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?
* * *