Saturday, March 31, 2012
Odocells, Abstract Rest Energy, and Scale Expansion
Odocells, Abstract Rest Energy, and Scale Expansion
L. Edgar Otto 31 March, 2012
That which is not an initiator or terminator as an event as continuity can be of indefinite scale in Cantor's sense. But a distance between these ends of or are the center of events as an abstract motion dynamically expanding or contracting in a quasic plane preserves the intelligible logic of the Lorentz plane group. In that these are different in the mathematics as to a vertical direction it is a small leap in the reduced symbolism to represent these as concise but non generalized Feynman diagrams. While a useful method of measure and calculation provided in physical space the normal kinetic energy is modified by relativity or ignored- for as in the analogy to the particle physics of the nucleus we imagine particles that do not "recognize" different levels of what is velocity or what is acceleration, This too intelligibly follows from the general quasifinite coherence of general space design as if part of several layers of distinct scale.
As Santayana observed that mans achievement in architecture was the taking of the Euclidean plane as one imagines on say the surface of a pond was standing it on edge. So too the vertical aspects of the mathematics of physics as a meld between the quantum and the relativity is to take the four space where it is a vertical direction and reducing it to the symbolism of the Feynman diagram.
Let us recall that in this situation, where we rotate the diagram ninety degrees, the symmetry of the phase is conserved but the nature of the descriptions or interpretations is about different modes of things like forces and particle decay. Let us not forget that the preserving of the conservation of energy depends on a concept that does not allow the idea of half of something and as the influences of the complex plane beyond the shear orthogonality is also intelligible to the general workings of a unified theory. In this sense the rest mass as energy seems a gain where particles collide or the space of different natural volumes greater than the events of the sum of its initiator and terminator parts.
Furthermore, in terms of angles where in a sense all motion can be seen abstractly as circular or parts of a circle, somewhere in the absolute sense the dynamics are the same thing meeting in the idea of what is quasifinite contiguity.
My first general idea was that the projection of the hypercube into space suggested those differences analogous to many things like the nucleus of a body cell, a solar system, an atom, or even the wombs and flowers of organic things. My first impression was this was like a very God like description as usual with first impressions. It is one of the few things I named in my naivety after myself but not for personal reasons as much as the name means in the German, rich. A rich and replete systems theory. I keep this part of the terminology also because of the name in the Sci Fi show of Odo which means shape shifter.
The question then in physical space- Feynman was wrong to say so many of the processors were wrong and not developed, this a symptom of a push toward a novel fancy of a new philosophy or sense ones one position is personal and right, so to the quips often mentioned that an irrelevant theory is not even wrong. In particular I find the electrons as a compromise that do not fall into the positive and very small, but not infinitesimal nucleus (rather it is a singularity complex at an abstract idea of a centering or local point as if a reference of rest as a default where all infinitesimal points can be said to at least form a sea of indefinite singularities)-
that things are vastly different on the small scale, the scale of high energies or at some idea of absolute zero have no intelligible scaling factors, due to the compromise of the uncertainty principle perhaps between the spaces of events.
If Feynman means the most advanced model of an atom is the electron cloud this seems a theoretical error of limitations as well as an intuitive error lost in the same level of symmetry and self absorbed conservation laws in a containment surface between the very great and very small.
In a sense the brain is also a model like this in structure where in the middle scales the outward and the core are about the same balances of forces and scales.
If so then we can say that such a model will see the world as a model of itself or we can say because these have deep pattern connections a brain can see those of the universe intelligibly.
As far as the string theories go we could quite imagine a triplication of them as to the foundations for such ideas, that is beyond the geometrical approaches of five abstract theories themselves seeking unification into higher brane theories. But to do this by any particular view of a string theory and then to apply it to the physical case is can lead to clever but hardly complete speculations and limits both our thought experiments and possibly the design presuppositions of our experiments although as philosophy these cases may be resolved of such initial paradoxes and in the old search for an Aether or the bending of starlight around the sun.
But spin, even along a linear direction, is not fundamental in itself as a description of physics while part of the picture- nor can we base things on mere symmetry breaking and building without a more relaxed freer context of the quasi-contiguous. In this view we have only begun to understand the context of the model of things we imagine as the nucleus and we should strive for more radical views rather than sit on our laurels of what is essential the fads of the last and violent century. We should be content, in the name of a false geometry, to merely show our analogies to these higher realms, including our string theory pretensions, that they are the logical result and complete as descriptions to quantum theory. Even early on we see particles that decay into two or three others and what is needed from this hint and others like it is the greater context of our arithmetic and topology than our imperfect idea of symmetry seems to be the wanted grounding for our desire to make our worldview safe and familiar. The only mystery in the quantum world is that the alternative ideas have their place in the physics of things- but if we think eventually all of physics reduces to the quantum theory we face, as did the string theorists for awhile, a dead end in careers of the only game in town.
* * * * * * * *
Coming on I see a discussion on Lubos post and find it the same old stance without substance, is he a clone of past and inadequate ideas? Maybe it is in his blood, maybe one can tell a crank from what he judges as other cranks- or maybe like Feynman he can call someone wrong- or worse a Moron. Science, especially in the theories of compactification is not his science.
Well, I noticed with qualified if statements he addressed two commenters with moron and imbecile. Darth Vader is but a dream, and the dark side perhaps finds Feynman as the father of this horsehockey and claims for it- alas a very high grade of horsehockey as they said about Fuller. Seriously man, even without formal education this post on the 35 years and gauge theories and so on reads to me like a lot of near miss nonsense- oh it touches some issues and even makes some interesting links and speculation (not sure if these are original with the humble correspondent). It is a general theory perhaps not even wrong, but Sheldon in this Comical sit com you are not an Einstein, in fact not even a Feynman. It is high time we moved on from the Cabbalistic ideas of God when it comes to dimensions, flat or curved and so on. Part my complaint or rant here is the paradoxes and expedience of our last century's time of war, bedfellows, and the given to the activists the keys to entertainment and education, let alone the role of banks- but the age of such physics is over and I blame the universities who will loose their fake prestige and influence in defense of power and not a worthy theory as true science. No wonder the fundamentalist distrust science- especially if all is politically relativism as even Feynman said was the wrong conclusion from the theory by other philosophers (a philosopher who disagrees with your own is to make yours appear enhanced all the more as science?) This is true especially when one takes a stand as if they really know the deep mechanism behind ideas of physics and how it relates to math- Feynman you see stated our ignorance through history on what physics is in this respect. Now it is good Penrose made his disagreements known in a preface for the Easy Pieces book and it is good Penrose, one of his ideas most like close to the various conceptions of Hawking, that Lubos mentions this. But can he tolerate disagreements? And is the idea, as if anyone could not grasp the concepts or have already that well just to make an effort to popularize or be an entertaining teacher I guess, did state the higher relations between the Majorana concepts- in its inadequacy chiral fashion. I would imagine that if I attended such a conference I most likely would be bored as I have expected much more from the world- and underestimated the appearances of those who are deluded into thinking they are experts and superior in race and region, and in the humble field of science. The society in the end gets the morons it deserves.
* * * * *
Lubos article I refer to .
* * * * *