinates and so on (as if we can keep pseudo-vectors or pseudo-sphere each in their dominate places in the mixed overview) has anyone thought to relate this to chiral forms in that way that nature tries to express energy in the preferred form of a helix? Surely, there is something fundamental here that may actually found the chirality ideas to a deeper level and show some running approach to the threshold of metaphors beyond standard particle structure. (not to say we cannot intelligibly extend chirality into other new physics realms and symmetries and dimensions) But the idea of space filling as that which chirality makes distinguishable some cases, a filling of one thing, a muon, into its non-existence (Rowlands) or the cherished role the chirality plays in the classification of and relation to other particles and perhaps its uncertainties, generational mixing and so forth).

Lubos has an interesting article today (by the way Lubos would you have read Einsteins article as it did not cite others?) On the Higgs of course. Well, in the longitudinal and latitudinal differences we do have the usual issue of where Pi fits in, including it as a probability derived value- as in the longevity tables of people and particles). I wonder then, in the space and span of the wave-fronts, in the abstract grounding or interpretation of particles with spin as helical and directed, that we reach a paradox in the physical longitudinal (or duality in the other direction) as to if the wave itself exceeds or equals the velocity of light.

Philosophically, if in a sense a photon also relates to this all that is not physical world (and where does the radiation go in kinematics or how does the photon interact with gravity in its many ways as if it has mass) the Godel recurrence of time sustains the flow of the wave front thru time that seems running as timelessness and on some level what is acceleration is indeed an invisible metaphor.

* * *

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/06/does-lhc-see-trivial-higgs-at-750-gev.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

* * *

From the Sci Mags Today:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623145430.htm


http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/06/friday-illusion-move-your-head-to-brighten-an-image.html

Of course the experiments on classical or not entanglement- knowing about some things we intelligibly cannot see on say a quantum globe- is in a sense that threshold of metaphor as a more general background for some physics phenomena.

And why were we surprised about the composition of how the solar system formed when there are long time theories of things like Hoyle's creation fields where one might expect similarities on the make up of some planets and their moons - again from the creative aspect of the various structures of "atoms" these things intelligibly correspond and are controversial where they can be differently interpreted as aberrations as if some variation on what we impose as a visible continuum idea or not even when the background is uniformly Euclidean and infinite as a comprehensive metaphor threshold in the running creating. One article without access on new scientist suggests amazement by some cosmologists as to the almost perfect structure of some galaxies.

Another illusion perhaps literal, not to mention the vague edge (holographic limits) as the presumed cause, that of distance and brightening of some regions (including color) but not in the Cartesian grid- two things I have notices about light, thru such a grid and yet in effect the brightening literally of a certain region of light through blinds or double glass or air and so on. One can vary the brightness as if to vary the literal focus or distance from some light region- of course in the variation there can be errors of perception or of figure ground differences- and there can be after all some phenomena where the error is indeed an illusion that is a misinterpretation as a conclusion of what is seen by the mind.

Again, the literal position and being of mass assigned various realms of grids and so on acts as if focusing of a lens in the depth and span of depths of field. Can it be that the size of an object depends on brightness as an illusion in the telescope or the halo of particles and their scale maybe the physical reality?

* * *

* * *

Overview of the Yod Transfinite


Overview of the Yod Transfinite

I have long suspected the importance of the concept of primes to physics. This is another area where I thought my interest and explorations were not that of many if any others.

In some ways such working with numbers can be grueling work filling page after page until one's eyes grow red. I did not achieve much last night, whatever the patterns are they are a little more general than my methods seem to be able to contain. For one thing the results are replete with hauntingly meaningful but uncertain coincidences of value. For another thing, assuming one is not tired enough to make errors including those as to what button to push on a calculator, some numbers that match and suggest things have no connection at all. But part of the difficulty is what to sort out for different global views or overviews of the foundations of the mathematics in which we assume certain things at the start of our enquiry. But this morning I as why this is so and perhaps have a little more appreciation for what we call proofs where needed to clear some things up. Of course in a way such proofs are only a stepping stone to some wider environment that would aim as unification.

Part of the notions that crystallize out from our spacious but vague human mind may not do so but act in the background, a focusing of attention that calls up these influential but hidden relevance. The dream I could not reach about explaining all the primes in terms of squares and roots of them seems a little less mysterious or hard to reach, worm that I was where it is not uniquely determined that we find the beauty of the wings of a butterfly- But when the scales have fallen and our fluids dry in the noonday sun, what is the greater tragedy of knowing and being- that which we can never reach or see or find an end- or those who take a lifetime at some compelling problem find an answer and looking at it until the joy of its truth is sure- what then beyond a long time purpose?

I called an idea once the yod transfinite. It is still much an elusive butterfly. But I understand better what sort of creatures these are as to why inquiry can be so difficult and so temporary our gains. Imagine then the aleph zero as the set of all integer numbers for its infinity. It is clear that we have made an assumption that these can be contained as if in a continuum, as if we can place them intelligibly on a line or even part of the line can map into a small part of itself. This is not a bad assumption but a style of a view of things of which there is more to the general story. For one thing the same sort of assumption may apply to a line itself as to if it may be treated also in a little more finite manner. And so on to other transfinite numbers beyond perhaps ordinal and cardinality and simple models of the continuum.

We say then that the infinite set of primes can be sifted out of the integer set of them- this in a way makes a dynamic continuum or transinfinity of its own. This as a metaphor or model which seems to exceed some of our cherished properties on which number and space grounds mathematics. But beyond this in the last century or so there are subsets of these primes with the concept that looks a lot like some solutions for certain singularities or more fixed points in space.
These have come from considerations of symmetry ideas from geometric structures imagined and are called super-singular (or singular?) primes and of lattices that seem to exceed our cruder concepts of what can be packed or stacked beyond a certain filling of volume. What this suggests to me, with great applications from our general encounters of political philosophy's and for were mathematics may apply to economics and environmental (ECON-ECOL) debates and compromise itself, is that the property of these super-singularities are also of a fractal stance in nature so they may comprehensively fill sets of sets into themselves but be outside a framework wherein the interpretations we give for physics is one of physicality. On the other hand it is clear that the continuous even holographic view as the assumption may exclude comprehensively such fractal like ideas of physicality as at best virtual and a nil threshold of micro level metaphor.

Clearly then the issue of what is macro or micro in scale, as well as what among the changing dynamics is a unique or persistent physicality, even what is or seems necessarily commensurate globally and cosmically, is a question best explored in a wider view of a grounding singular system represented by our intimate exploration of the primes.

The yod transfinite then is the set of primes (in Godel we have a subset of concepts that from some general view shows that some ideas in the language are not clearly expressible after all in their Godel number). I keep the term because, from whatever approach or style we take to explore physics the singularity and primacy of this cuts through both the fractal-like and holographic-like (Fx-HF) separate and privileged emphasis of a working theory. The problem with such intuitive data is to sort out which results apply to which emphasis otherwise the proper interpretations are confused at the level of a clear view outside the level of some metaphor. This is not to say things cannot be unified with respect to either or with either of them- but this is also not to say that the world is not on the whole intelligible.

Even then the question is open still as to what are the remote ends and beginnings as to some final summation or ongoing summation of physical processes. But where the world is physical the idea of singularity-primes seems to apply, it too if we could see it all at once seemingly some sort of ultimate continuum which itself appears elusive.

* * *

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Thresholds Of Sufficiently Metaphorical Systems



Thresholds Of Sufficiently Metaphorical Systems
L. Edgar Otto June 25, 2011

The new physics has two approaches to go beyond the standard theory and shore up the nature of particles for such things as the supposed phase angles of neutrinos or that as the gauge rather than a start from electrons and all the classical flat cosmology of an infinite universe and its background radiation values, the classical radius and so on as extended geometries of arithmetic and algebraic topology. Until then it is futile to try to force these concepts into what is beyond validity and syllogism where the logic connects or not as do the interactions of particles. That is gravity or mass is just beyond and yet can be contiguous with the theories as formed. Where they are fractal in the patterns of numbers as we suspect of the masses as powers of two in the ratio of generations or where they deny this extension of low group properties, the holographic and fractal depths and spans do not give us all the picture- in our recent physics this is equivalent to the problem of general unification and is a very difficult thing to understand without the primacy of this threshold of systems metaphor.

It follows that what we have not been able to do with our mathematics we will not be able to force some lesser theory of it on the results of our atom smasher machines.

* * * (To be continued with the paper proper:

At this point I have either reached a level of understanding the insights of others implied by their notions and notations or perhaps have independently found such in a parallel presentation, or have found a new level of quasi-physical insights. It is not clear which systems and methods are subsets of "whom".

The informal system I use itself as beyond the hints of new physics as a metaphor to be worked out or explored in formal detail between intuition and more concrete insights.

In metaphorical space as a touchable physicality the recovery of dispersed photon paths from some general view may allow "seeing behind objects".

We cannot shore up the standard theory by K group (sphere) or phase methods ultimately. So variations in lattices and diagonals of matrices are but quasi-relevance.

Unitary (N) N a natural dimension is quasi-certain. Thus systems of physical unity are metaphorical in intelligibly mathematical computational methods. That is, the vagueness and questioning the ideal dream in practice of U(5 or 10)- so the total metaphorical system to the level of our understanding or learning is the interpretations some offer as based on mentality.

The many speculations, to some matching degree or not, in the explorations of the hints and anomalies or systems aberrations of the new physics is worth the effort but is more like competent engineering rather than creative systems origninality.

No LHC projects then can give us physics beyond the not greater than 24 dimensions as more than engineering.

The singular primes are mapped on the Conway Matrix, there being thirty so as to orient the six sided things coherently for the diagonals are considered outside the metaphor space where the genus of tori lattices may apply as if outside the epsilon delta honeycomb lattice as a grounding reference innate to framing and changes in the nature of space and perhaps the creative aspects of vacua.

Ramanujan patterns do not reach explicitly to aberrations of the system greater than the 24, implicitly in (charge) and better understanding of CPT structures, where the metaphysics (assumed foundational under TGD) is like the coincidences cosmologically, a framework within infinite by creatively quasi-discrete bounded (for the stepwise generations as computed in sheets beyond the 24 system modulations is akin to a breakthrough as important to physics as the discovery of the Balmer series and its remaining doable as classical as well as quantum in formulation as we imagine abstractly or literally some neutrino or electron gauge transitions and foundations of our various running or given scales and frames.

(I guess I saw it all much clearer than the way I have finally written it down- Here I add a point that the patterns of 24 in numbers that recently are discovered for surprise patterns in number theory as a fractal like system or property are nevertheless short of a comprehensive metaphorical theory that would seem to contain and limit everything. Thus it is with all such complimentary theories that may emphasize only the holographic or the fractal HFX approaches.)

As such the distinctions I have made between singularity and singularity complex apply to the general notions. We can exceed the metaphor from only reference within itself in a sense we can make molecules of atoms in a quasi-foam idea upon unity systems (Q4om) which is to say that unity, complex numbers and signs are in a sense deeper concepts in what is computational and stereonomic principles thus our notions of conservation are also a quasi-conserved uncertainty. An intelligibly unique order if such sign changes can be solved or is solvable in principle at this metaphorical frontier of the nearly disembodied unitary.

This Conway matrix system, which may transcend through greater spaces beginning with the 25th unit as metaphorical may indeed carry the low Galois dimensions upward and the unitary sign changes describe higher mod spaces or fractal like cycles which will exceed perhap even the idea transfinite number systems Q#\^R R=endless binary powers of powers if this generalization = or not transfinites to the transfinites or some analog to them in a super-metaphorical system. Of course in the reduction of logic via the signs or the order of things, or the dimensions of power sets and sub groups which only by shear accident can be broken or partitioned to the one way this world or any world may be so physically based, leaves at least the sign changes of say the 8 time like dimensions of the 248 maximum symmetry group.

Some systems, even as the powers of things added (yet 3, 4, 5 as a triangle of course does not exceed 25 when we compute the primacy of the lower legs for that is after all a difference in the 2brane as a unit or unity less than the 24. If we imagine this as 2 to such powers in the Pythagorean equation at least the manifold case on the micro-scale, we have a difference of 8 from the expected 32 as -24.

Yet if particle mass is seen as symmetrical and discrete in the sense of say some unit or units like charge as its measure, we note that there are differences that are close and some not so close and some remain undetermined. All of which within the 24 or less space should be intelligibly determined. In a sense we compute what is not in the representation of tori as a third of the possible arrangements of representations of such discrete units, say pairs of 3 and 3 points of a hypercube with one in the center for the +1 where need 12 + 12 + 1 is 25.

The Higgs and its mechanism is of course already assumed a metaphorical particle which may in a sense be outside the realm of particles as much as our gravity concepts but this we mean (as does the clarity in Rowlands statements of the issues) what is meant more by the idea of "inertia".

In the illustration there are 6 Buddhas (really Five as the sixth quark is a different animal of sorts in the counting of symmetry systems and their quasi observable breaking) that is the 8 and so on--- the ways we imagine such combination's and perturbation and tangles of random as spherical or directed or knotted directions (that is real or unreal or virtual like vectors in the vacuum and so on). All of this seemingly applies to the compacting or condensing the metaphorical and not the physical space.

Thus the quasi-unit of physical and cosmological theories as creative vacua and symmetric thermodynamics leaves speculations metaphorically open as to deep transcendence or creation - a real not just relatively virtual mechanisms for material and mental systems of the Soul. But what sort of theory is intelligible that exceeds deep validity and uncertain implications with vanishing directions and measures- vanishing vectors in all space and all time?

* * *

Footnote:

Finally, the answer to some questions especially around Conway. I now have found references to the "Supersingular Primes" having know this as a gap in my reading. Yet it seems rather familiar turf. Guess I have a lot more to learn in this area.

http://www.math.uic.edu/~ronan/story_in_100_words I found especially lucid.

Still, I do think mathematics for itself eventually becomes something that finds application - Only, if I may say it, the time from such esoteric and pure theory to something applied is shorter and shorter, that is almost now something in real time and the climate done on the way to give us a cathedral of its design and modeling.

The other intuitive lack I felt was that of different directions of dimensions say along cosmic strings in the string type theory- the why and how of it.


Happy Enquiring!

* * *
Next day- from that site this was especially interesting:

The rational numbers extended by the square root of -n do not normally admit unique factorization; it only happens when n is one of the following: 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 19, 43, 67, and 163, which makes 163 rather special.

It is odd that the formula up to 40, via quadratics we have known since at least my high school generates primes- but this begins to tell us why and that such almost formulas for generating them algebraically have some uses and mysteries. In what sense might we fill a vacuum if it is an imaginary one indeed?

* * *

Friday, June 24, 2011

Social Gravity IV (Seeing with a Cloudy Overcast Mind)



Social Gravity IV (Seeing with a Cloudy Overcast Mind)

Correction: In my exploration of HDR talking with local photographers HDR means High Dynamic Range (not to be confused with High Definition although those who used the term wrong did understand it a different animal) on top of that now that I found someone who knows enough about it to relate it to film methods and in general the philosophy and science of light and color) in a sense the viewing or seeing HDR with our eyes or "mind" -not just a question of frequencies and so on- is in a sense the opposite of what I was seeing as more like depth of field with contrast changed in the camera the reverse of HDR.

But the philosophic question is still there, if we could see like the birds would we actually be seeing a true higher system of color or it just in more complicated definition? Again, would this be true of space dimensions?

I find it interesting also that the unity assumed in Feynman diagrams can be solved for so many loops after all which is in a sense the infinite stack of such diagrams (I encountered a youtube from caltech on this today). But is such resolution of these infinities able to reach some ultimate state or is it just more complicated? Certainly the link between the complex numbers and octonion representations are a good bet but do they in reality achieve things beyond reducing particle states and twists and momenta to some Unitary natural dimension as such? Or is it perhaps more ultimately diffuse somehow. Can such methods of math go beyond their complicated but seemingly complete compass of their logic?

This reminds me of the usual paradoxes encountered that are ubiquitous in the history of philosophy- perhaps we still need a new idea or higher generalization or a clearer way to see the question. Maybe one that is purely philosophy alone. That or we need to apply the various ideas together beyond our still separate areas of research.

But it may take awhile to get past the ideas of spaces, sporadic and so on, on the way to that frontier level of things beyond the monster symmetries and E8. I did look up the higher monster dimensions involved 196883 involving "singular primes" as I was trying to find some intelligible numbers around it... nothing so far but excluding 43 as the first one so excluded I sense it could have good uses for magic squares and so on, here of course in a finite group setting, as after all it seems to me that sooner or later we can erect such dimensional ideas on a shared intelligible geometry to reach the same conclusions as say what amounts to some structures such as tori lattices in higher space- but that should be only the beginning to which the overall program of unification is still using methods and concepts that give great resistance to the progress of the theory for the whole.

I wonder what it must be like to be some of the people giving lectures and presentations and if they truly found what they thought they could do and be. Oh well, it is said that believing in the doctors and faith healers even if they no longer believe is the source of the cure- or if one loses faith the going thru the motions to the believers makes it still honorable to be say a priest. Maybe to be established as such would be an impediment to whatever ultimate happiness and easier path to some practical problems we can find in the sciences- let us pray that what holy books we follow for needed expertise after long work sends the next generation into the right directions in a world not only where enquiry is possible but where we may also trust more our fellow human beings wisdom again.

