Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The Universe - Its Span, Depth and Shadows

The Universe - Its Span, Depth and Shadows

*M is for Metaphysics (M theory).

*Two branes intersect in a singularity or singularity complex and they can be coincident while parallel.

*In a sphere-plane (depth and span) we an map an informally jumbled number of these singularities.

*There can be a hierarchy of descending finite jumbles (ekpyrotic innate directional complexity by space-time positional fixity in random shifting of the configuration)
In general chance x mechanism = teleology (shadows) analogous to CPT conservation metaphors}

*Two Euclidean (or Complex) Planes intersect at a point singularity while two parallel quasic branes intersect at a point or singularity complex.

*Singularities (in the hyperbolic or shadow counter depth) could be mediated by the Pitkanen emphasis on that space where the inertial sieve permits discrete mass in the shadows provided it is genereralized on all fractal levels by virial finite quasic inversion as if uncertainty.

*The braids fill these holes (as if string or loops) on the same perceptible level but if theory A is opaque and B is clear, one theory can exist or not to the other.

*Entity A may be replaced by entity B without a question of its transfer requiring the vanishing of the new incarnation of the particle. From the depths in the complexity of fractal singularity spaces the arrows and directions arise teleologically.

*QsX The universe, or the inertial singularities at rest in it, from some perspective or complex of them is perfectly quasi-crystalline by liquid like where singularities in a sense intersect singularity complexes.

*There are 2^n or so K circuit adjacency matrices of analogs to associahedra all of which is contained in the gereralized brane as the quasic plane brane-complex.

* * *

*I introduce the suffix "-que" for the slightly wider terms of such a wave particle confusion on the notational and notion level for such ideas of existing but much more hidden yet intersecting supersymetry and its breaking as concepts. Thus instead of a "selectron" we have an "electronque". Note that the exclusion of physical particles, or the confusion of the nature of such particles as if in the standard theory by experiment does not preclude this form of super-symmetry.

*The categorical virial super p-adic p-brane symmetry low pass filter breaking as a higgs like foam mechanism is resolved in the q-adic quasic multidimensional plane.

In general given the universe as all of reality and intelligibly fixed in count and compass of topologies where can it change to expand or shrink on our conceptions regardless factoring into boundary ideas of what seems its core of quasi-conservation? It can expand into the quasi-finite depth, or the span can expand, or in the shadows as if an explosion that finds the rest points of inertial singularities perhaps to implode again in an reaction to action. This is the result of hyperbolic space and its acceleration as shadows or dark energy and not the more down to earth question of a flat Euclidean or spherical flat or curved finite space in the primitive ideas or concept of the universe as an expression of these simple manifolds to which the analogs to virial simple algebraic forms may ask if the universe begins or ends in either direction of the past or future and so on - but the answers grow more complex for us to answer. Yet it is the local expressing and working out of a theory in the details and not the vague concept of a theory in itself that amounts to an original and fundamental addition to our body of knowledge to which one can claim new territory as well new awakenings as universally unique.

* * *

We understand that from the experiments this sort of super-symmetry can be hidden so as to seem not to exist at least in the physics as we now can crudely measure it. But this does not show it a distant possibility that cannot so exist. For one thing it can be formed into a useful and intelligible theory with evidence all around us too clear to be seen. Not that an idea of something is linked to what physically must exist. I find it remarkable really that we have such abstract and advanced ingredients and it still cannot find a clear picture of something even like mass measure even in the standard theory despite its complexity and fit of parts.

So today someone on NPR is interviewed about the universe and as usual the local population in Wisconsin again startle the guest with the depth of their questions to the point the caveat is stated that "well, I am not that good a mathematician." Yet it seems the confusion to answer was more a state of the philosophy between the caller and the guest. The guest said for one caller, we are actually anywhere we are at the center of the big bang. The next caller then wonders how we can see light from the big bang- The guest says he thinks is to do with the "light cone" Yet both are concerned with the simple way to view things in three space alone and can be confused on the questions of expanding or red shifting as to what ground for that which appears and that which is hidden. But if the need for philosphy is not realized here certainly we can see the need for how we perceive things in the sense that this may be more important than what we think we see or do not see in experiments.

Time goes on and as odd as in the present full of light that seems a timeless and changeless object at one with its continuous and eternal or everlasting background- the philosophical mood at peace that it is surprising morning and I am here again to continue the wonder and see the dread as long buried for awhile- I mean that some things measure the flow of time in spurts or a flux or flow. On thing that seems to show history as much as say visitors to the coffee shop and each time their new born babies or puppies are a head taller- is today, before he promised and optimistic data came in, I read the obsolete posts of other bloggers- timeless yet aged- but no were original and fundamental although still in the running- not shown wrong- but we have to orient ourselves too for our own growth that reaches into the depth or span far enough to know that in some ways what we right is both born pregnant and still born.

* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment