Monday, November 28, 2011
Quasi-Holographic Informational Triality
Quasi-Holographic Informational Triality and
Energy in an Actual Representational Lattice L. Edgar Otto November 28, 2011
"Being smarter than others does not make me sad. But that they are not as smart as me make me sad." Sheldon character from the sit com Big Bang.
I actually had this emotion over the holidays before the show came on. In the conversation with others making a living I began to get the feeling that maybe I have that quality of intelligence for whatever reason and am not aware of it- but am aware of many of my shortcomings, especially with my grown children observing the debate say on the use of Fibonacci numbers and so on. Is this humorous a line- I understand how it can be for the stereotype of nerdy arrogance in the play. But the politics is a matter of debate too- especially if one has say an autistic child and the money involved for intervention if it will be there.
There was a diagnosed child at the gathering. It has progressed both as a state of mind and as the depth of therapy. The illustration and thoughts today suggest to me some of the structures and mechanism that may underlie this autistic universe.
Yet, as a year ago I saw little difference between the twins, this year I observed much difference. But what hit home was his brothers and sisters and what is the normal childhood behavior or off the norm (I note the father said the study said the nerdy personality tends to have a greater incidence of autistic children- and I read that article too). So I felt sad because I could see everyone with a degree of such autism and behavior of which we do not always see that in our own skin.
* * *
Well, it turns out Matti continued to think about the framework for evaluation of cold fusion technologies: So I add this to that theme I too took up from him and Lubos and other bloggers.
I was wondering if instead of taking sides on the issue, for or against it that we could bring the issue of cold fusion up to date.
I made some speculations on it in my post today to see if in the more foundational new physics there can be ways to harness energy or at least make sense of the physics involved. It, along with global warming issues, seems to border on the reliability of the paranormal as far as experiments go.
Quantum theory does not forbid cold fusion (so the magazines said at the time) and at the University of Minnesota (Ormani I think) the test of the phenomenon was confirmed.
It is but a coincidence that my informal model as representational or literal space lattices meet this issue of which I did not particularly want to explore now.
(I have to read you post today with better scrutiny, and Lubos post too of yesterday.)
I note Kea's post today seems to me highly relevant to the nature of the general debate as a cultural matter. Can we tap an energy source or not from this phenomenon?
I get the vague impression you assert a source from dark matter or energy like processes- and that is also a matter of view from a deeper perspective.
The topology of it, and who is the pseudo science is at stake- we or the establishment today- does indeed involve a certain focusing or condensing of space- as Owen mentioned the sonoluminesence for example as a model and effect.
I imagine also in these creative vacua objects we need to relate the ideas of what say Black Holes are in the sense of Rio Frio, if they power the inner symmetries and affine atomic evolution in the planets from a mini-black hole.
So I see in my chart today (of which I was not going there either but it did evoke ideas) that there is a realm between our ideas of holography in the usual sense- for these abstract lattices is what it is all about if there is as you sense, a new internal structure for nuclei.
* * *
A comment to Lubos today: http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru/ps/1413/article_21504.pdf
This paper as it stands seems to me illogical. Maybe in its day. Certainly the membranes can be more fundamental than the strings. Renormalization may work but is really just an ad hoc axiom without deep explanation. If the formulas as written here (I take your word it is a proof) it is clear to me that by such reasoning particles would vanish on some level... maybe that is where the Higgs went, and there would be no coherent higher four or more space save in abstract theory we may not be able to experimentally verify ever. The bug in the "proof" is the whole conceptual framework.
* * * *
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111123133123.htm 48C degrees water freezes and forms a tetrahedral lattice-
* * * *
Wow a reply from Lubos: Oh and for his next post I remarked asked him if he did had not heard Feynmann changed his mind about hidden variables later- but this was posted before the following reply from him for the last article:
[This user is an administrator] Lubos Motl
Dear Pesla, I wish you to successfully return to the Middle Ages (or on the banana palms) where you will feel safer. Your comment is completely off-topic (it has nothing to do with the c-theorem) and the reason why it's off-topic is that you are apparently under the influence of a very powerful drug. Renormalization is a standard procedure that is totally self-consistent mathematically and even if someone were a complete moron (CM) who wants to deny the bulk of particle physics in the last 70 years, he should still be able to understand that it is a legitimate mathematical procedure and one may discuss its mathematical properties and properties of renormalizable field theories. However, you seem to be more than a CM in this case, sadly to say.
May I ask you to kindly avoid any comments under articles that are 20 years of physics education and 50 IQ points above your level throughout the future of this Universe? Thank you very much. I will ban you once you post one more off-topic ultraidiotic comment of this sort. Deal.
* * * *
I guess that is rather creative bit of dialog.
I am glad he is sad that I am stupider than he!
but Lubos, I still admire some of your own original insights and believe me they are a little above the norm (of course how can I see that?) damn, I have caught myself in a contradiction.
* * *
More lattice theory
So it is that we can still regard a lattice from what nature does not know (of some near ultra indeterminate path and space as if inner variables apply) as that the ground is a sort of zero place or diagonal in a matrix. If that is so then obviously a theory more along the lines of Kea is the more scientific than those which simply plays with an indeterminate landscape of which abstract things like membranes and strings are not looked at with x-ray eyes in the theoretical detail. So as science this sort of thing should be seen as progress and foundational as physics.
So we imagine in the deeper number theory (note I agree in my informal array in the illustration with all the nines and casting out of nines and so on as per her terse chart and link to the affine ideas of teleparallels) that we imagine different applications to number (gender ones in particular) which the powers indicate are triangular numbers so applied but here in this observation or theory can be different sets of such triangles in what seems different spaces. Someone should examine these series from more than just the even and odd properties view.
So, an abstract thing- that is if we include 3 as triality and 2 as in the idea behind what Lubos says is a proof (or for that matter any such less general idea of what we mean by four space) - thus half of the explanation for generation and no taste for anything of the intuitionist integer finite in the equations as if the world must be in the final analysis a structured continuum only re-normalized such that we avoid the question and the scrutiny concerning any sort of singularities or remote breakdown of our conservation ideas of energy and so on. For example the way Pitkanen and I view the muons and resonances as a pre-string more classical view- we find the idea that the absolute ground for say a lattice of freezing water assumes the general tetrahedral shape which is the reduction to the Pascal triangles as powers at least.
Now, in my informal model- we say nature does not know if it is an inner or outer law variable grounding as if the structure of actual space were the mirror and we debate what is on either side of it. But if I assume the so called 6D field even in isolation in a rather limited range as per some theory such as Lubos posted today, I see that within it we can distinguish a slice of that space of 64 elements and the volume itself and moreover it focuses upon one of the prime numbers or my color letters, namely H or as with the other bloggers the roll of 19. Let us not forget that in the tempered scale we come close to the integral of the 12 root of 2 in whole numbers to that of the 19th root of three. That said, we have to go a little further to shake up the current models than Fourier analysis continuous and finite but the problem of thermodynamic symmetry is known still an open question anyway. So the issue is the nature of asymmetry and symmetry ultimately and if in a higher sense there are deeper laws than the zeroth law (temperature, the vertical or zed axis). Is there a negative temperature or time or space and so on or is it just filled? Is there a negative probability- these questions of logic which to my mind are only given philosophical answers to which no theory can be said scientific if we do not look a little deeper.
So, we observe, the prime symmetries focusing more or less to a corner of the 4x4x4 cube (with interchanges beyond this 6D into limited 8D spaces) as if to extend the ideas of simple and yet not complete teleparallel ideas and not the deep differences in QCD itself of which we still should take up Dirac's modesty on this instead of misapplying his concepts(observed in particles too now?) by a less general group theory- that the 2D case within the inner lattice spaces of the model, which grounds the color and temperature axes and the passing in the razzle-dazzle zig-zag of vibrations (of molecules) in the representational lattice we have some actual three dimensional structure of which we may regard the standard models of natural dimensions as the abstract. In any case these composite theories which are not yet fundamental, like the description of what exactly is the Casimir effect locally and cosmologically, has at least a new direction to so analyze the inner and outer laws of physics.
Of course from a purely geometer's stance we intuitive should have expected that if there is no clear symmetric shadow polytope of the 5th dimensional orthogon then the physics of five and ten dimensions would also share this fuzzy symmetry in the reduction- as well of course of the remarkable relation to the modulus 11 as if the 11 dimensional idea and the periodicity of the all important golden length in the four space as part of symmetry breaking in the Fibonacci numbers.
* * *
egad, well Lubos did not ban me yet: an interesting further comment here- the theoretician at his peak!
I wouldn't care but I also know it's nonsense. This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeBkMzSLA8w - shot "not long before" he died - makes it very clear.
Your comment is analogous to those legends that a very old Charles Darwin returned to creationism. Great. Even if that were the case, why would it matter? It would surely not influence me.
Even if one cares about other people's opinions, the most relevant opinions are exactly the opinions of a big scientist near the peak, like the 1964 Richard Feynman we meet in the Messenger Lectures. Everything else is less important.
But what is even more important than summaries of opinions by "authorities" is Feynman's argument. He actually gives you a full 1-minute proof that falsifies all hidden-variable theories, once for all. They're dead and they can't be made undead because falsification is really irreversible. Someone's inability to understand this simple proof - requiring pretty much no maths - simply means that the person's mental abilities are way too deficient for him or her to be able to learn basics of physics.
* * *
Pes Comments back here:
Well, clearly this is still quite an issue, and emotional one at that, but you see, it has occurred to me, fellow bloggers, can we face the possibility that there is some justification for us being "crackpots" after all- a proof of it - no I do not use drugs, maybe an aspirin or two in three years- still, would the proof of that, if understood, not be welcome to us if we have the spirit of science? This is a great issue where we may be able to see our own limits, autistic perhaps as long as we are lucky to stumble so to awaken on our own and not be directed to the eyes or to jump awhile in place in hopes the lagged paths of our brains learn to connect. Who is the judge and what lawyer excludes evidence and the jury for a topic theme they determine as relevant for what is the state of research and physics?
The brain cannot grow soundly if along the way some of its branches and memories are not modified and pruned. But something surely is an invariant and endures.
If God is the Creator who decided sexual selection too controversial to be made public in his lifetime behind Victorian secrets and appearances, no problem for I am sure God will not be influenced by the born again Darwin either. So, I cannot use the word intelligent design as Hoyle did at his peak- and yet was the atheist at heart?
Somewhere the mother ship of Darwin's beloved barnacles takes only the seed with her in the hems of her dress- and that is all she needs of her constellation of men. Besides, how can we have a tea party without a mad hatter, even if they think the men and dinosaurs lived at the same time- just because creationist are rather less than convincing in their science- who cares? that ultimate refutation of logic!
Science, or non-science right wing country hayseed preachers for that matter, is not a matter of popularity is it? Or we cannot see the future, not even the super-luminal.
That not sensed cannot be proven as nonsense!
* * * * *