Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Pyrons and Xylons
Pyrons and Xylons L. Edgar Otto June 1, 2011
This theory goes way back to early 1964 so it took awhile to recall just how I arranged the diagrams. It turns out that, while structurally there are greater freedoms to combine things, even a sense of mirror thing that may make a particle or atom, from the Platonic view one can imagine some sort of subatomic theory. Thus to find 11 things in the background potentially to be filled with iotas, the micro parts and their symmetry (see Lubos today on string theory- it seems that that theory is in the transition to perhaps a sounder count, yet after a couple of decades at least they begin to understand the problems and symmetries of the small scale, and I think the idea of 16 dimensional bases. Yet they do not understand the more general idea of the E8 symmetries nor how it can be a periodic table of things just as these iota-fields may make combinatorial or power continuum field count.
The combinatorial mind (the view more in keep with the conclusions of Pinker as to over time the selection and adaptation gains from multiple methods to solve things) strives to understand the other pole of tentative consciousness and meet it half way, but the environment or endowment may be futile to do so. But where we find this cross over, and I mean it uniform across all the concepts of physical space not just a local view that may or may not be invested with some sense of expertise of one self, that is the mirrors imagined of some particles as a neutral and maybe a third place to so organize the structures, field and data. At this place it surely, as if the string theory itself seeks the hint of it beyond string theory, thinks there are neutral objects or the discovery of them which gives the discover both the sense of a unified theory and frustrations it is not seen by those who extend their views as the only such theory possible and an endpoint of their extension. Hence, the claim for historical prescient interpreting some movement towards and forever to remain even if not justified as physics done by their point of view. Yet, in this vagueness the theoretician may if finding more favorable but neutral gain in general remain adaptable for the rare new breakthrough discoveries.
Some systems as self logical are this self falsifiable, but other systems as with the simple count and intelligibility of complicated formulas go beyond narrow views even if a more general one is hopeless not there as we worry beyond the world as well as the worry and scientific interest in this one.
In the above illustration, the outer circle is the flat mirror of the last posts illustration (after all the confusion of what is inside or outside in discrete matters is not brought up here- we assume as in black hole concepts all points to a within even if that may be empty. We see, on this level the enumeration seems complete so we count the possible iota atoms... we count it like the young Gauss did for the first hundred numbers in a sort of look and the realization by pairing that we can develop arithmetical laws. In this particular models we have 49 possible subatoms or particles. But this is true only for iota complexes as a sort of mirror for structures as singularity complexes that seem to be essentially Euclidean and orthogonal.
* * *
Some Ulla Dialog as I am Wrapping things up:
links of blogs listed on the right as in your page- hmmm you have here, did not know that.
the idea of heat, you see Pitkanen needs a better way to explain things considering Lubos replied and added that this was a bad concept- so I was thinking how he could defend it or nail it down.
There is no heat (molecular movement) in the subatomic particles but there is a relation to it at the surface of black holes as a description.
Dawkins makes more sense talking about natural selection than his anti religion lectures. I notice Matti uses the concept of memes which came from Dawkins.
Last I heard there was no good explanation for the time arrow as you pointed out as many have as good a theory as anything- and the big bang reference is OK in this respect and definitely a sort of motion or volition is involved in the evolving dynamics.
The problem is teleology, causes and effects and what direction and why. But I am at ease with effects that actually come before a cause (outside the light cone) or the illusion thereof, but we can see things, the four terms for distance as all positive and all space only. It does not seem to matter for the final theory. (sorry, too long)
* * *
Neither Pitkanen nor I think that much of Yang-Mills. I recently posted a way to better control the hot fusion. My world needs in terms suggested in this paper at least octonions if not a step further 16-ions.
I am not sure if there is a source of this sort of energy- we looked into it in the mid 90's but as far as we could tell, like in the machines from the Brazilian we only generated investors- but cold fusion in itself is a reality but not very productive by quaternion or quantum methods. At the ground point or zero state there are good machines being produced for large scale use in South Korea. But it is at the zero state and not some new source of zero point energy like in the science fiction shows lately. It is quantum theory based- but as Kea posted how long will we keep seeing things in quantum field theory?
