Friday, June 10, 2011

Clarity in Law and Order

Clarity in Law and Order
L. Edgar Otto June 10, 2011

Viewing things we long thought we understood at the foundations, just a general flow of thoughts in the back of my mind, these still come through even when the logic of it is hard to frame, feeling the obvious of hidden dimensions and symmetries in front of us so close it cannot be seen as if far away.

Science is learned by the masses, says public radio this morning, more in the zoos and museums than formally in the schools. I sympathize with a blogger I follow here who now sees the science museum not a place of lies to avoid but evidence of the glory of His creation. He raised on a young earth creationism is troubled by the change in perceptions. Evolution and Creationism, these may not be compatible anymore than some say the evidence in the first chapter of Genesis accounts by separate authors and traditions- But I never saw them different and so the account for me has the ring of fundamental truth. But where is this Deity who if our reasoning or lack of it makes Him the most obvious thing so the most invisible?

There is an analogy here to the study of the fundamentals in physics as we look into the hidden and the obvious, as we risk our sense of reality and intelligibility and in our place or culture in the world the sense of truth.

*Singularities as points is the foundation of symmetry, not just that symmetry can be the organizer of points.

*The singularity complex when we have this organization does not default to the center depth save at some general beginning but goes around the span. This a great conceptual difference that may help distinguish our laws of physicality.

*There are Super(Stereo- or Stereomnical a less confusing word in its generality) Atoms where a complex of complexes may mimic the simpler grounds. We know this already (than the sci mag article of yesterday on superatoms and its magnetic properties by alloy's) for some carbon balls may act as if Methane.

*A serious thought crossed my mind, rather a less metaphysical one, I need to ask what is the symmetry group of the Associahedron- for it must have one even in its dynamic computations as the numbers intelligibly add up, this world of triplication and focus down to what normally would seem a subgroup or expanded logically into mixtures that are intelligible, lattices and supergroups. Is there a formula for it as basic as that of the double factorial?

*But before these more advanced questions, a simple question, a child or an armchair physicists or a farmer tinkering out some mechanical problem on his own, or the way to entice the fish or as a fisher of men forbid them so they to be reminded they asked to be part of the secret order, exclusive so as to attract more members in the end, and in the hierarchy of territory and space and time, award the honorary degrees but not too many and not too soon before the cathedral of art extracts its dues, I questioned the Philosopher, Newton.

But have not others questioned him? Some Einstein in his turn? Surely so, but where would Einstein be without the shoulders of Newton to explain the change of things? Newton is clear and only modified, and of late Einstein modified in turn. Not that I say Einstein would not be there save for the work of Newton but a pure fundamental theory would be too clear to explain some things with certainty at a fundamental depth. The gods too are their self falsification and the honorary degrees go to the middle high church and not the fanatical puritans.

Newtons law, Force equals mass times acceleration, is an ideal really to which nature and those who would modify it and cite it as the long tradition to be surpassed if not globally wrong in some ways- yet what comes from this is the idea of acceleration, hoisted on his own fluxions! But he did not have the benefit of technology such as the electrification era where we can make a law, Ohm's law for example, it works within a certain standard and tolerance because we modify or manufacture the parts to fit the general law.

Other than undergraduate and gymnasium story telling the debate as to how to interpret the laws has little use historically if it is imagined that the minds will remain fixed, as the twig is bent, on some idea they are expected to infer or become wise enough to keep their mouths shut and say what they half hear-ted feel with a public display of lip service or obedience to the self confession of show trials.

So, in looking at some of these new ideas and the possible foundations of their physics, that and actually holding weights, a sphere, toss it, spin it, push against it, roll it down an inclined plane, even bounce it- I am not sure, I thought, that Newton got it right about inertia deep down. Yes, things run down, one cannot have a spinning ball winding and unwinding the string forever. But what of something that is a small particle? Are these not perpetual motion things it takes a lot to slow down just as one has to add force to send forth a cannon ball?

It is way too convenient, observation or not to say- something moving will stay moving or still will remain still unless "acted on by external forces".

The same goes for action and reaction as a fundamental law of physics. In view of the triality of three space (the generations) as perception (and this goes for experiments not so much observational information as the clarity needed and the independence needed for such laws but our intimate immersion into the physics of consciousness and perception that too independent and clear, a paradox.

For Law and Order is a phrase that just repeats the confluence of two streams of language that mean the same thing. So what can we make of the vagueness of a term the clear laws of unclear order in the grounding reality of the logic of it when ultimately we need to decide about discerning the indiscernible especially as the example of Leibniz on handedness?

If I hold a hefty sphere it seems I push against it upward when in reality I am just holding it. Even Aristotle made the distinction of formal and efficient causes all of which ultimately relate to the general differences of kinetic and potential energy if that can be trapped in a still picture of assumed velocities. But, in the vicinity of a large gravitational field body- our earth we have evolved to relate to I cannot at least on the familiar scale push it down as it falls with some higher constant velocity. I can barely support it by the points of my fingers so as to control its most general group and action directions, the most and least interesting of groups the K or that of the sphere. Immediately I see the importance of the triangle and tetrahedral groups, and how the octahedral ones may relate as things are to turn as if somewhat discretely.

But where does the touch of geometry begin? In my mind? At the ends of my arms? Do we touch as much with our minds as we see with our minds? In our freedom of motions is isolation necessary and blindness needed to breathe and move to such freedoms? If as Sarte says since we can feel ourselves as we so touch, or see ourselves eye to eye, when we touch a brick wall that is other we infer it exists as we so have the subjective sense of existing. I imagine then a small stick or probe, and it does not matter of what I push it against or of why that place is solid and resistant. I assume it is so externally for it does move relative to something. I feel the reaction as if the direction of the gravity is in all directions. I think about a unified measure, a radius or diameter, a length, a weight, a spinning that has only some ideal angle as if the up and down and I call it a number, I invent the vector.

But we can argue points of philosophy and call it science. I mean it is not a clear property of the calculus that in the understanding of things the idea of limits makes all the difference in the world to the logical problems the potential infinities raise- this fine solution is superficial for the fundamentals and is after all a subjective thing, a working thing, and a very clear thing.

Is it forbidden to ask then, that the center of an ideal spinning wheel, a point, does not move as we come slower down from the rapidly moving periphery? Is it improper to ask the simple if not childish question of why things like the earth spin or that gravity does seem to care about expressing itself at time with right angles? Should we simply deny the intervention of God as Newton speculated that the planets orbit in general together by claiming these chance properties that give a more down to earth reason for such ordering even if that clear law based on that which is ultimately distant and unclear?

A point then, from the simple but complex musings of Riemann as if projection and its consequences the highest insight for space, a null or zero vector, that which can or cannot be reached and we accept the vagueness of such a state of things as if a clear law to which we have learned in thermodynamics it may not be so clear.

For if at these points far into the flat plane or great sphere, these poles, these diameters, these trajectories of motion and distance focused invariant and uniform in some idea of general space and dimension, if these can so move then is it not clear they are motionless at some ultimate descent or limit to them in a pure and continuous space, one that moreover may be the ultimate substance of matter?

Clearly, we can see that at such a point as if an origin, or an analog of them as if a complex of singularities, such equations if there could be there would make the distinction between a universe that spins and one that is still, an indistinguishable situation. God, so to speak, in an idea that can have expression in geometrical analogy of multiple dimensions, is not that which His center is everywhere and circumference nowhere. Physics and God reaches much deeper than that.

* * *

Sci Mags Today:

This link is relevant to today's post- the "super atoms" where I am thinking of the fundamental structures in relation to chemical properties. But such atoms are not conjured up in the name as if those of say matter based on a grounding a higher dimension- still, this sort of clear reasoning in its invisibility shows the bonds of things and our being drawn or enticed by analogs in analogs of spaces and constants to make shaky but reasonable interpretations on the depths- tells us that we still do not have an adequate view of atomic structure as in the periodic table. I wonder if the antimatter contained will show a slightly different structure.

FeMgsub8 Does this proposed structure have polyhedra of 7 and 14 points for a reason?

So, biochemical pathways aside, noise, and the symmetry questions of thermodynamics, the shift toward red- this comes up as central again in the spectrum of life's continuum of perception.

Here again our experts have maintained last year (the biochemists) that such tunneling phenomena were very rare and had little to do with the biology... well, the guests on the forum seem to be vindicated again!

But there are a lot of good articles today, what happens at the edge of the solar system?

* * *

I saw this today in addressing the Brazilian poet- particle physicists. I post it here because the generation ideas and distinctions involved are certainly part of the depth and span, especially this talk of higher generations- btw Daniel, the higher plateau of such solids do have an interesting honeycomb of 5 layers that each projects into the next one- hardly a dull space. I follow you for Portuguese practice and the poetry.

Kea said...

Daniel, as I said over at Resonances, since our scheme is non local, one cannot immediately compare it to any of the popular schemes based on local techniques. In the braid catalog, mirroring comes from switching braid crossings, whereas generation is associated to information dimension and strand number. Very different things.

* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment