Friday, August 5, 2011
Odoschemes (Generalized Quasic Dimensions)
Odoschemes (Generalized Quasic Dimensions) L. Edgar Otto Aug.4/5, 2011 Eau Claire, WI
Now that we might begin to accept the new physics as physics I feel free to go into further levels of speculation as to the nature of dimensionless constants, topology and numbers.
As the Odocell was the name long ago for the quasic structure I take Odoscheme for a generalization of this structure. As this involves at least three quasic "generations and issues of the number 17 I style these Gaussion Group considerations in such an ensemble. It applies directly to what in our natural dimensional space of three and four dimensions we would expect of the arrangement of atomic particles in our 120 Z number of elements- and in a world where the nucleons and anti-nucleons are somewhere symmetric we find other magic numbers of differences in such substances. I note the so called "magic" numbers are part of this scheme of things that as stable regions of ensembles of matter have so far no real explanation in the literature.
Of course as in the illustration this particular posting seems more speculative than the progressively more so ones so far in this creative endeavor. I to some extent involves Mersenne primes as a subject for consideration (thanks for the spelling correction Matti as per you example, also Matti for you find reply to my comment and answer to how these may be observable on what level in relation to particle mass values and so on beyond the first few of them as I asked.)
Now, this is a probe, as well any of the physics that probes the universe where it is possible to so extend things into it as asymmetry- of which there are so many possible structures this particular ensemble may be a best guess among a vast landscape. The Lie algebras are as matters of continuity as well the associhedra conceptions such probes as their grounding views for hyperquasic asymmetries or directions. But my approach is more discrete in that say a fractal curve can fill the space of a dimension in question but only at the infinitesimal or in the vague concept of Cantor dust the aleph null or point level of which we may say such a limit as physicality is not reachable nor as the last or highest Omega infinity as a matter of physicality as much as theory, thermodynamics especially.
It is clear from the standard formalism, and what theories claim internal or hidden symmetries, that an inversion of infinity is not a bad postulate considering one can ask if Infinity "knows" what inversion it is in at some relative or absolute grounding. It does not good for a standard theory to deny concepts that threaten it and its consistence or coherence if there is no connection or explanation for them.
It seems to me that from the considerations of these posts, and of Rowlands on Dirac, if on this level of our wisdom and technology the standard ideas of particles matter, that to some ultimate degree we should postulate that somewhere the ends of a quasic diagonal and perhaps the center have in a sense the same ultimate and irreducible entity as a particle. The singularity or singularity complex of such perceptible and measurable realities would suggest the issue is not say how many varieties of the Higgs-like particles the models have and what the implications for the state of the theory- we rather should ask if at some point the gluon and the Higgs are but one entity and the same concept in the remote considerations of space and number. (gH or Gluohigg, perhaps Higglet :-).
This of course speaks more of my early concept of the Omnium as a universe model more than other levels of theory and speculation. In the link I posted to the idea of negative gravity being dark matter-energy in concept the theory does not address where the effects locally could be disjoint- it seems that if such effects could be modeled (computer-wise) they would have to include questions of action at a distance wherein the effects occur otherwise it is only a metaphor as good as any others I suppose.
But herein is the freedom to suspend or even be blind to the worth of some theory or state of mind and what is the possibility of wider structures of brain and mind evolution. It seems to me it is no longer certain as in some recent sci magazine articles that our species as such is doomed, but in a more subtle way than say raw Darwinism, to eventual extinction or slow changes- that we have to ask what it is that is worth preserving and in the over-redundancy of that do we fail to do so. Again these speculations would suggest that at a certain level there is wide room for what can be done in and with the reality of the universe and that whatever way we so change that we are a part of whatever future holds short of some external natural disaster. We evolve with this purpose at least if we reach a certain threshold and we should thus be optimistic. How long ago was India said to starve by the 70s then came the green revolution- and now, it has an obesity problem much like the United States due to the quality of food- while Somalia goes hungry... But these social gravity matters are highly speculative compared with our sciences - certainly the next century may hold radical surprises beyond our now self limited imaginations.
Let us also make the tallies with 136 in mind for the Eddington take on the dimensionless constants and further find structures for "time-like" symmetry count for the groups beyond an individual atom or an ensemble of them (or for that matter some idea of quasi-finite, that is dodecahedra-like, multi-verses.
* * *