* * *
The link sent me was from 2007 and theories, even TGD has advanced well beyond then, if there is one thing I see as annoying other than if gently adding not so much to enquiry a healthy chaos as taken up research time, a teaching requirement really, it is the promotion of such a theory and term by the author, it is those who seem to be their followers who seem to defend and promote the theory beyond reason and honest evaluation. Then again who can see the general problem of how our different brain or mind arrangements work as we try to put it into a familiar but vague theory that makes sense but one that fly's our own colors? What is the point in a war or cold war of ideas, like a football game, if it is certain in the main over time some will win and some will lose for sure? If Pitkanen will not defend TGD why should I deal with the abstract of it? All have lost the opportunity for great new explorations into the beauty of physics and the better world to be chosen from discoveries that explanation brings.
The freedom of expression on the internet will not replace the real world any time soon, so what is there to trust in it as a place to learn in the chaos? But of the real notions it is clear that we should beware of those who limit and control such information and thus in reality have no respect for intellectual property and the holiness of learning and art in itself. But this caution, lies or truth, applies to anyone among us who would so try to control the information blindly perhaps and innocently perhaps in a soap opera of alarmist we now call the social nets.
Of course this issue needs further thought- but in the real world at least, those who have tried and actually think they can control things with lies, are not very stable people and they seem to lie mostly to themselves with disconnections in their world views that shift.
* * *
Issues I have raised on this blog and one sort of quantum unification of notions of which I see as the multiverse- or issues of the richness of the underlying continua and hierarchy of them - for those that have followed- and I am not sure in the quantum sense of seeing these things that a good enough mathematical foundation is afforded us as the article claims. So, and people use the terms like casual diamonds and so on... decoherence and recoherence and so on... But it is hard having been raised with a simpler universe picture to accept or at least not feel a little uneasy with the complexity in nature of these general cosmological pictures and speculations having been so long now familiar with them. It is clever but seems a little science fictiony or perhaps a closer step expecially when the deeper models still debate things like inflation and so on (for me the transcontinuum level with the overall irreversibilities) and with more defined thinking we enter the new realm (new in the sense that not even the great Eastern religious philosphies have the equipment to speculate beyond these "Ultranscontinuum" (or multi-continuum-transcontinuum physical realms)... well, things are coming along and I should perhaps feel a little more secure in my own speculations if our great established scientists will present us with such theories. While the world catches up and we find simplicity again and a unification of our speculations- it all still looks a little obsolete to me in most areas- I think these same general, well philosophic or metaphysical notions will benefit greatly from a better arrangement of our mathematical foundations, notations, and symbols. In the combinational mind it is clear that any one theory may be comprehensive, but nature too can sort things out as if it evolves and adapts effeciently with combinations.
Now for those who have really follows some of my areas of concerns- beyond all this been there done that- there are deeper questions too which involve identity and such and the uniqueness of our individual being, experience, and perceptions of which the speculation and methods in this paper and theory are way to conservative even if they are shy for good reason that most likely a vastness of change may grow more chaotic than find a solid ground for certainty no matter how the limit of a local perception may reach that limit and seem to stay there if not go beyond.
The idea of some sort of notion of a multiverse-like idea that information can flow between them- well, clearly it has to be the 8 and not 4 bit in what is to be considered the set up taking time to that of instantaneous non-locality linking, so those issues also have to be considered and may be combinationally far beyond our quaint notions of what may happen in the evolving quantum computation technology.
In the abstract it should become more clear with the informational stances of this article, in concrete detail, that the way to see and work with the information itself in mundane terms of space and time is not simply our centering, as a matter of changes of chance or not as the measure, but whole new realms of what we think of what we mean by symmetry and its breaking in its various informational terms- even beyond the idea that a bit may contain an active or be colored by such now vague higher notions of topology as dimensions and number.
From the power subset continuum position we reach the philosphic adjustements of our notions which heretofore presented at best paradoxes that could be resolved in theory, but taking this much at least as asserted by the article, it suggests that some of our more limited world views as to the methods of approaching and grounding physics will have to be transcended if they are to make anymore than accidental progress for it is clear that in a dimensionless and even empty world of scale that one cannot consider the macro or micro effects alone and claim that for the entire universe or multiverse that these things do not also resolve on any scale especially the middle. In that sense the article should be bravely faced and required reading by anyone aware but avoiding the problems its possible inferences and implications present. The leap to a new world view from an old physics is as much a human and intellectual one as it is the application or discovery of theory and as such in our lifetimes at least the human and poetic elements will trump the theory.
* * *