Tuesday, June 28, 2011
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.
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.
* * *
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.
* * *