Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Neutronium to Phaseomnium
Neutronium to Phaseomnium (Z=0 to Z=121) L. Edgar Otto November 30, 2011
Mathematical physics when it comes to the application of complex number theory as the starting point has interpretations that are hauntingly similar to my own and others in the sciences. But while the same numbers come up they seem to have come up by radically different approaches to the same conclusion. We can find in the complex plane thus quantum based in principle, pretty much the same divisions of space as in say the quasic theory. Where Peter Rowlands et al applies this to the four codon bases as a matter of the rotocenter or periodic spiral of DNA I have to see things a little differently, rather what I fancy with a little more depth. As finite numbers, a simple count even place in a polar graphing we observe the periodicity of some patterns evidently inherent in the idea of integer and general numbers.
When I propose today the idea of a (11 x 11)st atomic element as being a sort of creative singularity I do it when Leo Vuyk is synchronously posting a similar idea as to what the Higgs-like mechanism may be, creatively.
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2011/11/reconciliation-of-qm-with-gr-and-need.html But this idea comes from the general reading of Peter Rowlands on the foundations of physics (of which I have lost track of the leaps and steep learning curve of my comprehension to drink from that wellspring again and again. This raises a whole new issue to explore as to what it is in creative people that gives them the center and forefront of theory where it is perceived within and not contaminated by descent into certain terms and concepts. Over and over again we have examples of people with significant breakthroughs but find resistance among their so called peers sometimes to the detriment of their health and livelihood.
Cantor and Fourier seem much prime examples of this.
There is the traditional role of the town to put a balance to the gown as they meet on the game field for a fete and festivities. But some dreamers if we count their profound and sound intuitions can have no peers save thru history perhaps. So the old ideas stand as much as the new in the wide world of consensus and judgment. I have thought about making comments on this peer review issue where Gibbs suggest we have an internet form of peer review. It seems rather illogical and to some how can we so judge the truly competent experts we rely on and the creative theoreticians?
Tenure in the end is a bottleneck as much as academic freedom and job security. But these are issues of politics and economics- what is subjective as overt or hidden is at issue too.
I do not for example see in Rowlands (and in this case, in matters of the application of the real roots of the zeta function of Riemann as a sort of standing wave or pilot wave for the renewed creation and complexity of the universe, ongoing and a sort of compromise in the "nature code" where Mach and Einstein meet, and where the quantum leaps one color different or left out of the looping on the plane of the four... What spins or not no more a separation of core ideas that suggest the relations to the idea or not of dark matter (and zenergy as they coined a term).
I see the 36 (and clearly the issues of what is the exact relation or not of the leptons and quarks is discerned here- where Kea for example clearly reduces things in abstract principle to what we may think of as a matrix that applies or suggests the holographic principle in form). So, for all of us accepted or rejected for the new physics and what is sound in the old- I do not see much point in isolated debate without organization for peer review or product review if in the first promise that something is making more sense lately in Rowlands- such people, including Penrose, should be read first before our hearts desire to speak forth is known independent at least if not original. Out theories should somehow speak for themselves as do the experiments (still, the complex pattern in the DNA that excludes 4 and leaves the 36 and 24 I do not buy as a diffuse dimensionless system in Rowlands.)
But part of this is the issue of fruitful or wasteful research or reaction to some theory be it subjective or concrete. Cold fusion for example as raised by the post of Pitkanen- and concerns isotopes and so on as if part of the so called dark force- is this from his deep commitment and intuitions- how can a group of even objective peers in a democratic and with open access internet measure what is originality- certainly not publishing anymore as a matter of a preferred time or not when we find things in spin (like the obvious idea of a hierarchy of galaxies and stars and atoms and so on in the various thermodynamic cycles...)
While I long again for the purity of my own unevaluated visions I know also that to be satisfied with them I would not know their reach and depth if I had not tried to debate it with others, and to find I understand my own thoughts in the mirror of their unique and precious own. But is not education always a matter of the leading out and the indoctrination- our minds much like a Carnot cycles (and maybe a smelly old dreamer idea inside me of an Otto cycle in the age of steel and gasoline) in that they seem to mirror the creative in the universe- after all, the periodic table of Crook before much about atomic structure was known, is a statement about the continuity of the process, and where we see it as finite both are the physics of the omnium.
* * * * *
Heavy Dark Matter
which I just saw and seems relevant to the general discussion here (Kea, made a link here thanks).
An article on newscientist which I cannot access that holds consciousness as much concerned with what is not there- such is the abstract spaces view when we start to measure some things as if heavy like 40 proton weight quarks...
Art Reflecting Science
* * * * *