Thursday, October 13, 2011

Integration and Alternatives or Future Physics

Integration and Alternatives or Future Physics

L. Edgar Otto (Pe Sla) October 13, 2011

What can wake our generation of theoretical physicists from their slumber?

I was going to as Pitkanen for example why, with the far reaches of p-adic number concepts, that there was so much resistance from the established researchers? I thought to call this post Toward the Classification of Alternative and Future Physics but on reflection it dawns on me I have answered my own question. Certainly, p-adic theory is very appealing in its application to quantum theory. So too the idea of Surreal numbers, its touching on quantum concepts like the many-world.

Pitkanen asked in a post recently if his TGD framework would be integratable. He is aware of the general problem scientist seem to have in the keeping of things close to limited foundations so as to develop a set of ideas to higher complexity. But with the possible exception of the ideas of string theory anything that goes too far into the computations, the divergences and holes and so on, such as the appeal to a vague super-symmetry and its mirrors of particles, science is conservative to take the leap into speculation very far. Even the growing anomalies, as Kea pointed out, are dismissed or explained away - even when in the history of science it is precisely such places we find major breakthroughs. Of course in a sea of speculation there is a much wider infinity of choices than what proves sound.

Yet, when things are put concisely, reduced to some point of simplification, it is easy to resist that direction. The many handed gods and goddesses are then but a trivial thing to debate and dismiss let alone any hint of such infinite regress and fractal like multiplicity of structures as real more than our intuitive feelings they are.

From the surreal model I have an objection at the core of the idea- it is not quite a complete description of the multiverse. It is shown that the infinitesimal cannot fulfill its role of consuming in a mirror balance the growing infinities. We find the holes which go far beyond our concept of numbers by which we can then claim these are significant for types of separations for the multiverses. This is a problem also of our notations as to what is nothing or existing, an origin or fixed and real. In such a place as the foundation for physics we can assert that it works at least intuitively ideas like there is a zero point energy place maybe that contains such other analogs of this (as if the general Pacman stair step universe along the lines of how we compute things like mass in the hierarchy.

But this is a fatal assumption to use without some form of experiment or proof then to generalize it to cosmology large or very small. We need something much more fundamental. This same partial flaw is responsible for things like false vacuum as a force of nature, and while it is not forbidden it is rare and not fundamental.

If we use the quasic concepts of directionality and a shifting minimum space and distance, the concept has more relevance to cosmology as a system and logic and not just a hopeful assumption. In this respect there are only useful Quasi-surreal numbers. In a world, a beautiful one, where we can imagine these sorts of numbers and all previous numbers, including the various groups that apply to various ideas of physics, we can subsume the totality under such concepts as octonions and beyond to a bit- but the problem is that there are more to groups that may be the ground for determining a foundation for a physics or theory than these eruditely are supplied. Let us not forget that Weyl was open minded enough to see what was worth saving in the intuitionist program and has ideas that still are too far out that they do not seem to apply to anything thought a physical phenomenon. But lets face it all these great theories came (like p-adic numbers) at the turn of the century a century ago. If the nature of 4 space for example, or even the Euclidean 11 dimensions, is defined by appeals just to the surveyed and classified groups we will not make progress in some of the current unanswered questions of physics. If things as they are is the case there is not much point in applying things beyond the ultimate symmetries possible and the idea of the 24dimensional Leech lattice.

Nature does not know if it begins at a one or a zero even as a string of surreal numbers. What then distinguishes such numbers like Conway's small omega as the ordinal at an infinity or his iota at the infinitesimal? Let us also not forget that in the original formulations of the calculus infinitesimals also played a role which more or less divides physics to this day between the Leibnizean and Spinozan depths of philosophy. Surely in the flux of things these are equivalent, and surely if we are to dismiss some small derivative values the structures should be intelligible and justified.

From what I can tell the quasic grid and model in its generalization of space, its multi-dimensionality and information stance and persistent patterns is intgratable in the sense the standard physicists have emulated. Rather, perhaps imitated for should the abstract structure be the universal discovery is cannot be claimed to be the unique discovery of anyone- that is the failing of whole systems of faith in a physics, or even the rumor of it, has its toll and consequences on the self.

* * *

Now today I went to the library but only found the scientific american (I should probably check it out on line) but there were two most interesting articles- one on the idea of dark matter and galaxy formation including a lot of ones nearby that are so faint or purely dark we missed them. In particular by the old theory of our large cloud satellite galaxies our disc (one that should be relatively flat that life can be supported) moving around the dark matter causes the milky way to vibrate like a gong. Heretofore, the dark matter, thought evenly distributed, was a sort of spherical halo around the disc.

*1 Yet from either side of a dark mirror we can find a perspective, in three space, of spherical distribution. Likewise for an ideal disc, and in a sense even an Euclidean plane.

*2 On the mirror we can find intelligibly measured distortion of open and closed laws including a generalization of concavity, linear or logarithmic.

[The magazine also had an article on the ten or so unsolved problems of science- one of note is the understanding in the nucleus of how many isotopes there are, 4000 or so many fleeting with appeal to magic numbers thought stable.]

*3 On the electron level of things it said it was clear, while asking if there is a limit to the number of elements (My long assertion of 120) or if there is no such limit. By calculation they said there cannot be electrons around more than 137 protons. So, we do not understand any better some of the deeper things of the nucleus as if nature had a whole new generation like model to compute. I had recently the idea that it may extend a little further, after all 248 dimensions and all that... but I would guess now that it is still 120 for four space matter, to which we add 16 and the unit minimum quasic cell as an Eddington like refinement of his methods for the generation of that dimensionless constant Dirac wanted to ask why it is if he came back in a hundred years. Certainly, by using the power of 2 to the 136 in the monomark number of possible electrons (protons) in the universe he can be said to be doing something in his "quantum relativity of 1929 saying the matter was finished" is after all could be viewed pretty much in p-adic terms, especially the way I think Pitkanen thinks about applying such numbers.

*4 We can just as well assume a creative dark fluid flow that can be considered to result in relatively finite cyclic recurrences as to attribute the dynamics of a changing but intelligibly conservative universe so to measure the perturbations on the galactic disk- from a more general view these too are equivalent descriptions as we ponder and appear to measure (was this the newscientist article I could not read?) matter reacting to matter-dark fluid interactions. But the consideration of such forces. globally and in themselves and over time (so in effect a candidate that is or may lead to some TOE or thought so- as physicality are quasi-creative.

*5 Just as we have come to realize the complexity of the reading of the genome we also should begin to realize that there are simpler foundations that when one grasps the general view these are concrete and not matters of controversy. Let us not be afraid of such knowledge of which the potential is quite enormous if not shared to do harm, but it can also, as from the first of species struggle, bring too its cures and defense.

* * * *

I posted to Lubos yesterday on his "quantum wars" finding it another informative or educational posting. (and contains points on the methods and interpretation as philosophy of science I thought worth adding on here). BTW his kind answer on the X and Y was also a courteous reply. Odd that Pitkanen is considering also the role of these things in relation to the reasons for super particles and so on (but for some reason I cannot directly access his post today so had to come around from another direction- interestingly he has a paper of today's date on the subject.

October 14, 2011 Next Day:

now if we can just find some way to justify or explain a physical and not just logical arrow of time.

I thought a pot of liquid helium does not boil until you take your eyes away from it?

The PeSla asking the same old question of why some ideas are rejected but are not anymore bizarre. The climate, I have to agree is based on something bizarre if scientific- and I do like your insistence that physics should be consistent.

Oh, Galileo, different masses do not fall at the same speed yes- save at Newtonian velocity ranges?
Yesterday, 10:40:21 PM

Dear Pesla, thanks for your interest. Not sure whether the helium works in the way you suggest.

Your comment on "just logical arrow of time" is missing the point. It's the "logical arrow of time" but it's a part of physics. One always needs to use mathematical logic in physics and the logical arrow of time tells us that Nature only admits fundamental and derived "axioms" that say that "A [property or event] implies B [property or event]" if A is in the past of B. This is really what logical arrow of time means. So any statement that you assume or derive about the evolution of the Universe contains sharp statements in which the past determines - or affects the probabilities - in the future. But the opposite statements are never sharp.

There is nothing subjective about the logical arrow of time. Everyone who wants to say right things about the Universe has to use the same one. It's a real property of the Universe. Some people may find these comments "subjective" because I am talking about "derivation of correct statements about the real world'. But all of science is like that. It's about getting right statements about Nature. Any attempt to imagine that there is something "more real" or "more visualizable" behind science is just wrong. It's a naive preconception that simply doesn't hold in quantum mechanics and it really doesn't hold even in (classical) statistical physics.

* * * *
Reply posted only here: I understand the debate as to what is subjective or not and that does involve quantum interpretations in a much longer war. I am not sure when I see different physicists debate if or not there is causality in some sense, or at least predictability. I think, on a deeper logical level you and I disagree on the role of teleology at least to a not too remote future- the questions raised by something that could be tachyonic- and the cool objective observation of variations on sound statistics - but who is to say it is not logically the reverse of a mirror, such concepts as entropy projected into the past from some observed present state has logical assumptions all of its own on which to make conclusions.

If in this debate as to what is something like the Higgs, yet we have a sense of the steps of distinction with some modification of mass measure (The pacman and not pacman statistics so as to treat it on several generational or perhaps flavour or color levels as Pitkanen writes)- from some logical space when we get through all the twists and turns of time in the universe the Higgs as conceived by the standard theory is consistent and intelligible- in the present at least. In such a place the subjectivity as we may describe it- or even apply it to political philosophy- the objectivity is the same place. It is useless to debate which one is primary or eats the ghost of the eyes like pacman of the others. Perhaps the same can be said of any such "faerie fields", that these from a certain view exist also- even if they cannot be express so far as super particles of the super fields we should logically admit are there so to extend what is solid in our evolving science. But would any theoretician suggest the super symmetry if it did not seem consistent to him? The role of we as thinkers cannot really be spliced out of the context of the unification of physics- even if that is a very narrow razor sharp singularity.

Now, this obviously relates to my post above of yesterday on that other debate as to what ground the quantum mechanics, the surreal and the p-adic, perhaps the seeds for a future war where these are too Bizarre not to be now rejected.

As far as my quasic cell unit (the minimum logical, physical, and mathematical brane of many informational bases and dimensions) being the ground for this arrow of time we know this place from some view cannot distinguish origins from endings of some singularity parentheses as far as directionality. Thus I am sure, even on the mere level of 4D electron configuration in an ideal pattern compensating for the context of the "heat". This idea one either gets or not- the Eddington idea of 136 then becoming 137 that some may object to on perhaps an even deeper level- an objection to my own theories of which there is a little objection myself in this crack of a pregnant anomaly of my physical logic and reasoning. So is the progress of science which is philosophy in its code a little higher arrow than we have imagined of time and space and matter so far. Why use numbers that on the small scale and in the present spacious now that are integral and exact in some contexts like the 480 in the equations that seem complete for physics if there can be small measures beneath the unity of some minimum brane area- if it were not true there is more to the mathematics, logic, and physics of it all than what seems prime from some view of proof by infinite descent this property we observe and can so integrate with numbers as a consistent if not symmetrical pattern that makes them ground physics when the physics of it all then is the more solid level of reality that stands out as laws.
Everything depends on the ability of us to find the right axioms, at least. Numbers can be integral and even in the more advanced forms obey the inverse square law idea as we may conclude even from the influence of dark matter on galaxy structure. In the surreal number system (even if overly symmetric and leaving out the directionality we seem to find in quantum theory and other methods that stay grounded in science such a the combinotoric's in the matrices within and beyond Triality- the conclusions of braids and such) by its arrow notation would tend to suggest as in the zeta function- at least linearly the value of 1/2 applies to the real too- but I have seen no one explicitly suggest this obvious connection- nor where things are not linear or negative this a unique property of the universe, physics or number.

The LHC and other researchers have looked under the hood- surpassed and achieved what they set out to do- only we have to sort through and digest all the data- and I mean that as a matter of subjectivity, not raw collection of experimental facts. I suppose in science as in philosophy, people can debate locked into missing each others points.

* * * *


I can see this post directly now. Today I posted some general things of which you may find of interest.

So, not quite sure I have grasped how you derive some things- what of this sort of number:

2^(137-89) ?

The PeSla

* * * *

Is it not interesting that Pascal's triangle can be thought of as powers of 11 in an eleven dimensional world (numerologically for now) or the patterns repeating in binary for the golden ratio. And in a sense in binary is 11 not three (a way to shift things into an idea of Triality?)

* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment