Friday, December 23, 2011
Alternative SUSY 101
Alternative SUSY 101 and From My Casual Reading at Festivus L. Edgar Otto 12-22-11
Principle of Innate Bias of Developing Systems, Numerical and Mental: Our problem is not cognition so much as the theoretical context in which we organize and interpret things. Thus an alternative context might not be seen at all, or perceived as more than a simplistic idea system on the context of either side of what is in others or the state of comprehension within our self.
I looked thru three number books I took out of the library and was able to see what they meant in depth where from my view of things it meant nothing profound. Had I know about modular numbers for example I may not have found an alternative view.
I notice today Pitkanen has a post- that I cannot see on the blog today by Peter Woit
with the comments on a matrix theory idea and that article I link to I agree in actuality predicts nothing or nothing new so I do not find that profound from just the string view and 11 dimensional view alone. It certainly does not adequately explain why the world is three dimensional. Indeed, in reading through these three books their is a vast area of such ideas of triality right under our noses- for example an angle (phase) has three trisectors...
I revise some of the things I said about Riemann as readable- one book suggests he was more a philosopher with but one mathematical symbol per page and only in the translations was he readable. That or I found his language easier than my own or maybe it was the philosophic issues involved. Certainly his view became mainstream in the generalizing of Gaussian's non-Euclidean ideas of planes. But at the time no one wanted the attention to such a crazy idea beyond the good old Germanic climate of Kant on time and space. I almost think that with these mysteries of number theory yet to be solved that amazingly one can read through whole works and systems only to find different views of which one would be negligent to leave out if the idea is to find the foundations of the universe and physics.
With both views within my cognition now- the number theory and its more obscure problems read to me very clear and perhaps a little easier to solve some things. Pitkanen and I stand like Riemann to Gauss who from his habit of surveying saw it all as square planes yet Riemann generalized it- from inside the curvature for another geometry unlike (and I can see TGD here as one of the others) outside or hyperbolic variety as relations between n dimensions (of which Pitkanen expresses this at the quantum superposition) but all such questions is a matter of what we mean by distance or some interval in my opinion.
I find several interesting things with the idea of Mersenne primes to find a limit or investigate for Pitkanen's take on the matter and the application to particle physics. I need to see how he makes these connections better. But I feel the one statement in these photo posts above answers or can answer his (as well as others)questions of linearity (that is as an adjective applying the algebra of matrices). This is as much a geometric princple as a numerical one:
In a quasized plane a parabola of square numbers (modular n's and Descartes like mapping of quadratics in a plane of natural queen move directions or dimensions) divides into two lines parallel by the knight's (discrete?) moves.
I was wondering (due to the influence of Kea) what in quasic space is the equivalent of the associhedron?
So many awakenings on the ideas and what seemed interesting only for its own sake had continual unfolding of applications until my eyes grew tired... and I took the time to write some of it down... after a nap went back to the West of Zane Grey again, perhaps to take a hint on his clarity- that the description of the terrain and the basic modest, a little shy like Riemann, feelings people have toward each other in a rather unique drama- two hearts in hard work making a ranch with but a sniff of adolescent memory of each other matured- And then the isolation that such work and love has in the initial conquering of new frontiers. This sort of drama is as if a formula but it just never gets old.
* * * *
Gee Matti, I see it now via my Google Reader- some very deep comments by you by the way. I am not sure I disagree if that is clearly what the Japanese are doing as you so describe- I think we are missing all of each others points (pun almost intended) but am not sure what it is that upsets you about the theory including if it is a non-perturbation theory. Certainly, a Riemann did have the whole and the part in mind no matter what actually became a point or not as we condense dimensions- but from the start here I have shown that the groups containing other subgroups to embed into or develop from is not as simply defined as some thing in their mental flatland as well as some topological concept of dimensions. We could have an interesting debate on this maybe (of course I cannot post a comment to your post today if I cannot access it from my blog). In any case I quite imagine if there were a breakthrough that was certain in to what so called Matrix theory is implied there then I imagine that as mathematics if not physics of such theories (it took sixty years for Riemann to find its place as physics- maybe the age of German Mathematics and philosophy is over- I mean as is the age of Jewish physics if we cite Einstein as original- but hmmmmm if we are not sure he is right do we see him as a German or a Jew? Paradox, no?) that a few of us, including the rather young students, were very much coming before in discovering what is yet another claim for a unified theory. From my viewpoint what they say about things without quasics is not much at all- let alone imagining where number theory applies or more general non-euclidean quasi-quanta wormholes.
* * * *