Saturday, August 13, 2011
Foundational Physics and Natural Dimensions
Foundational Physics and Natural Dimensions L. Edgar Otto August 13, 2011
Yesterday it seemed my creative juices were barely flowing. At such time I usually seek new input - a graph or matrix in Peter Rowlands book concerning CPT operator matrices. As with my symmetry around the Conway grid these matrices show the link between my methods as if the "quasic" diagonal and the bilateral symmetry across that perpendicular to the main diagonal.
As the insane do not realize they are insane, all the more the creative do not realize they are creative even when the juices are flowing at a bare minimum. As with such issues of intelligence we may suspect but not be certain. Intellect is the norm between the mindless instinct and the mindless intoxicated intuition. Thus intellect is the sanity and the physicality of useful and real experience.
So again my doodles on idle seems to have found some rather interesting insights before bored to death with the whole seemingly solved enterprise of particle physics and thinking it is time to move on. All this before reading the beautiful ideas on the foundations of Rowlands again. But I was looking for the next case as on the illustration of the points (stars) of the tesseract- that is the 24 cell as such a cube representation- but it proved to be trivially simple even to higher spaces, yet such is often the case where the representations of dimensions intersect between them .
I also, in my discussions or comments to others here have a rather strange sense of distant or remote time variations, well the distant is always remote, yes? We have more distinctions to make in the core notions of our languages. One thing it seems that as far as the theoreticians I admired a score of years ago, they seem to be awakening in the consciousness of theoreticians of other nations. That is even after I have surpassed them on the journey to a more unified theory, it seems like I am talking back in time to critique my own book Instruction and Being of which it had many of these concerns and insights of those theoreticians in favor and popular at the time- before string like theories were prevalent also. So when I discuss ideas like order from disorder or morphogenesis fields and so on it feels like I am talking to those speaking the language of an earlier time. From this perspective where there is a sense of time moving as well as the theories, I can see that which does promise more originality as well as critique the grounding of my own theories. I say this to give instruction to how we may be doing such science in the future and for a reality check of ourselves and desires to continue such an often thankless service.
Let me say therefore that as Rowlands points out, it is not the group theories that are the quest, nor the quaternion like theories that are the goal- what is physics is more than these descriptions as a matter of physicality. We may still find some deeper ideas or alternative explanations for some of this- and reasons to see that some ideas were not quite correct if we looked a little deeper. I find it remarkable that such ideas by some of the working scientists are even mentioned for I think they feel such notions are cleaver but too far away to prove or expose.
For one thing a good connection of still more fundamental and which perhaps goes beyond the idea of physicality and its issues in the world of the maths would be that the fractional charges of say quarks is a direct notion of Cantor Dust and that idea itself generalized.
For another thing, while it seems the only game in town, the idea of chirality, that is the warping of spin and such, from the muon standpoint of Rowlands (and especially if we imagine a muon as a catalyst for fusion- what are we to make of the analogy of tauon catalysts on that level of possible quantum asymmetries?) So it seems that chirality is not fundamental after all- so how can it be the source of mass anymore than the source of mass as an ensemble or aggregate of smaller entities as a sum of say momenta?
Yet we clearly can imagine warps within warps- as if a helix of two directions was wound with a helix of two directions and so on... this variations or levels of what chiral differences would contribute to the idea of mass- so this idea may be part of the picture still in the runnning.
So, it is clear also that the muon and that not muon, of which as far as the unitary group idea goes Rowlands suggests it may have unique path expressions rather than some general probablistic path, that there is a physical muon and two images of which one is virtual like or complex like and the other pure vacuum like- that is we have a trinity or triality of existences involved here.
But is this not the philosophic case for if we can have a coherence in the totality of CPT but not necessarily a "conservation" of any taken less than all of them, can we say in a quantum like way of mixing things that there is no privileged thing persisting we call a muon? That is any physical thing does not exist, exists in some mathematical context, and persists as a physicality. So if this "what he called metaphysical principle" of a muon exists as regards to chirality then when we have multiple chiralities within chiralities we have a wider concept of physics and its frameworks of space and number.
I found it interesting that the count of the corners of drawings as if rays from a point directed into natural dimensions or the Cantor dust removal between them arranged in orthogons (a sort of generalization of the ray gun idea of right angles) that the count of these can be the same way to arrive at the number of abstract objects which very fundamentally in view of what is a natural dimension are equal.
I may post graphs of these doodles later as they did prove interesting and appears to me as a foundations for some of the foundations of the physics.
In the lead illustration the idea is the reason behind our visual perceptions of natural dimensions where the eye completes the grid as if the illusion of one in the background- but is this not a natural way to perceive and distinguish the depth of natural dimensions in figure and ground and grid as we look at half again a dimensional space?
* * *