Sunday, August 7, 2011
Disruptive Technology and Theory
Disruptive Technology & Theory (Our Future of Additive 3D Printing) L. Edgar Otto August 7, 2011
Last night while contemplating some consequences of quasic theory I caught a show on the BBC on 3D additive printing. As a philosophy of production I have long tried to go beyond the assembly line mass production model of industry- a more quasical model with results that worked in the candle making. Of course the new industry will need faster software which of course needs a better understanding of three space.
One thing mentioned on the show was that such a new industry will find resistance for it will disrupt established methods of tooling and manufacture before one day these become household items as ubiquitous at the personal computer. Every once in awhile some idea comes up in the industry which I had long foreseen- such as the windows visual interface with DOS before there was DOS. I suppose for those of us who have such visions that there is a natural shunning from the mainstream because the alternative theories even if right challenges the order of things. I have come to realize more lately all these ideas I have seen pass by my own opportunities not there to so contribute.
In the end of an enquiry we crave not just the fame and prestige, our competence in creativity and security of esteemed self-worth, but the recognition our new insights stand as strong in authenticity and legitimacy as science in its previous tradition.
For some of you still in the game and with a sense of need for such feedback of expectations and desires, it may not be that your visions are wrong, just disruptive to the entrenched paradigm of the day that instinctively and without conspiracy all hint at but cannot find or even really believe turn enquiry into a mission to rather support some political stance that goes by the name of science as if in its secrecy's one is not to question the faith.
Science is worth little as a model unless it is a living enterprise.
* * *
Some Conclusions from Quasicity:
*1 We cannot simply double or halve (hypervirial) elements without regard to quasic dimensional views of space and numbers and still solve some current physics problems.
*2 In matters of rigid rotations of orthogons in space, 48 with inversion in three space, or three of these 4D orthogons, the quasic dimension of the ordered number in the grid is less than 6 natural dimensions.
*3 For 7 of five dimensional orthogons the qs field is less than 9 dimensions.
*4 For 15 eight dimensional orthogons it is less than twelve natural dimensions. and this goes on presumably 3n where the next rigid set of rotations is less than 18D and so on.
*5 I mention that the even cases fall along the main diagonal and the odd cases along another diagonal as if the dividing of the grid for half the phase angle.
*6 Clearly the preoccupation with manifolds of 6 dimensions is very low on the vast dimensions we can explore and these of course are divisible by that number of orthogons into their rotations and inversions, ie 2^n x n! . That is, 48 and 384 are divisble by 3, and 3840 is divisible by 15. So the better answer for things like string theory in exploring these dimensional concepts begins in the 8D case. We also consider the close packing of spheres in the various natural dimensions.
*7 There is a depth deeper than the span and depth of the quasic field within these dimensional differences that amounts to a super-guage theory and distinguishes what are time-like and mirror time-like aspects of symmetry in a close packing ensemble.
*8 This form of space considerations suggests a theoretical framework that seems to me to give certainty to fears that certain particle projects might create voracious black holes.
*9 In general where scale is a relative thing we have to transcend the model of physics of the relativity's such as of Newton and Einstein in the narrow treatment by natural dimensions. While this paradigm is not rendered obsolete it is nevertheless a theory that shuns or suppresses better and more general alternative new physics be they right or not but assumed or asserted as irrelevant or wrong.
*10 The quasics from a fractal viewpoint makes production of printed objects to any desired accuracy our quasi-finite tolerances would desire to reach.
* * *
* As the show on the BBC pointed out, we could be on the verge of a new Industrial age. Still, in a technology that will raise all nations universally and the weight is the enemy- there no more need for outsourcing for mass production as the manufacturing would be local, the nation that tools for it first will be in the next era of economic leadership beyond existing tooling eras (presently of China).
We need to develop new materials science for this "mass customization". The printing at the 20 micron sheet levels of a dust by lasers makes less parts to assemble and eliminates the need to drill holes.
There is obvious (not mentioned in the show) applications to nanotech and artificial or mixed living systems. But "If we can draw it (with hyperquasic principles) we can make it." Of course we can scale miniatures. This is still far away from our ability to reach beyond our imagination and work with pure space alone in order to so draw things as if some property of folding or modulating the vacuum concept. But the idea of "replicators" comes close in the sense of what threshold this complexity will be concrete and viable with our relaxed general dimensional space.
Let us in this age of egg grading and caste system of work and numbers only as the basis for our banking (should the virtual world take over this bit-coin idea that we are just an accounting number) not forget in a sense we are consumers but also a mass assembly line production model in our educational system. We can change this without falling into the idea of being anti-technology and vaguely living only in our heads or only in the cloud between us far from the needs of physicality.
* * *
Related comment just found on Morphogenic Fields and TGD to Pitkanen:
I am on board with you here and have been since 95 or so. But since my on-line life I have observed that this area rapidly causes the moderators to classify it and related theories as suspect and even pseudo-science.
One problem is the old (what you know is essential) action at a distance. This in a way means there is action also across generations as if at a distant time. Of which now there is some physical as well as social evidence.
Of course quantum is part of the picture but I suspect that a little more is involved here beyond the quantum and relativistic formalism, as you know. What organizes the quantum system?
But it was a most interesting and excellent paper you linked to and I do see better where you have tried to add to the coherence of this Morphogenesis idea.
Now, if we can shore up things a little more convincingly when it comes to applying the number theories to all this :-)
* * *