Friday, March 30, 2012
Omnium as Foundational Unity in the Three Physics
Omnium as Foundational Unity in the Three Physics
L. Edgar Otto 30 March, 2012
Between the natural continuous model as a ground for a unified theory, our stances toward theories of everything, and those of the discrete view, is the quasic physics of the quasifinite or questions of energy transfer and origins on local and extended levels as things default to those levels of unique reality as physics are questions of quasi-contiguity.
Each of the physics can be a total view and so developed but they have intuitions of the style of patterns and equations and dynamics of processes where they meet. Particles for example, like neutrinos, are not contained by any one system to totally resolve the understanding- they do not know what physics is their grounding so to speak- nor do they "know" what ill defined thing like dimensions they are in.
The standard physics can be enhanced on the levels where the physics meet, what by color compression metaphor we may consider one of the fundamental stances to a general grid which if we are free to apply all possible generalizations of landscapes and worlds the quantum, relativistic, and quasic physics can fall out of the theory and be intelligibly arranged. By relativistic I include continuity based ideas that would include the earlier Newtonian and Euclidean dynamics. Between the first two we have an intuition that they could be one physics so together, as in our thoughts we also may have non-conservation of only two things but a conservation or tendency toward of it three things.
The first two views are the traditional dialectics that apply to many philosophical patterns and how we see intelligible design, of which each in their unity and grounding, each in its inversion of what is freely chance indeterminate and what is clock work determined as inherently absolute, can be summarized from the similar bizarre theories of Dirac and the quantum-relativity of Eddington's fundamental theory. But both are limited to the methods of the two physics.
To maintain otherwise is to develop into one of the physical views. We may say that there are no superluminal neutrinos but not explain why. The three physics, the Triality of it, is the beginning of still higher concepts.
Moreover, I speak here on a greatly reduced level, a flangelation or condensation of the concept of raw space full or absolutely empty- there is no concept really of distance clearly defined in the first place let alone general properties of actions at a distance or locally developed by ideas of continuity alone- that insofar as symmetry is concerned we reach the possible within an entity or organism, cosmology or particle, of the quason or rather the 240 monster group of which it too can be seen as a finite or infinite in extent formulation of this analogous division of group theories. The quason from the quasic standpoint is the four dimensional chess-game as a reductionism in all its representations and thus seems the boundary of our familiar quantum and classical world. Higher dimensions and symmetries should make explicit to what level they evoke higher dimensional generalizations that is intelligible chess-games and not just the faery or vague but intuitive concept of observed properties of fields.
Actually in our fundamental particles there are 24 forms, so too in the DNA codons, of which we can answer why there can be two or three groupings of quarks up to four space for the four way arrangement of six places in a grid of types of vectors, mixed, co-variant, contra-variant and so on as these are part of an intelligible system.
A general foundation under the foundation as we apply ideas like entropy to the omnium grid arrangements of abstract space, each grid can be a standard reference and place where all changes can be resolved into intelligible coordinate systems and what seems non-linear and irrational number paths into the dimensionless sea of singularity everywhere.
This method to focus or point out a uniqueness on the surface to volume insight of Riemann should consider the principle of things arranged on surfaces of lossy color skin effects and the halving and duplication of the real part of what itself is an ongoing paradox in the structure of reality as we presently understand it, thus to ground some of the ideas of quantum theory and Phoenix fourth and greater physics less than the Omnium, deeper than the quantum claim to the discrete or integral and its fine measure to great significant decimal digits, or as if absolute to the scale of string theory, or the intelligible connection by Dirac and Eddington of the corresponding values of the macro and micro forces in aggregate - and the limiting of unification in either of the two physics formulation to contain say the wave-particle or wave and matrix methods as overviews of duality...so to appear in a closed system only as a total description of the totality.
From one view we could maintain that certain constants do vary such as the light speed or gravitational constant, or even that they vary outside of a seemingly complete model of which no such variation is observable or immediately over the omnium influential, or is always so from remote ends and beginnings. This is legitimate and tenable as far as it goes in one style of development of a physics. The Machian idea of a background, one of four known, is perhaps one of the deeper ideas we need to solve as general grounding of what is the large and middle scale uniqueness of the arrows of being in the symmetry and asymmetry potential in some any point of space or time. Newton, Leibniz and Einstein have their positions on such a background, the global remote and local immediate general background of the idea of the Omnium is after all, even as borderline metaphysics, a super-background to them in all their applications and defaults to our unique reality of our variegated experience.
The background is not necessarily the physics but in contiguous places where the unique has the possibility of an ongoing grounding the landscape and the grid maps may be the same and connect. This sort of thing of confusing or not explicitly arranging the theoretical patterns show up as anomaly or mysteries or surprises in observations that would lead to speculations such as the idea of dark matter, something more than what this means as a logical example of comprehending higher intuitions, as a frontier issue in our day anyway. But I am not just addressing the issue of the day- the seeds for omnium theory are now over half a century old and thought to address several issues and predict several anomalies before hand.
So at present most of the confusions is not between the elusive unity of the quantum and classical (& relativistic) physics but between those and the quasic physics as models.
The pattern of which Kea deduced is that in some models and physical systems abstract geometry and algebra act or condense to a center with properties of which we ground even things like how to show the difference in the energy and mass measures of conversions- not simply some complex division as a measure of the constancy of light. She too sees this what I have called the singularity complex as related to the frontiers of number theory, the 24 in this case with all its varied meanings in context of a developing theory that intuits or perceives the omnium as intelligible physics.
Physical models can be compared to children on a playground exploring their world. In the computation of angles we merrily go round and roundabout the carousel - for we long when our world seen but a lonely limited island to ride one for the illusion of translation, of motion as our minds fly in spirals like hawk with one eye or rids the thermals with the wind of thought and change.
Or as in Pitkanen, the wormholes and higher layers of membranes and space, a clinging to the quantum view where there is no center as such abstractly save matter perhaps and other fields so implied- a mix some see as much a conservation of our accepted scientific terms as of what they see as outside the reality given us as science. These have a hyperbolic quality, like two children on a spinning thing tossing a ball between them- in the disc the paths look curved but parallel, an Escher drawing personified. What was that called on the playground, I forget, I only know we played for hours there and were annoyed that it took so much effort to build up speed and that it ran down- yet we found rest in the motion and how to keep it going satisfactory enough for awhile.
What can I say to those who believe in the magic between minds other than my sister and I would stare or then close our eyes playing a picture a number game sent and received to each other- eventually I saw her bright red apples as tease beyond the scope of the first ten numbers- we did not know better that this could not be done. Oh it faded as we grew, and in the playground of human interactions and conditions there are always the bullies, and the runners to no place annoying those safe in their daydreams in isolation, and the nosy or lookers on, bystanders, and the truly crazy or crazy for cash that they mutiny against teachers who do not admit when they do not know how to live and think beyond a certain formula or clique of conventions. Is it but a social style full of pep talk arbitrary slogans for scaffoling of meanings for the general good or our fears of uncertainties facing unknowns? I mean what is the spectrum of autism that it increases along with the cost of medicine and insurance and the self constituency of the voting drugged?
Of which I am not making a political statement for we cannot cure as we should what part of things is misunderstood as disease- but we do not necessarily have to do anything within the security of our ignorance as the storms grow or things fall apart despite us and our expectations.
I am raising a question as all such questions on the frontier. Of all the models of physics this one comes closer to that pattern of what is our brain structure and minds. So again we come to the idea that what we are and were we are is what we see, and what we see in a general physics we have not yet sufficiently explored, and either as virtual or in the flesh what we see is what we can influence or create from the nothingness or imagine we can. The intuitive errors of medicine are such that there can be insufficient information for a diagnosis as with any intelligible outcomes of logic in the lossy and species specific patterns of disease for this is the possibility of life and health as well as we apply our theories and technologies.
But given all such potentials in the physical and chemical aspects of our reality we are faced upon awareness of problems and anomalies, even with solutions of the day, from some lesser stance as our minds sort and mixes the interfaces of ideas, of symmetries and metaphors and energetic values, of contained change, which is no different in the end if we were to change so to go down any quasi-unique parallel path of potential worlds in a limitless but limiting sea of all of us should we be that successful and survive the steady air conditioning of the world, heat to elsewhere, the ground of searches of our intuition- for what does it matter in despair and in hope what shall we do?
* * * * * * * *