Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Friomnium - The Cosmological Element - Kea Cubes
Friomnium, The Cosmological Element, and Kea Cubes
L. Edgar Otto October 26, 2011
I have made another leap of sorts in comprehension of the physics after still a deeper reading of Rowlands and of one of Kea, first papers listed on braids applied to fermions with her comments on the standard theory. There are so many parallels between my own and all these views yet they reach out a little into different directions- sort of a cosmological element that privileges things happening in descriptions of particles and interactions. I agree with both of them, quite independently, that the E8xE8 makes the most sense of all such theories.
So I just tried to translate things a little into my various puzzle notations, including the colors and methods of music. I also want to answer more this idea of spectrality in terms of open and closed particle and math systems- so again this is a freely exploring informal posting. This in relation to pi/12 and all that. The Friomnium is a term where in the cosmological element our theories share some ideas but specifically I toy with the idea of her conception and use of the sphere or spheres in such a cosmology- and would ask her take on superluminal neutrinos in a world where light seems to slow down. The sphere as such, and the reservations I have for the Poincare theorem, I come to from the general higher dimensional and symmetry ideas and her philosophic quote by pascal taken literally.
With this theme in mind, and wonder just what is original in a sense with any of us other than those who do not see these things as simple as they now seem to me and they are original in their stance of perspective on the new physics- or is it in a way the same old physics, I post links to a blog I follow. Our creativity always is going back to the drawing board but our wisdom is forever young.
"In separate conversations with Hou and with Foreman-Mackey, I found myself discouraging each of them from looking into serious sparse methods for Gaussian processes. Both students are potentially matrix-inversion-limited (or determinant-computation-limited). We could definitely benefit from having matrix respresentations (even if it means approximations) that have sparse inverses (or analytic inverses). But going there is (at this point) a research project in sparse methods, not an astronomy project. So I am going to hold off until we really need it. That said, there is a huge literature now of very promising techniques."
"Seminars filled my research time today. At lunch, Sergei Dubovsky (NYU) talked about conjectures for the fundamental action of strings in string theory. He gave a tiny bit of motivation for why 26 dimensions is the preferred dimensionality of spacetime in string theory. Apparently the 26 dimensions are expected to be 25 spacelike and one timelike, which seems odd to me, but causality is a bitch (as they say). Causality featured prominently in his talk, because he is experimenting with different causal structures for the dynamics on the worldsheet of the fundamental string."
* * *
More on the Spectre and Spectral Theme:
"Mental-Time-Travel in Birds" defined from a subjective perspective, but
Let us recall that as creatures of the air Birds see with 4 primaries and we see with three- thus their color space is three dimensional. But as Pinker pointed out we can distinguish or think and orient things in three dimensions. I believe we can also, after getting used to such restricted geometry of 4 space, see or think in even higher space- some of us more successful than others.
I wonder then if we started with 4 primaries in our relaxed uniform color space as if the whole shifted as this problem I raise in spectrality, a cosmological element which is quite close to the idea of an innate flux or flow in physics as well the focus of zeros in a matrix unto the diagonals or its pseudofunctors-scalars as we impose upon the lattice planes group symmetries, that we would more easily see these things- or as in the careful work that evolves of Kea (That would be a good model if I ever wrote a formal scientific paper), from that view in flight would not the narrow standard world of three dimensions (that of course what the clouds reduce to from higher spaces to three by Rowlands where for some reason the octonions have a problem when they break in that Diracian formalism as incomplete) be such that those have not learned to see a little further beyond what to those who can becomes so obviously trivial. In a sense then the birds see into 4 space.
The turtles have 5 primaries but I do not see them as seeing what we may infer to extend into five space as a pure space of natural dimensions- so too the evidence of the reasoning behind a lot of our maths of equations beyond the 5th degree etc.
Thus, as far as proof dogmatically go- we can use the terms cosmomnioum, ontomnium, and teleomnium as in the three traditional ways to "prove the existence of God" as a matter of philosophy of course. I use the word Friomnium more in the dynamic sense of these pseudo-tachyonic connections and concerns with changes in our constants or attempts to measure what is just out of reach of our unique perceptions yet are physical- much as Kea understands but goes beyond what sort of matrices may "add" to have physical effects. But in the combination's of particles and so on some seem not to understand such things beyond this level where things seem physically complete, even if we imagine some future range of even higher particles of which it is not uncertain we can say they meet somehow- nor can we expect beyond the 25, 26, 27 and so on of that theory to feel the certainty that supersymmetric partners are necessary and in fact are a superfluous way to explore and state things I Kea early sees and states. She also addresses the issue of what are the limits of a piece of string (or iota ray or point etc in my terms) as if a quasi-quantum discrete thing of which she too thinks that surreals may apply. I was not aware Fourier transforms could be used as discrete ones but this may say a lot for a wider view of heat transfer and how we relate these more general ideas to complex space.
I am still not clear on exactly how all these theories can be interpreted as mass or gravity (well the Machian view can make sense on some level but it is not all) and for some who assert these as facts it somehow can get lost in the context of a less than total theory- apparently, as the alternative bloggers now seem even in the more mystical parts of things (and Rowlands), like Kepler we have a falsifiable theory that is thus scientific by some standards in his music of the spheres, the stacking also of the polyhedra. Strings alone, and even the vague brane dimension is falsified. But how far can this go- Einstein's correspondence on this is instructive? Perhaps quantum-gravity is not a clear approach.
In any case, the Friomnium, that is what is circumference in general and what is the center in any dimension- does require some appeal in physicality to the reduction of what amounts to the tori or even extended the 24 cell and Leech lattices as the reference for a more narrow view of space and groups. If we see an electron as if a little sphere, or space as a vortex in many regions as did Descartes or Poe, we certainly in the quasic view imagine these as of any genus or tori less dogmatically.
Of course of my series Omnium, Plutomnium, Teleomnium I am not suggesting Friomnium has such a status as a philosophical continuum but it is as if one and a total theory in its range of things- certainly such ideas, even if focused and reduced in information yet that done closer or more correctly to the physics of things, have a role at least to the extent the universe in general has its indefinite lifespan.
There is a common sense of things also as physicality- where we can say that the 6th roots even if as two laminated 3 spaces (not as pseudo complex mirrors necessarily) can also show the implied third one (much as we have three layers of planets, inner outer and tertiary, a dimensional problem in naming and the idea of their mass differences close to some universal history of those solar systems possible- but do these spheres in the hyper-music as all music patterns with some nil centering). By this we see that the problem as discrete information as concrete has to jump to the 8 dimensions to begin with.
Yet the six are useful in many ways and are a natural part of triality quite besides the assertion of a unified string theory. In this sense I imagine something the Kea dice in operations of color matching or rigid rotations of the group applied to the 24 of the hypercube or on the cube itself where a distinction can be made that relate to my calyptic cubes of the 36 faces where in the quasi-idempotence of the fact of concrete stuff somewhere or in some mental time travel space at least, we find the 36 zeros of her 6 matrices as the 36 faces of 6 calyptic cubes all involving connections between flat triangular vertex objects.
Here to my application of the Conway matrices and their generalization- and the distinction as to what is hidden (calyptic) or not. But in all these variegated cubes I cannot conclude or formulate some theory and measure of dark fluid (save the application of natural fluids to physics is complicated but hardly adequate and may not address the weights or amounts of the cosmological filaments or elements involved with dark matter- energy and so on if we need define this at all- save that such supersymmetry is after all outside our current endowment of knowing and perception or learning for the masses.
* * * *
I note also on this blog this comes up which relates to Pitkanen in the sense of how hyperbolic trig might apply, and other ideas where we may look at the foundations from various angles or branes and planes and pi and probability and all. A way to extend into that side of the geometries something like measure- note also my illustration of yesterday with the early proposed symbols connecting e and pi as a hint this too on my mind- and motives I associate with Kea. Interesting that such things are the topics of discussion now. But the sea is so full of all those working toward the frontiers of the general areas. I note also in Kea's link a companion in Philosophy and Physics in which he discusses the 2/9 factor of which he too imagines an inversion for me as if 4.5 dimensions.
Oh, the Kea cube in itself would make a rather esoteric Rubiks like cube that further shores up the idea of others and Rowlands as that connects to the fractional third charges if we want to see charge that way. I note Kea has a clear idea of the connection between chirality and charges closer to my own conceptions and of which some seem to ignore on the duality level- this does not mean we ignore things like it only takes two twists of braids to explain the 24,25, 26,27, 28 (depending on better insights of dimensionality) or so particles as a core nil potent duality- and this does not forbid triple modes of particle interaction as if it has to go thru binary steps where from some natural dimension the vertex if not vectors as such apply to the associahedra. Theory is like a mine field as we explore including those who step on one and are afraid to move off.
* * * * *
Note: In the flag order in my recent post The Crucible of Stars the Pesla Phoenix Council flag has an order of stripes more general than that but suggestive of the cubing of Keas small w and -w notations, the reason for this sequence as purely artistic was meant to be suggestive of this combinotorics so it is in a sense hidden from what colors we see. Readjustment of the stripes at least in the example given did not result in one artistically pleasing to me, perhaps too symmetrical.
Of the cycles of twelve notes I listed on the page the 24 notes of the major and minor cycle as a possible further consideration of such combinations- and interestingly we can have a major, augmented, minor, diminished sequence of things but that breaks into two cycles. My first impression of Keas numbering or my color-tones was that of playing the c or 0 minor seventh- of which that may show why our music naming is not as clearly logical as it can be, in three tones anyway.
* * *
Not sure why I posted it but I did after two responses to a posted question in my e mail notification of the discussions:
Of course it can mean a great deal that such things are imaginary and as mysteriously outside the question of causality.
Now, the sun will not blow up if the neutrinos have some mass and change flavors. Nevertheless, this is how they blow up is it not? I mean light from the center of a star takes billions of years if that is the medium so to come out (neutrinos then not in sinc with the value of h either as we imagine it) but the neutrinos escape rapidly.
So, part of it is how we handle exponential values, real and imaginary, say to define radioactive decay or even hyperbolic trig spaces. Some say this decay rate can vary. Some say we can imagine over a more integrated view of time a value like light slowing down (or if we insist on this causal world also speeding up in a more concrete sense things gaining mass, cosmic rays for example).
One might say that if light is slowing down the neutrinos would appear faster than light in the causal world- an alternative presumption of doubt in the judgment of a theory. A sort of relativity on steroids. But we already know the problem of a photon in a field is not just that of the equivalence principle as it is affected by and affects the gravitational field while apparently string theory as complicated as it is does not explain mass, even ad hoc in value.
But if the world is discrete in so many ways, then this result of faster than light neutrinos would also have is limitations as a discrete phenomenon as would presumably quantum gravity - so what persists as invariant, including dimensionless constants and perhaps some changes over time and causality for them, both c and h can in a higher sense remain assumed invariant.
Nature renormalizes herself in these matters whether we have to invent some concept of something like asymptotic freedom as a principle or perspective to do it.
* * * * *