Exceeding Syllogism


Exceeding Syllogism L. Edgar Otto June 24, 2011

This is a lite day for me in posting, almost like a day off. I decided to move the last post as a separate one and post some ideas floating around, loose ends and speculations. For that post the relation of sound as waves to that of light, I keep thinking, and rather primitively, that sound as longitudinal, as touch and lag, would be limited in that its wave front might not exceed the speed of light when its internal signs are averaged or flat and in a sense a hidden oscillation where varied. It amounts to where in the world do things seem to take time to reach a generality.

OK In a sense of something tangible and absolute as a background, the quasic field corresponds to a method of finding the valid syllogisms- after all the logic of such a field guarantees many intelligible results of math properties as number theory. Yet, in the overview, as in the standard theory the 25 elements postulated to explain the varieties of particles- the 25th (and I have long accepted that the "homology?" between complex ideas of space and the other more positional ones is the case) leads string theorists and others to think of it as gravity that is transitive or imparting to mass or as mass the valid and concrete field of the others.

Yet, we observed only 24 of the valid syllogisms (including certain patterns were even a logician I knew said he always wondered why there were only 15 of some things) and the 24th in fact we deduce despite it violating the general laws that finds the others. So to introduce a 25th, and I simply state this as a simple counting of supposed objects, is in a sense to exceed the compass of syllogisms.

This seems where the fun begins, especially from some gene code considerations. Where sequences begin, the initiators, it is already independent of the logical universe of discourse we tend to think of as a framework, or a reference frame, even if we do not think of it as some say lattice containing the physics.

So in a sense we imagine logic to be confused there at the foundations or at least a place where a complete framework can be invisible to others also complete in themselves perhaps. Such seems in general the cracks or gaps of anomalies and paradoxes that is a simple model where our theoretical concerns has the freedom to explore new frontiers indeed.

I will now relax with some primitive paint ideas for an illustration to this post. It comes from watching the cottonwood tree and thinking of its trunks and branches as if a speculative but simple fiction about creatures who build their world among such branches. Another stray thought, of which we all might have but not take time to become aware of its consideration nor to write it down- including we who have such thoughts on a creative role- that and the state of our health and oblations where the first line of comfort and defense is our own skin... you get the picture. I think my roommate would do well to write some of his ideas down, especially when he reads Buddhism- a good exercise for his mind and one that seems a little more concrete than the language of his abstract paints the depth of which lately has made it more pleasant to have to stay in that living situation.

Perhaps this sort of idea as simple as it is can be a metaphor for the idea of branching (pants) and other forms of what if some creature walked on some very small compactified dimensions.

* * *

Colours

* * *



Colors


General Note: Those who have followed the rapid postings here as to the more obscure language and modification or invention of terms, the special way some words are used and sometimes seemingly ambiguously so for different ideas can see the logical flow of it as if in a sense these served as descriptive formulas. Thus it makes a translatable presentation more or less true to a style of which the notions seem to have a parallel flow of meaning. Anyway, one area of which I did not find the time or energy to post on was the issue of sound and light as mentioned yesterday in the sci mags as something Newton investigated- and the link of some things are there in the touch and sight of such propagation of waves- but I came to the area before the sci mag article in the discussion with a friend on the nature of synaesthesia as he is studying to work with MRIs and the brain being he majored in philosophy of the more Buddhist kind and plays music- yet needs to make a living. But I am not sure exactly where such enquirey could intuitively lead. It is of some interest in the science daily article today on how birds see- the statement that for all their bright colors in a sense compared to what they see we are color-blind.

* * *

Thursday, June 23, 2011

The Exceptional Universe



The Exceptional Universe (Super Quasonic Symmetry) L. Edgar Otto June 22/23, 2100

Lubos on the reference frame has this same sort of theme today synchronously in a most excellent overview of the situation. http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/06/unification-as-source-of-certainty.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

*The question of maximum symmetry as a structure, but from my perspective as the Quason248, a sense of a fractal like idea that at each point we can erect other such structures- and these perhaps the same issues as with the transfinite that in a wider sense we may ask if other such transfinite like numbers or geometries exist. That is we go beyond the Lie group here and wonder if this as a quasic description of the universe is coextensive with the possible universe at a place where in the general omnic context of things the multiplicity and singular difference may be a distinction long past as a meaningful question.

*If we conceive, at list this minimal object of maximal symmetry, as if it a general space, what would an associahedron to this be for the 240 dimensions or the 198600 or so representation?

*Is there an analog or Qn ZEO cosmically realizable say as different Qn Black Holes as creative objects?

*The universe, when it has a purely fractal stucture would have repetition of patterns and extend the notion of space as (longitudeque) depth exceeding quasics.

