L. Edgar Otto 05-10-2012
This is perhaps a less formal post as I am writing without it transferring from off line computers save the illustrations from mass storage. I posted the literary effort inspired by Gibbs yesterday also on facebook notes with better editing where a couple of things read not as clear as they could be. I have a dream recurring lately I cannot quite interpret as yet but it shows some active concern and seems to suggest another layer in depth- although just a principle and not that all encompassing. It involves ideas of transparency, perhaps as if the writing in real time and awake this is the sense of the dream. In any case I did play around with graphics last night with a rather simple graph of concentric circles and the thoughts went in a different direction than that of the golden proportions in the math and the circles as in the last illustration above.
Now, apparently we all are capable of synaethisia, which seems to be reported as a field of study much lately in the science magazines. It is related to brain perception, division of the functions, and hidden connections if not a core view on the intelligible nature of the physical and mental world. My drawing, the second one, suggests the logic of particle decay and the counting (perhaps along with the intended goal of the casual thoughts of a more formal study of this problem of measure of things like physical forces so as to talk with those trained that way- I mean in the comments in the review by Gibbs some tow the partly line that something like the earth itself expanding and thus explaining gravity, an alternative to the equivalence principle of Einstein I find an intelligible thought that does not go back to some limitation of the imagination of Newton or a flat earth idea. It is so for in the analogy to the higher dimensions of such spheres (well, the question if higher dimensions exist seems to me a backward way of thinking as I have dwelt with them for so song and if these as with other things like super symmetry and so on exist or not- who am I to judge?) In that analogy, a mathematical physics since the application of Riemann's insight, we certainly can ask the same sorts of questions where say the universe seems flat as in the cosmological constant after all and in a sense we can imagine everything expanding or partially so in some directions and so on...
Now, my drawings, being the first try after decades really when I colorized the algebra of particle decay are crude, but not as crude as those offered today as the barest of suggestions for such a notation as say in Rowlands, or a book of which I have not found by Conway on the use of color although his colorizing of the modular number arrays did stand out as very promising. The point is that we humans seem to be much better at solving certain visual pattern problems than computers that have it over us in the massive brute count- but programming as something as easy for us as the matching of the faces of color cubes is difficult and hard to have as an overview and hard to see if we have but one solution computed where others may be that as if from a higher dimension we can look down to see all the pathways.
I see in the comments to Gibbs Leo Vyuk describes himself as an architect. Now, Vijay observes that geometry can be defined as touch and sight... and as far as our differentiated senses the science magazines report physical links between touch and sound. In Leo's models, of twisted wires so as to handle the logic of things, black holes presumably in what I would call "creative hierarchies" this much like Fuller is a matter of the touch. What I get from them is that there are some laws of physics or patterns (consider as in the article why things do not smear on certain scale or how they can persists for example as solitions and so on) that reach down to other scales heretofore not seen such as the molecular or crystal structures of which even with blurry vision one can so construct these say out of gumdrops and toothpicks.
* * * * * This continued and posted some hours after the wifi interruption in the coffee shop:
Foundationally then, although not with the usual insight of x-ray vision as to the structure of say DNA is is a perfectly good method of enquiry, for example Penrose's daddy tried to find the structure by interlocking little wooden parts. On some level of scale we face the same sort of thing in cycles as to the touch or sight approach. There is a certain unity of mind in which we connect such stances and take a position that seems to be much more general than specific paths or even injuries of tissue or theories that perhaps come from some natural limitation of our vision in the eyes- and in mental view for we see with our mind as well, we can be blind to whole systems we touch or sense but to not see nor understand if these are there even if on them our thoughts are transparent. That said we can superimpose such layers of things (as in my dream but of isolated and transparent almost similar abstract drawings- indeed, there are some things we cannot see or suspect in a neutral and quasifinite world without some sort of animation- and the laws can be unexpected in the universe that sometimes even a machine and not a human would imagine so to speak, such as that which needs and works with isolated transistors in circuits and computer systems that do not require timing.)
So, in a more general or unified theory we should consider these views as if overt or hidden synaethesia that these can be equivalent on some abstract and fundamental level. Why should there be particles that spin only one way that the tables of such particles are not symmetrical in count? It is of course a matter of simple logic too as to what is combined or opaque when done so in a general operation of which this is the heart of implication really in say Venn diagrams.
On this abstract level I feel kinship with these theorist (Vyuk and Pikanen, although it is not necessarily a two way vision) in how I suspect Pitkanen sees particles and tries to justify it from deeper views of numbers where something in the unity and expansion of primes seems concrete. As with all theories on the frontier or to some the fringe of physics (and do not get me wrong there are such unintelligible fringes- perhaps a true measure of a scientist is to truly discern the difference. Not all in quantum theory is a strange mystery of which the measure is said to be of our ignorance.
What are the multi layers of which Pikanen speaks but another view of the idea of shells that can be colored or distinguished to describe the possibilities of particle decay? It follows that an atom for example with such an onion like structure of shells is the mouth of a wormhole, or for that matter some sort of black hole- but in the crude conception of this extension, my omnic principle as if a ray as a dynamic division by zero or product of zero and infinity equal to unity, not just an inductive principle that works as in the early calculus and in a modern world where both deduction and induction have wider effects in the technology and experiment, abduction and all that... that these wormhole conceived simply as tubes are as if concentric circles where the vertical of aliasing seems to radiate in all directions in the symmetry of a drawing at least, the reduction in concept to a simpler earlier idea of partons or strings, perhaps some claim of limit where there are no preons and such particles as electrons cannot be further divided.
So we reach the same old paradox of the universe as quasifinite in directed (onion or babushka dolls in dolls) last point within as irreducible let alone as if half of everything as to if in depths and heights of such a view that seems discrete in the span as that in the world contracts or expands, does it loop or not into itself again- certainly, for a proton we can imagine the old thought it has at least three layers the center one if an electron makes a neutron. Those who do read my illustration or any picture as all can see things this way or in the counting and algebraic way will notice I left out the muon anti neutrino in this first try of a color notation. But in the first illustration I offer also the doubling of things in the tempered scale, the old twelve of things and so on, to which we can develop some rather complex color combinations that perhaps applies only to natures hidden synathesean like higher particles than even super string theory has dared to imagine. Yet the notation remains intelligible at least abstractly.
* * * * *