Thursday, August 4, 2011

Comment to Pitkanen of Finland

Comment to Pitkanen of Finland:

Hi Matti,

I hope you did not take my standard comment as a challenge- rather it points toward a confirmation of where some deep arithmetic applies.

I would post a challenge if I had to but would that be objective as science and dishonest science to want to not find new breakthroughs - I do not want to remain in the dark?

So I have failed to communicate or connect to what amounts so far to our less than what is generally considered elegant recursive ideas when there is no other way to compute things.

From a philosophic perspective I offer you a metaphor from the television show Nightline- Beyond Belief. You have taken up the issue of consciousness and certainly we do have strange experiences like out of body and life flashing by before death. The conclusions were that there are yet unexplained phenomena which may not be resolved short of what is beyond.

So the metaphor is not so much what our consciousness is but the age old question if we have a soul and what is its nature.

BTW I no longer think that the key to physics is about particles like some bloggers repeat as a party line. There is much we need to clear up about numbers and topological fields and how say they describe these brain processes of which our central problem is applying measure to the linear aspects of field ideas which can be done somewhere beyond the current logic of the rationals as per finally a science magazine article on it last week- beyond the transfinites.

Why would there be a limitation of the first few Mersene primes?

Such a question I feel applies to the diagonal of orthogons to the center if any at least and there one just might apply an intelligible p-adic theory more recursive than pi as powers of hypervolumes.

I guess it is too hard to research this, invention or discovery Ulla, as we are doing now- so I will stand down until the climate changes more.



link from my post a few back and with conclusions I intuited earlier for some time now. I do not think these problems will take another century.


"An immediate consequences of this results is that the observation of the Higgs particle
may be not enough to understand the proper mechanism of mass generation."

Well, Ulla
I am not impressed with this paper from your supplied link save maybe the quote above rings true- so the issue is what we mean by SUSY indeed, but their conclusions come as a surprise perhaps only to them.


* * *

I am not sure where to place this other than chronologically so I also made this comment to Lubos- as usual Climate Issues- but he cited a paper that involved benzene and the 162 nucleon electron degrees of freedom and partial differential methods- again I feel we have to transcend these ideas of dimensions and these methods as powerful as they are. As far as clouds go part of the origin for the more general view of quasic theory was the mapping of fog on the ground such that there was not a safety issue for aircraft- and noticing a trend or general pattern.

You know Lubos, something as simple as the vibrations of the basic atmospheric gas molecules (and things like a dipole shift for the adsorption of infrared via quantum theory and so on) would suggest that these vague methods founded on things like partial differentials are most inadequate in declaring what is or not in this climate debate. The politics and logic of it may tell us something and yes the carbon tax would prove an oppressive liberal and possibly false daughter of such social state ideas. Ideas espoused by the green liberal element.

This approach on the molecular level universally applied whether interactions are applied over somewhat distant molecules or not is certainly something that String theory representations in whatever imagined dimensions for degrees of freedom could concretely address.

Does methane not have 15 microwave vibrations (presumably the 16th is superimposed?) or is it the vectors over a large region of a surface if not outside the unification of vanishing particle effects (seeing them as forced or more of a falling if indeed one can show and not just assert some general distinction) which deals with four space (the Pietrie polygon).

Science should not be a matter of debate on some level unless you do expect there to be a radical replacement for some traditional view.


* * *

Here is the link to the poster I referred to yesterday on sciencechatforum . His work from computer simulations is interesting and entertaining. This is not to say we can pin down the idea of dark matter as "negative mass" nor that we can say things about conservation (would his universe be stable and infinite?) It seems more likely this is a logical extension to the virial law and four way mediators as if this formalism can apply to say an analog into the subatomic force realm. Here again we have a clean presentation of but artifacts of our established methods of the old physics. Dark matter does not necessarily cluster around matter the evidence suggests- then again the forum did debate as elsewhere if antimatter repels or attracts- still the differences of scale here show a wider dynamics than just making vague assumptions about perpendicularity. Also why is the force of gravity and so called dark matter so different in a universally generally symmetric universe?
* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment