Thursday, July 14, 2011

Super-naturally Dimensioned Analogs

Super-naturally Dimensioned Analogs
L.Edgar Otto July 14, 2011

Two wider ideas from last night. One involves the use of the quasic grid in the reading of distinct coordinates for the rigid rotations and inversions of orthogons. This allows a certain abstraction with the shifting universality of the Conway matrix SwCw and suggests a new notation for coordinates, a sort of super-fractal partition theory in what we can do with quasic spaces.

It of course involves factorials which in theory but not practice can explicitly generate the prime numbers. Quasic grids seem to help with the complexity of imagining such numbers at least in the useful modest dimensions and groups. Specifically, I find it hard to think that workers in these vast spaces of higher dimensions can see very easily the total picture of what would be more obvious and hidden further behind the sense of a total theory they see. Or those who have probed such depths sense the space but are focused on the ladder to a total theory in the climbing.

It seems we cannot extend the quasic and orthogonal grid-brane idea beyond our ability to draw it in normal space, but we can move the parts around. The role of the 24 cell is important again in the topological patterns- much like I suspect the fractal like new discoveries in what I call the Ramanujan background for number theory. Moreover, with such a consideration of rotations and double factorials we can image a new way to arrive at Eddingtons Uranoid for 136. Clearly, part of the mystery of the results of particle data experiments (other than its preference for statistical graphing and analysis and so on) is that our concept of the space that involves concrete things, physicality, is much more "supersymmetric" than what are thought the limits to so try to measure mass and multiplicities of decay and where when halved or doubled the diagonals are self-dual and cancel out in viriality.

Why 136? asks Dirac- why 240 for some things, why not rather the widest use of symmetry, statistics, and dimensions at least involving 1152 for the next level and the idea of distinct and joint notations of the bases including ten? If we take the 24 of the 64 cells away from them we get 40 and that is the close packing of five space spheres- clearly all the theorists seem very confused at the distinctions and possibilities hinted at between four and five spaces. We need moreover a theory that is continuous as well as a finite model of the powers as if the dimensions of things (Clifford and so on) But from a quasic view this relationship between the finite and continuous groups is but a first step and very trivial case of the bigger picture.

The other idea involves a look again at what we mean by chance such as the psi wave equation realm of the world of probabilities- can some of these super-natural quasic patterns apply in a concrete way, what makes such radical local randomness sound if needed for some development beyond the existential chance moment and is it that such an idea of radical randomness is essential; OM-statistics encounters Bayesian memory- fact or elaborate coincidence?

Imagine then, as one simple arithmetical example among many explored last night: We have in the 64 or 256 quasic grid region the 24 distinct and valid combination's of the three and a shadow things of four at at time as axes in 4D space. We imagine these together in quasic coordinates to combine 16 of them and so list the ways to find the group permutations of the hypercube (with inversion = 384). As I said the abstract grid here is but a two dimensional shadow of which we might imagine in the idea of such space as if a natural dimensional vector basis that we can continue the abstraction into 192 validity's that our calculus must have area volume and hyper-volume for its grad, div and curl methods generalized. We can picture these things to some degree or partially- and we can impose them on lesser math systems of space and physics we cannot see where they do not yet only magically seem to belong missing the wider use and expanded comprehension of these foundational things.

* * *

The neat thing about being ahead of the front of theory, better than being behind by a decade or so, is that as theories advance in real time you see where you were back then... the link mentioned in Leo's blog is an example of which it was the key and exciting idea- my chiral theorem involving the evolution of matter and galaxies in more or less these forms. I do not now see it as the core key to the problem save the overall intelligibility of how nature's laws interlink (not to say there is some sort of great mystical overall connection to all things- that idea too vague.) But it is a weird feeling, a deja vu or flashback to the future of sorts. (Leo's blog not available for commenting on evidently) Still, his take on the possibility of creative objects (and if I read it right the internal structure or the context of this in the subatomic level) is current though a beginning with the trend of my recent thinking.

But even with our next instar of generalization, as on the quote on his blog, I wonder if somehow all these sorts of thinking (where we have a hard time really and philosophically distinguishing the imagined object for the real object- at least for some people) either way, are we not really limited to those systems that, like matrices on a lower level of abstraction, essentially apply to what is experienced or seen as if all there can be is an intelligible description of what is physical? We push these philosophic problems to higher levels as if these a sort of enduring analogies and yet somehow we are able to note the evolving as if the universe also independent and describable in its evolving in the passage of time and weather of our science and philosophy of theories.

* * *

Perhaps, and more intuitively than formally or technically, this amounts to a quantization of the indefinite and flat tori of the "Leech Lattice" with due considerations for perhaps a higher concept called super-genus which in a sense is the pairing and halving of things (viriality) in folding and unfolding etc... and while we may be caught in a description of what we can recognize as virtual or real intelligible systems describing a limitation of physically - this higher view seems to me essential for the distinctions in reality we make that grounds our consciousness with its reach and possibility of awareness, being, and perception.

Information-ally, we sometimes count or separate the figure and background regions of such space and hold due regard to what is the binary compliments of the parts of systems. Where I use KLMN as 4base (the natural one for determinants with due regard for quadrant signs and so on...super-determinants? These can be seen as the identity of the orientation of an orthogon operation as if I am talking about w x y and z axes - thus some are 3+1 hidden the +1 in 4 space here, and yet abstractly we can accommodate when the regions act as if entering or influenced by 5 and other on the face of it naturally dimensioned axes. In the organic realm, our bilateral n-dimensional form of symmetry, we must go beyond the idea of resonance of say Pitkanen's idea of a molecule as a quantum antenna- or that of the extent of the unity of the organism- and any such unities or totalities of a theory we find such that in the systems at least at a distance certain calyptic patterns attract to other patterns. More like a quasic super antenna and teleoscoping teleology. In a sense this condensing into what seems a factored compactification is the very problem we seem to have when we require a certain description of the limits of physicality and its possibilities.

* * *

Creative entities anyone? While there is not always two sides to every question we certainly can be on the wrong side seeing things and turn our closer to the right side.

* * *

If the worm consumes the inside of a hyper apple meets the outside peel briefly then eats the volume of the apple again- could this be something cyclic and repeated?

Or in a paradoxical sense might we ask if half an apple gives us half a worm?

* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment