Saturday, October 15, 2011

New Physics for a New Sociology

New Physics for a New Sociology L. Edgar Otto October 15, 2011

I found it hard not to be distracted a little, taking the overview of recent history, wondering about how society works. Seems to work in cycles. Each generation a sort of repeating as if when the pendulum swings theirs is the new awakening. The history of thought as physics no doubt tries also to explain things in those terms as I find new understanding of its insights.

I notice tonight that Ulla has a great post- as my ongoing project was the emphasis on the biological as the physics.

But of course there have been times in philosophy, ages where in that realm eras have taken on this emphasis- as if we only see more detail that is new.

The next blog I follow gave me some thoughts on my walk and cause me to look back at what some of the quantum physicists were saying in their own generation and time. It also made me wonder at my life where it touches this research- for I find it too strange that some of my early speculations now seem to be part of the possibilities- and I am just talking about the more stray and minor ones.

For while I understand that magnetic fields in space may accelerate particles- I did not see that as the main cause of cosmic rays- especially of the various types, as if the universe or galaxy a giant collider.

I quite imagined that somehow a particle, then even of something like light, may gain mass over time. This has me reevaluate the concepts of Rio Frio's cosmology which to a great extent would help mine- and shed light on other issues or models proposed in our day. Of course the supernova data is everywhere important for the new physics.

But I ask this, since Einstein showed that time is slower in the poles than the equator, yet he could not explain the dynamo of the sun, its gaseous equator spinning much faster- or what it means if we saw light pass thru the sun. In any case again, what takes light adsorbed and reabsorbed from the center of the sun equal to the so called age since the big bang- the neutrinos can transit rapidly. So all this must have some intelligible relationship to the bigger picture. Yes, it can involve our ideas like dark fluid and black holes and the distribution of elements. I think it a matter of a little further generalization or understanding of the idea of generations that really do not undermine our standard achievements.

Let us recall what Bohr said to Heisenberg:

"When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images".

But let us go back a little further, to the day when a university in Germany had signs saying there was nothing outside it- and the great Gauss. His deeper achievement was to divide his curve to the depths of a more focused measure of uncertainty and this method still stands today.

Now what if we can only make a reasonable certainty on different generational levels? The final mass say of a Higgs or its observable analogs, the closer we come and quantum physics can be rather precise to so many decimals, it may in principle be that the really close values cannot be pinpointed with certainty even if said particles exist. But this too would require, in the super symmetry likeness of it all, some idea of reasonable doubt as to if our reason can reach more of a certainty as a method to see beyond Gauss who first and foremost relies on observation.

Would the opposite be Hegel and his negations and syntheses? Or perhaps Marx who stands Hegel on his head? I mean what happened to the fine distinction between the communists and the anarchists when they first competed for the political landscape? Where is the chaos in quantum theory? It seems to me it is not a good way to place opposites dialectically on some wheel between the aristocracy that acknowledges merit and the welfare state that basis things like access to education on need, that is the tendency of the democracy as long posted and made concrete of the theories of Locke long after the golden age of Greece.

If the pendulum swings too far things break down, or it must find a better way for us to live together and not impose politics as ultimate- Hegel for example thought an individual does not exist without the state defining him. But are we not caught in the same old irreconcilable poles of our politics?

One issue of what I now call the answer to the Tea Party, that is the Green Tea Party is that of global warming. Interestingly in the sci mags today I saw and article on climate modeling before humans were here and the sky had no pollution- that the poles warmed up as the equator was cool until a long balance occurred. But surely we must suspect that over time it has a lot to do with the sun and things like what distance there is to it from some frame.

Sociology can learn a lot from our ideas that form the myth like that of the experiment of the United States for liberty from that golden age of Newton and Descartes, the previous century, if we also try to understand the new physics say of the ideas of dark fluid and so on. Are we in control of our ethics and economy as it evolves or not? Will we shout our positions in one generation only to have it exclude some people in the name of inclusion until those shouting have dumbed down society or stolen its capital until the next generation starts again, if it can.

But this is a rather political yet quite rant- for I thought what a strange life I have had in relation to the physics and so outside the normal stream of things- as if I would ask what some have of certain particles- Who ordered that?

Also, being so long in a small area of town and in one place- all the memories on memories and events- all the changes I see in people over these decades. And it just may be I can map it more logically as if it were my quasic grid with a pattern that changes and time interwoven intelligibly and sometimes outside the pattern here and there - I doubt that any lesser map, one that also can fit the patterns as we drive thru the city on the brain stem of our branes- can do justice to the nature of our thoughts, our biology, and our society.

I must add the observation of [correction on the observation of A. N. Whitehead in his dialogs for I was looking for quotes on the levels of describing the existence of a table by M. Adler in a similiar looking paper back I found yesterday in the antique store]- that in religion, itself cyclic in the interest of students - and I make a comparison here where any interest such as the cosmos and the why of it is as if a religion- that it has its good points and bad points that enhance these traits in those with such tendencies as our inborn altruism or our inhumane treatment of our fellows. Let us not stoop to violence in a world where an appeasement or nonviolence will cause more hurting from those angered as we protest what we may think is just as we watch our empires rise and fall, and the most lost to the wars and disease are the losers, for we are not aware it when we are within the times as much as judging other lands. God the outside observer or not must be part of the reality if not nothing- more so beyond the scope of our discussion if we reach for a slightly higher perhaps god given science.

* * * *

Now consider the general topological principles, theory and applications, of this:
To access a pure form that would have one point at some center- and for what it is worth more bang for the buck of explosives- that and perhaps some ideas for short circuiting the atmosphere for the poetry deep and hidden under the grounding idea and mystery of the monopoles. (as the arrow of time accelerates expanding minds and bodies?)

* * * Ahhh, my late post on the nature of sugar as toxic and yet a moderation on what we should know about the things we eat... Our intuitions always seem to exceed the data- and we tend to justify our ideas by new data to bring it in- but so much? Perhaps this just shows the depth and openness of our intuitions or intellect- perhaps I have drunk too many corn syrup energy drinks. :-)

* * * *


  1. Part of our difficulties is that we see God as outside our reality, because this is what church has told us. Remember the early church had it not like this. God was inside, and I think we must put him back inside. God is the essence of matter and source for the consciousness. An atom can sense warmth, it can change phase. For that you don't need any 'Life'. In essence this is SR.

    And God may not be anything unphysical.

  2. Hi Ulla,

    I think I will post a lighter view on the philosophy as science has progressed.

    New Perspectives- as always the God's Eye View as outside or not, physical or not. But I think there is a lot of hidden stuff to find on a much higher level before we can address the concept of God. But we have not really solved what is the physical anyway completely.


  3. And we cannot solve the physical without taking God inside it. God is no outstander, he is inside, the very essence of matter. As well you can maybe say he is not there at all, but then you loose something. The entanglement.

    I think we must very much reconsider the concept of God. We are everyone Gods. We must face the fact that it is WE that make our choices and not wait for some outside us to heal us or undo our choices.

    Set God inside matter and the physics will be solved. God is HERE and you are all dissecting him without understanding what you are doing. How can this be so difficult to understand? It is the same as with consciousness. We are the consciousness collected 'as an add' in our cells, as Damasio say. That 'add' is collected through the window-effect in our cells, genes, molecules, atoms... FROM OUTSIDE ENTANGLEMENT or measurement, perception. We just collect it and entangle it again into our own 'consciousness' (wrong word, should be awareness). Maybe as a difference in entropy, information?

    The window-effect is solved by p-adics. Through that window we take in the 'unknowable'.

  4. Ulla,

    I do not disagree with you on this.

    But as to if we can talk to the dead as on the radio show last night- or if we can at certain points of numbers tap more energy than we see-

    I do not know what can be known or unknown- but I know how we think about such things will be how well we can understand maths and physics.

    I get the feeling we are lucky to be so much more advanced than the primitives of but a few generations ago- advanced enough to know we are only touching the surface to feel the quickening of vast new concepts and creation to come- and yes it may not be unphysical.

    The PeSla