Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Viriality and Theoretical Clarity

Viriality and Theoretical Clarity

June 14, 2011 Apparently we cannot do business without a cell phone any longer, that is business on line.

I did not include everything on the post of yesterday that was written on the back of the notebook so considered wrapping it up here- I note that in the heat of the thinking and creation and the outside chill at night- well I am aware of some rather interesting mistakes that does make me wonder if my perceptions are in good control at the moment- part is reflected by the mood of my roommate who responds also to the weather and so on, and part is just the general background of economics and disasters in the news and so on.

In any case there are a few stray thoughts, that could make posts of a few sentences, not sure how long.

I suppose my intention here was to share things of great beauty, but you cannot do that to those who cannot see beauty in the world- it makes things worse- nor can you offer a system of anything so as to insist or require they see it as beautiful if it is ugly or not or declared so just for the scandalous effect on the offered by the rejection of such an emotion laden promise.

Viriality is the underlying key- and when applied to particle physics it is beautiful but only part of the picture, part of the truth that makes the lie that keeps us assured our view is right and the other wrong when neither can see beyond their narrow realm and dreaming.

Even with the beauty of the foundations as so described by virialty not as fundamental as I see it- even at this level of understanding, certain posts today would certainly benefit from reading it- for I read the posts today, supposedly math and physics, in a much clearer light. All other contexts are less than this framework.

The verticies of the associahedrona are bosons no?
The much ado about superconductivity and the like is dipole related yes?
Is it pi that changes in a world where we divide things by integer group values or is the h or the c? take you pick and see how that stands in your world view.

It is said jokingly that a physicists in talking about a horse conjures up the horse that begins with an ideal sphere to find the properties of the horse- and surely on the surface of things the topology does make a reduced but uniform description of symmetry and conservation and change.

The problem is that information and meaning even is in this case necessarily lost becuase the sphere if it could be projected back (presumably into the vacuum but more likely that realm of what seems to be a possibility or need for dark matter, energy and so on) we would find it is an elephant.

Science then done by the old parable of the blind men, each touches the elephant in the flesh and so describes it. One feeling its leg as a tree, one its trunk as a snake, one its large ears as a leaf...One its tail as a rope and so on...

It is all about virility as space, action or action and reaction if we still need the resolution to Newton and we may not -but then we throw out conservation of relativity too, and this applies to the quantum world- a physics of mystery left. But more than that as the topologists here play with the classical and more modern solids, the Celesticontinuum for me of the simplexes long considered as it now seems dawning on some of our theoreticians... Is this question of singularities- these that seem to pop up in hyberbolic space only- in Newtonian flat space it seems they were a problem, that is we could not solve the black hole thing of a couple of centuries ago which by the way even now is surprisingly advanced abstract physics.- that is what Coxeter and Riemann meant by simply connected or not- so we do begin to reach into the ideas, branch out in a separate branch and call it phase space.

A sentient being is in a sense the singularities possible that appear in a space that has no such singularities in itself possible. That is we can project out from a connected self flowing and structured and positive system into the vacuum.

Such a process leads to further viriality as say more fundamental than quantum or relativistic ideas. It can be reduced to that of how I have meant and Hoyle meant the creative process in absolute creation of matter an energy from steady state space in the creation if not fairy fields where there are stray bits of things as the other handed particles... well

Radiation pressure is not always the control of greater explosions and muons are not always the catalysts that so describe the world on an even deeper level.

Nor in the hyperbolic space where apparently some singularities are possible that we can choose the shape of the sphere as that of the universe or any shape or manifold or gauge or perfect hedron and so on for these are projected out or in when we find the principle for finite singularity complexes that the inside or outside of things are ambiguous as to the reality of that direction, virially where substantial and physical. In other words even without out this idea the background of the philosophies of science here show up the over simplification of theories as so presented yet presented in formal and the sort of terms one finds in nobel literature that the people read but do not speak.

It is quite possible in the blindness that some of you are wasting your time on a particular theory- but this awareness should clarify the quest of truths for you.

* * *

I find it a little disconcerting, as if a writing down while in a dream, the forerunners in my phrases and language that lead to a clearer notion the next day of posting- to look back and see the growth and it done by a rather difficult language with long used private symbols I usually leave an explanation each time I use the sign- especially where it comes close to other signs.

*In a sense the ideas of dark or opaque matter-energy is an anti-viriality.

*Viriality is in our dreams like that falling in the physics- so Jung sees these sorts of dreams as the beginning of intellectualization. Satan falls for example.

*It is of course about kinetic and potential energy too and its virial 2 ness and halfness of such powers, even if the change takes time

*CPT is especially interesting but not the fundamental idea as foundational physics when we consider the double form of quaternions (Dirac) and of the more fractal or stereonomic or quasic space (to which some sense the vision while in reality seeing the numbers and space as if it were literally the mirror of their vision. The number 8 x 64 or 512 is a perfect example of such simple counting of space which does not confuse the meaning and the information as conjugate.

* * *

Stray sparks after turning down the brightness, Lampions:

After the domain post that night:

There exists a unified realm of space where what is simply connected and that multiply connected exchange these senses
Thus one can see no Higgs as such as fundamental in the finite-infinite(continuous) change of things like phases.

The physical link between Quasicity (a squaring also) and Intelligibility is Virialty.

So in the 4 way deal, the interaction of quadrapoles and such... abstractly although I am not sure where this notion will lead, 4 +1 is 5 and 5 +5 +1 is 11... perhaps the Casmir like forces should be computed as 1/r^4n+1 rather than just 1/r^4, or of course we can factor it in the intelligiblity of 1/r^3 and 1/r^>3 putting them in the proper space rather than 1/r^2n+1 for consideration of the so called p-adics.

Again, triality or trinity of things is three as an informational concept that does not convely a lot of meaning intrinsically as just a number of object, necessarily. It conveys too much information. Alph 3 conveys a lot of meaning but very little information in Shannons way meaning and information are conjugate. But this is too narrow a view to adjust to the physicality and existence of things if applied to entropy and singularity (or complexes) For then we may ask if something that is guarenteed a finite mass but is an abstract mirror is Majorana informationally or not. Again, the clarity is hard to see when we read these foundational models from Zero to Infinty... no wonder, coincidentally a metaphor, some poet gets the notion that truth is beauty and beauty truth... But in the triality, and its relation to say something like component quarks, relativistic or not, Rowlands discusses this even though his look on the other side of the quasic mirror is so clear that the details as in the genetics have a lot of meaning but cannot be informationally worked out so as to shore up the relavance of meaningful systems unambigously. In that proton is such a trinity, and threeness is free in what is the primise as Pierce points out, it is a clear statement verified by experiment that we really do not understand the proton!

* * *

Left on the back of the notebook before the last day:
*If our theoreticians are not looking for an intelligible ground as if a metaphysics as the goal of quests for a general unity, for what are they looking?
Even if within reason such certainty at least for now may be shown to have limitations?

In questions of the absolutes the negation of purposes, theories, or explanations limit our perceiving of the natural universe within itself and does not say directly about things unknown that may exist. (at the remote extremes such questions of singularities, especially in reference to ideas of say a God, cannot by our current methods of mathematics be deduced if then- but can for this quasi-limited universe).

* * *


So Darwin knew this? This is news? Anyone who walks their dogs must have observed how keen they are around their own species. So the more our theories converge the more conflict?

* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment