Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Omnium - New Thoughts for the New Physics
Omnium - New Thoughts for the New Physics L. Edgar Otto (PeSla) 11-16-11
Just some general thoughts, some old such as the quasic take on the four forces as the Omnium (much like a quasic theory of everything or Unitary Fields Theory in the terms of that time.) Yet, at the heart of mathematics where I question some of the senses of order for numbers and groundings by the of a more narrow view of space I try to capture the concept of transcendental space.
So s,w,e,g my KLMN ie 00 01 10 11 means strong, weak, electromagnetic, gravitational, forces- but this is just the logical and quasic concept- in this case my grid actually counts the spaces shown in the illustration to find these integral numbers important to other geometrical systems with those of pure numbers and of the series and imaginary series. String formalism in the sense of partition theory certainly can be helpful here in comprehending spaces and analogous spaces to great quasic scales and dimensions. At four space of 16 "unitary cells" we only have an internal physical space = to zero. Particle spaces such as the 30 cubes occur in spaces greater than this four space.
In general, abstract non-quasic natural dimensional space as if non-linear in concepts without a center is a matter of force interactions of n bodies as a vague but tangible analysis as "stability." Thus the default (in this analogy to Euclidean, Quasic as to Non-euclidean, Non-quasic in mathematical modeling.)as eka-Euclidean is transcendental and vague, relaxed idea as indeffinite causation and some measure of concepts and physics like that of the Dark Fluid, DM lambda etc...
In the analogous quasic extension of this 32 x 32 ten space we have at least the 16 dimensions involved as if a generations upon generations of sub-structres and particles. This can easily be 24D if we allow 1152 or 1152+384 to cover the analogs and mirrors of total spaces. Partition theory is after all more than just a simple linear list of ordering numbers as equal values on the same level.
Again, as with Rowlands, myself, and others the 1/2 Riemann zeta value applies to the physical laws. This is the issue as to how to relate such laws to integral and other pure like continuous numbers.
Now in the unified theory one can grasp great beauty (I hope you see beauty in its subtle place between the vastly complicated and universally simple) - and there is some common sense and grounding to the observations that for example the mass of the total particles seems to balance the total force (in some universal physics and models) of the gravity - or along some relation between the forces, or between the forces and a fifth partition center singularity one (in the Euclidean space has an intimate relation, also as four space projected down not to zero but four phi as the coordinates of which such number can be substituted in certain matrices for a more general application of that method).
Is it not hard to believe theories as complicated as branes and black holes can separate ideas of charge and gravity in exponentiation and so on or as any other of the forces or dark forces, that these are too simple- as is the literal concept of 10 dimensions or 4 relativistic but unisex neutral not reproductive in generational gender? I am not trained in say the complex analysis- so some wise mathematician can draw rings around my work still much isolated and hidden for most my life from other souls. Awaken my Children of Earth and take wings and learn to fly... !
* * * * *
A beginning of the unification of certain ideas (and maybe a change of heart say for knots and braids?)
I present today my old (unified or omnium view) as new thoughts for the new physics.
One interesting idea there is that Yangian 6 space and even four space is sterile or empty, asexual in my sense of gender of numbers and the generations. But so are the Feynman methods and diagrams.
I point this out to you for I have thought about the transcendental numbers which seemed to have a few comments about them on your blog.
So, define distance- man, you guys make me feel like I know what I am talking about compared to what is taught in schools- but you do not mean minimum distance yes?
* * * * *
ref: Pitkanen, Kea, Otto, Motil...
* * * * *
Ahhh, a surprise in my e-mail:
Ervin and all,
Compelling evidence this is real physics? Perhaps because a few of our bloggers have new similar ideas on this. Today I posted "New Thoughts for the New Physics" on my http://www.pesla.blogspot.com Now would you not say that Witten having similar intuitions is not evidence. (actually I did not praise his paper highly from a link on Kea's blog I think, or maybe Motils for his is but to me a speculation that does not understand some things as well as his position people might wonder or not understand when string theory is real physics. He may want to unify the string ideas but is that needed in the new physics or maybe it all becomes something like symmetries of E8 generalized?
Well, I do not know what possessed me to post this what amounts to a common sense old idea for the unitary field or toe like theories- more a question of logic and mathematics. So I looked up the Langlands link and find many things I have casually thought about and wrote about. This is the right track. It leads to what I have called a quasic generalization of which Witten is right- there is a great disconnect in the physics and math here still.
I could have called the posting: "Beyond the New Physics" but that seemed a little too much or trivial as new theories might always arise. (I am not sure of some of the article as making decisive breakthroughs in certain methods mentioned but off hand I would have my doubts if the theory cannot decisive convince you of the concerns and possible solutions.
So, thank Gibbs for this timely article and coincidence. It too makes me feel like our science is universally intelligible and needs not be in symbols and notions too hard for most of us if they care to understand.
But a little bit of a more general view can lead to a lot of misunderstandings and partial representations- the price we pay I guess, and some pay with their careers.
* * * *
One more thing. In the generalized representation and interactive cross generational and dimensional space, the ground (non-quasic) space does indeed logically look like a tetrahedron over a range of binary space. So all the ancient ideas of up or down structures or the metacube- admired by Peter Rowlands and suggested in her braid form by Kea for more modern applications- is in the general illustration above. Of course one could ask if there are analogs to this as say five points determining such a (4) space. Distinguishing these representations is rather subtle as well the general theories and unification of spaces. Also what is real in the sense of what cuts thru the fog to give our thoughts solid grounding and utility. Why have we not gotten more mathematics- does it take golden ages of a few individuals always that can do the job?
* * * *