Monday, October 3, 2011
The Language of Experiment and Measure
The Language of Experiment and Measure L. Edgar Otto October 3, 2011
I thought I might step back awhile and become more familiar with the standard ways to describe and view physics- to learn the language so to speak. Well, good luck to you who might also share the naive faith in what we know and who knows it. No sooner than starting to look at some of these things did I find out just how different the foundations can be. So I post today some things along the way before I put the books aside again- one would think there was better agreement as to what sort of units we use to describe things- Can any of our cosmologists say to me what is fundamental when it comes to mass and the Einstein and De Sitter descriptions? Matti? This post will have something to suggest to you. Lubos? You too- for what good is a partial chart when the stability or instabilities of the vacuum may actually have inverses? Physics can deal with the real world and not fight disembodied theories of anthropocentric effects with such disembodied theories.
But who are the experts we need to learn to trust- peers? Those who assume we who learn are forever stupid and can be manipulated by those who think they are more aware or have superior intellect (perhaps money)? Yes we can show we have to trust others to make a better educated judgment- but in the end the only peers are the few who recognize each other and not some reward from the society or state. Nevertheless in looking back, as noble as the quest was and as not well regarded the desire to pursue such work- and if I have any claims to be a teacher how can I say this? - that I feel so stupid looking back at myself but a few years ago- learning as always a two edged sword. But this evaluation too comes with its ups and downs of climate as the price of awakening as in the next era we will find a deeper change of vision as to what is time in the cosmos- and yes in how we perceive it, ourselves, and in others. "Let us not unto the marriage of true minds impediments admit..." Even if you style of arrogance is comic, tragic, or is recognized by others for the sake of a better world in that rare balance even the children can discern- of common sense.
* * *
Stray Foundational Thoughts while reading Physics Texts (in the lonely world of self study - damn, I am pronouncing Dirac's name wrong... Crust on Crotches! it is all self taught study. We really should take a better look at the foundations of the calculus as the guide- that and just how closely the transcendental numbers relate that infuse the nature language with words mysterious and numbers almost not computable.)
*That which seems conserved (reversible) from on a level of hierarchic dimensional levels (thus conformal and normalizable on the higher stable level completes inverse matrix relations and inverse ideas of coordinate vanishings) may seem irreversible from a different dimensional level.
*The range of shape possibilities from rectangular differences of the axes on different levels may require reconsideration of the spin or rotation of shapes as a change in the local or global complexity of the constants balanced between levels.
**The differences as contributions and balances may be mirrored or implied in the diagonal kinetic virial motion.
** Partial generalization for physical dimensions as dimensionless unity or not is usually indefinite indicating metaphysics whereas what is explicit as metaphysics may express a concrete physicality.
*No measure can be considered as reversible or irreversible ultimately, especially if differences are suspected holographically between adjacent and contiguous dimensions.
**But a consistent system within boundaries is reliable in itself as much as based on reasonable data samples (ie statistical methods).
**Outside or even inside these boundaries , or redundancy in loop paths can become chaotic.
It seems clear to me today that the reason some papers seem clearer to me and make sense (such as those Kea linked to concerning M theory and so on) is that the entity and cosmology I have assumed the natural case long ago is very similar to some of the ideas of string like theories- the D-brane for example an open string? But the iota is after all a small scale version of the omnic principle of the cosmos- this is a subtle difference and one we should keep in mind when we choose to emphasize things as fields or points or rays and so on (and counter project the power of such theories on the others with duality in their emphasis.)
1- We can distinguish iota points, strings, branes... in two or more ways. Iota points may be purely field structure or purely mass structure. Iota strings may be an inverse (is co-variant a good simplifying standard therm here for a reduced vision of general space?) to this as well the Iota n-branes reversing physical system stability.
2- The general difference may be the source ground of work (Energy?) in wider physics? In any case what we mean by energy may subjectively change soon too.
3- We can distinguish iota point particles as nth roots of natural and shifted n-dimensions as focused partial harmonics (wave, spherical) between quasic brane cells (the element or filaments of) more generally than in closed math systems as the quasic span resolves multi-linearity in n-dimensional n-symmetric Iota-brane singularities as if a philosophy code for quasi-causality.
4- The conservation of such iota mechanics remas a quasi open question locally and universally. (So to the objective question of D brane open strings or the sense of physicality when viewed teleologically or tachyonically). Real entities are quasi-finite in the firmament over omnic and non-necessary philosophy code with persistence not forbidden as a paradox of a necessary case.
We also need to generalize the concept of configuration space possibly taking advantage of diverse kinds of fractal paths on qs-n-branes.
It would follow that least action should be generalized also, especially as in Noether's ideas as teleomnic paths concerning symmetry and conservation laws (surfaces)
* * *
Once we grasp a theory as an advance in depth or leap over the previous compass of a theory we can then reach toward the possibility, able now to realize it. of the next level of insight and always ask how far this can go and how real was any theory in totality.
I am much surprised, while methods work to a point, when I grasped the body of literature of a theory, how much we know we do not know of such ramshackle Frankenstein Monster patchwork... Physis, nature code, works and proceeds without or despite us. In this sense physics of our time is subjective and linguistic and such intuitions we think to contain intrinsic value as such mathematically (for example the equation of centripetal forces as a term or sign and not a new grounding in a physical sense and sometimes a sign post that detours away a thought's direction.
This brings us back in a sense to how heat propagates- that is, the relations of the weather fronts, of what thought must leave such that an other can fit in overall balancing the climate to some constant or zero sum- that the best if not perfect description of general physics. A sort of keeping a Quasi-diffusion of heat in mind in life like processes that may indeed be suspended without the lost of vitality.
Oh and for what it is worth if we arrange 27 hypercubes (as in the jack stone with a fourth axis in the center for 8 colors- we get 216 and all kinds of relations near by one less usually of these numbers that hauntingly try to tell us something. Yes this means a sort of 3 + 1 way to view things somewhat.
* * * *
Oh it is such a gorgeous day and week here in Wisconsin- and was a great day for the sports lovers- Packers, Brewers, and Badgers all won. I am still a little under the weather but in better shape than others with this nasty little bug. I also get the feeling that these thoughts have put more distance socially between me and many others as if there is only so much time and energy to take up other projects or some of the older ones again. Anyway I hope no one minded my posts like this one today as I have to wait until later to get going so check on line- Phil Gibbs blog project and others:
That 2/9 value is certainly interesting to think about. (I wish I could say more about this and knew more). This does seem to me to relate to the things like dimensionless constants and so on and our systems of units in the physics- but as such what seems physical to one really is but a metaphysical statement to others and indeed may be one or the other despite what we may feel. I feel still that yours is the best of meaningful explanations that has sound intuitions and a careful program of research. The others need to adjust their theories and world views a bit and should feel great joy in our era of new enlightenment.
It was once thought that the reason a neutrino only had one spin observed was that we could never go faster than light so not get ahead of it to see it spin the other way. Then we find it may have mass, albeit small. Then that it can be superluminal From my view the theoreticians of these seemingly incompatible speculations do not realize they are dealing with half a deck to which claims can be made, but not very scientifically about the rightness another view.
Most I imagine have not tried to generalize enough and what is freedom for some a restraint for others depending on what their subjective perception is as to what vanishes on whatever side of some mathematical mirror.
The choices of coordinates for a physics system may be all important in the new physics- as a point of view or an objective fact. Our idea of motion is after all that things vanish when we impose arbitrary curved spaces in and Euclidean frame. In this sense the most general of values of the coordinates reduce to one thing of the matrix involved all other zero. This describes an orthogonal view of space frames. But we can imagine that a space exists where the minimum motion is the maximum change of all coordinates and the zero is left as room for differences in singularities for interactions. Both ideas of motion can apply and objectively without appeal to some idea of human subjectivity that may underlay the theory for some insistence of world view. The super-symmetric view itself is subject to such possible false bias constraints of which the experimental jury may long be out of reach.
In view of these new topological possibilities organizing the ideas of such bubbles, black hole like objects, merging boundaries and so on can hardly reach the depth of new physics to realistically make any measure that can help us manipulate space time in the way you imagine- nor an explanation of micro bubbles be the foundations for a more rational cosmology in themselves.
We are close enough to deeper truths that our notions can be seen as reaching more complexity and chaos, or some new level of pointlessness.
Happy Enquiring! The Pe Sla
* * * *
It is likely I will go back to the books rather than work so alone much longer as it is likely I will have a change of place and perhaps a change of fortunes. One would think that if this work here becomes the core and thing to save it would enhance rather than exclude much of my other projects like music and maybe romance. We become such creatures of habit. But if I ever do make anything by the music it will certainly cause me to support many of my physics bloggers of all kinds- and that I predict would be a very good investment :-)
* * *
Just found two articles on the sci mags which I feel especially relevant for the themes around this post.
* * *