Minimum Structural Quantization

Minimum Structural Quantization L. Edgar Otto August 30, 2011

* * *

Matti,

Poincare ideas were on my mind last night and it sounds like you are aware of the same questions I ask myself. I wish I had access to the ideas of differential geometry or something like it- in the meantime I have to keep developing or rediscovering such wheels.

I may not get around to this post- or I should at least post the notes in a picture.

Now, in this sort of inverse of some value, even if this justifies and non-Poincarean concept of scale for say hierarchies of Planck's, at that infinitesimal place might we find the whole structure again, a sort of echoes of numbers? I never saw much explanation of that idea, a sort of closed bootstrapping of elements.

The post will be called "Minimum Structural Quantization"

The PeSla

* * *

Never saw that to explain much, actually... a sort of grounding in a blind fractal view. But it is the analogs on the side of these main ideas that I find interesting today- based as they are on very simple four space structures.

* * *



* * *

Again, we think of the ground a iotas rather than points or stings... but there is at any place of singularity one or many or no such entities of which they do not "know" what sort of space structure they are in. In any case the higher structures that make metaphorical analogs may contain this omnic idea of many, something or nothing in the parts of the structures that are not encompassed by contiguous branes or planes (which by the way contain phase spaces on the square quasic circuit boundary which can be anything such as a triangle or circle or a shunting or shifting between them over a locally global restraint) and those parts of the non-existant are also quasized or quantized as structures this way.

The iotas viewed in just their point formalism may in fact execute right angles along the path (fractal like but in actual three space the hidden part of these fractal axial influences (quasi-flangelation) can do these 1/4 twists.

Cleary we see that the linear is an analog to some irreducible or minimum concept in the sense it acts as if aleph-0 in the quasic hierarachy of transfinite levels. So we find that these analogs do not necessarily reduce the manifold to a point unless we consider that point of a variety of intelligibly accessed singularities or even virtual centers as if a mirror singularity. For in the shunting that seems flat around an alph 2 set of branes as a circle or torus there is a freedom of the path descripitions that may separate or integrate the global structures or isolate some, or show a probability of the states as either a balanced or unbalanced set of sub-structures in the set theoretic hierarchy. For the number of curves that may default on the point structures in a minimum reducible group is greater than the number of lines of such paths. Also the number of membranes in a space volume is part of the greater analog to this and so on.

The division into three circuits, a set theoretic analog to triality, if we see them as particles, I choose to call these erions, after my friend who insisted on the philosophy of such loops dynamically coming or going in some relation to existence of which these I have heretofore called rrushian strings.

There is a distinction on this simple geometrical level which begins to make the distinctions to some degree as to what within such a higher metaphorical structure is the inside and outside of things- in fact this general idea defines what is such linear directionality, conserved or not for physical values locally and globally.

Yet, not knowing how much of these thoughts is in the literature, if this were the only and a lonely resolution of a little newer physics, I am not sure this sort of universe if the end all of our journey, though intelligible, is a comfortable place to exist in. Sometimes the answers can be too close to the facts to be so totally encompassing of what may be ultimately true.

* * *

I had a rather strange thought today also on the nature of light if we ask these questions from the viewpoint of the slit experiments- that is points and so on as a property involving these conclusions and as to what is a point photon response for example... more like we view through a screen of square wires that at some point of qusic focus things do not block the light save as so many lattice points. Do we have a natural quasic focusing of our evolved light vision? Is this a way to show the development in species of other senses as intelligible systems. Can the chemistry of smell in the canine in a sense be like vision? Sound and touch? Even to some point the use of such lattices I have seen in adverts down town such that they more or less make things invisible as if a one way mirror : see photos of the Beer ads on Water Street in Eau Claire on my www.spheresend.blogspot.

* * *