*But the (latitudenesque) as holographic restraints on physicality in its finite extent also make a clear possibility of material existence, distinguishable yet of a purely (infinite) holographic extent.

*Again the world seen as a hologram or fractal brane, roughly particle or wave in its dualities of nature.

*So the subsets, the groups broken down from this (harmonicesques) do not necessarily exhibit smooth uniformity of physical structure or perfect crystallization save the notion we may imagine it and mechanisms of approach to the ideal.

*So the quasons in quasons, their interactions and intersection intimately intelligible and commensurable in the main or generally so as harmonesque is a structural model of the universe as the Omnium in principle between unity as the infinite and finite.

*We cannot expect the mere breaking down of groups and apply them to physics ideas- nor the general assumption one group or theory applies to be comprehensive enough for a general Theory of Everything or a particle theory.

Footnote: Of course this concept (which may raise the level of confusion as to some spiritual existence or not, decidedly favors say the E8 exceptional groups of string like ideas as the only ones substantial materially, that is the general reality and its unity is exceptional in the usual meaning of the term.

This is not the most general of our possible notions of space and time. In that I lean toward the exceptional as far as the group theory is because of reaching some of the ideas from a different path quite outside and before string theory. If such a physics in simplicity and uncertainty of trying to see and choose between the separate pillars of the theory, or any theory... we have taken apart and tried to put back together what after all can be seen also as already a unity.

The universe is exceptional, and yet it is also standard. For if there is an ultimate unification of forces and the like, from the higher omnic view these have always been here in a unified state- and they have always been distinguishable and breaking. The Omnic principle is both general and capable of details. Even if we thought the only unities possible were partial ones, then there could be universe like sheets of them with each string formulation as the physics of that universe. Each point in such general continua may be an exceptional point in itself, that is and so on in them, if we are to emphasize or define physics as that involving maximum symmetry and balanced equations.

As to if there are in these visions notions that put God as more distant and less certain then the same processes also put so much of our cherished methods of physics as less certain, it shows up what after all in our hearts and minds has become closer to being just a metaphysics again.

Or dreams show that our minds are at least as complex as these super duper symmetry theories in that they in a sense transcend our complex but more down to earth ideas current modern physics.

Can it really make sense to unify the string theories into a more general one if in fact the method of doing this is but an analog of the logic of string theory logic itself? Or is math to be done in the smoke and mirrors that one system, distinguished and different maps another? Or in a deep sense as to what can be discerned from the logic and logic of unity the existential balance of both ideas?

* * *

Half Life and Double Time


Half Life and Double Time

*I now offer you a speculation which I present as a philosophy to point out logical paradoxes with consequences in a manner not unlike Zeno, that should make us question some of our most cherished physics notions.

*There has been some reports that atomic radiation, a measure we use fairly reliably by the half life in carbon dating at leas for a few thousands of years into to the past, varies, speeding up or slowing down by perhaps hidden mechanisms by which we do not notice by some parallel environs of changes. Assume this is true.

*In which case, in the short or long run, does it make any sense to try to determine the age of our earth and universe? or the young or old earth debates politically?

*On what physicality could we base this? How could this be a better explanation than a universe Intelligently created when about the only measure seems to be something could be said to exist or not as known or unknown, its property of existing also hidden or not?

*For if the value changed, we can imagine it changing exponentially and rapidly in expanding, as in our Inflation Cosmologies. In that such changes relate to that physically present and observable by some unknown mechanism and this inflation part of the physics and mechanism actively or by default, could not the evolution of the earth and creatures in it take only a few thousand years to give us what could seem instantly what we see now? Thus argument can doubly apply if in some sense our solar system is fractal like in isolated regions in descending and ascending scales. There is not good reason to assume some elements of hypercube as endless in infinite extent and the others finite but for our fixity of view and uncertainty if in the remote ideal these can cosmically loop back to some beginnings.

*Thus the arguments from design, be they arising indefinite in extent by a nothingness or a Creator or in general default sense of uncertainty and a creation like physics, or that as still not dreamed of, should at least show us the debate without intelligible grounding save it just a political agenda addressing more our desires and comforts rather than the science and philosophy in itself, the attractor and the absolute of enquiry.

*Clearly, the universe seems, while the experience of it at least, as relatively intelligible and hauntingly questionable in terms that would connect abstract notions and mechanism to our ideas of how they connect and apply, deriving our familiar and even classical scale of things. This level of abstraction seems to have different answers, working paradoxes, as if this itself an intelligible question.

* * *