Sunday, January 8, 2012

Wildcard Topology and General Quabic Concepts

Wildcard Topology and General Quabic Concepts
L. Edgar Otto
January 8, 2012

In the dim light of the tele at night, watching reruns or some wild card football game, I did not feel I would have much to post (most of it said if one looks back already.) But, I jotted down a few things and hoped I pressed the right buttons on the calculator- it added up to a lot written in all directions like a free association on some whim or question, a mind map or perhaps a white board- otherwise I would not have written hints down. But it occurred to me, this informal scrap paper slowly developed into more formal concepts and made those deep connections between some models of my own so I thought I would include it for what it is worth.

If we are to color the parts of an orthogon with so many colors, the quasic grid shows how to distribute them over the types of subcells- these are fewer numbers in the combinatorial problem than we imagine now where such symmetry reduces the scope of the problem rather than rapidly increase the large numbers. I am sure some inspired numerology is in here somewhere and this time I keep track of the steps. 587 is a special prime number which in the lead illustration I used to come close to the ability to draw better on an array of pixels- something I intuitively toyed with earlier by just the drawing- and of course (Kea and Lubos reminded me of the interest in Sudoku) in fact, that we can divide 1280 by 640 into 80by80 pixels was useful in itself for spacing and drawing such as an array of avatars I posted on the philosophychatforum of that maximum accepted size- it of course if I chose the quasic grid sometimes as such an avatar it fit as a perfect hypercube.

So, these central real or virtual creative points that arise in higher dimensional figures- I once thought of them as outside the mundane and a place or thing that perhaps could hold the soul- if we could show it full- but for awhile now I know that we should get used to looking for such a thing in a much more general idea of geometry. Still, to imagine (and hope the values come out as well those of the twister and complex phase spaces) these abstract centers in things like Pascal triangle analogs and Sudoku games is in a sense the soul of our particle physics.

As far as Lubos analogy to global warming or in defense of string theory and so on, I understand the power of the underlying views and of what seems hidden as something of which we only imagine we can say about things we do not quite yet prove. A new theory will not undermine our speculations on quantum stuff not absolutely random as if we are the whiteboard or mind map of God, just transcend our centered world view.

Also, where I am doing other things (still finishing some of Zane Gray and watching the political debates and so on) I feel a little overwhelmed by the glorious new technology that will soon be upon us- perhaps in the results of chemistry more than in the physics. But once established (or we are lied to that some theory is complete without correcting the lies in an artistic manner) we cannot assume that a theory is finished- for these are born verified and born falsified in that they have a real reach and are like living creative things. So, philosophically, our relation to beauty above boredom once the concept is mastered is a lot of ongoing work we should not always take fore-granted- much like relationships or any human social bonding.

* * * * *

As this applies to the topic today I add this I posted on Kea's blog (not sure it will be in the way and clutter things up if she allows it there) On the other hand after these informal thoughts the insight and understatement I read today again stood out- so I stand by my evaluation of this theoreticians abilities. L. Otto...


The thought crossed my mind recently that when it comes to something physical like particles, if not gravity, that these may be the only groups that make a difference. In the Galois conception that irreducible as representations is assumed a particle. How can anyone fail to see the significance of such concepts- especially when, as accurate as the standard theory is it has a long way to go to meet more foundational ideas of super-symmetry as the areas you mention here and results in an equally accurate yet seemingly simpler theory. Are there not 26 such groups? Their subgroups may apply too, then we can see what is useful beyond these- but of course I speak more from the finite group view.

The PeSla

* * * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment