Saturday, January 14, 2012
Ghost Factorials L. Edgar Otto January 14, 2012
The quantum explanation for why there are three dimensions as if that a deep explanation of how physical particles behave in relation to dimension itself can be generalized over the structures involved to make a new representation and configuration of possible abstract quasic motions and rest- it is this sort of thing that not only suggests the idea of nuclei but that things happen or move intelligible and concretely within them. But it is not enough as Rowlands does to contrast the nipotent and indempotent- but that of unity prime and privileged in directions in itself so justified by the duality that underlies discreteness- that in a deep sense nature does not rationalize her fractions even when in all the parameters involved we call physics these are seen to have an inverse so are reduced to simple plane models and twists of so many degrees.
In the illustration I also include the break down of the 27 elements of the hypercube into three 3by3by3 cubes, the center one representing the next level of quasic motions and from this found the symmetries to rearrange sukodu permutations.
This in the ghost factorial page (I mean some lattices that are between others needs not be quasi-xtalline) is a generalization with essential and not reduced or rationalized spaces- after all the Feymann diagrams are generalized already in the idea of the quasic matrix which goes beyond the Lagraginan or H operator formulism in the philosophy underlying qm theory- we note also that this of course relates to the deep concerns on the nature of dimensionless constants and those generalized in a wider concept of space also.
* * *
I posted to Pitkanen as some of his quantum terms in relation to what is long standing now within those terms and on my paper labeled ? in script for ghost factorials the following suggestions... How is it we imagine generations of particles that involve inverses of 2^n powers... 1/4 that for sure in mass calculations. Of course all the squaring of things is involved too in the measures.
You insist on quantum descriptions- but what then is original beyond Dirac's four spinors- I mean something is generalized is these work (but only so well for these decades since him) as your last post that wants to make sense out of four waves... this four or five fold pattern in nature (recall Einstein tried 5 dimensions for one rather cylindrical unified field.)
And these can be reduced to 2+1 formulism from the 3+1, much like Feymann diagram so reduced and see as a general matrix to be expanded again into your 2x2 view (a debate of exclusion.) Now, in the quantum formulation we have different ways to view things that amount to almost the same thing- in its way it explains why we wind up with three dimensional space and two types of particles.
Mass in not in the equations- that is what some are looking for as well the nature of gravity. To base things on mass-less is merely to interpret Dirac's "nilpotent" algebra rather than "idempotent" forms of models.
If you cut a knot, as if a string, does it have more than 2 end points- if twistors are only complex duplications and numbers so to justify the 2 or 4 formulisms (of which in one form Dirac uses five...) it is not enough, qm mechanics is not enough.
Now, the Mersenne's as you use them may be enough but that is a wide field to explore- but it is to me an original approach.
I understand someone independent of the academia being creative and free to read and speculate- but I see no reason to make a great deal over idols of the day like Arkani-Hamed which all the bloggers seems to have done even when in disagreement. His is another near idea along the way like some of Hawking's.
There are other ways to explain quantization than that from Dirac in that differences in space and time and matter and charge are those of that great foundational difference between the continuous and the discontinuous in the search for some measure.
Maybe the old Egyptians had it right- we should not always rationalize our fractions- we simplify but lose information- and the lost information is not clearly lost- nor does it prove anything.
* * * *