Monday, May 14, 2012

Shadow Force Symmetry Breaking in Quasic Space

Shadow Force Symmetry Breaking in Quasic Space

L. Edgar Otto   14 May, 2012

Lubos posted in an area  of which I have not read much on yet it seems to come close to some of these quasic ideas in relation to the "new physics" a term I found in his post.  I am not sure he means it as some alternative form of the SUSY where the problems suggest a tweaking of the standard theory (as I said, but if we go beyond that theory I hardly see why we have to extend it grounding ideas for the lesser physics or older physics of the plane.  There are either more generalized mathematics or they are not.  Just ignoring the loops of the Feynman diagrams may solve some problems analogously but it limits ideas that can advance the theories at the foundations..  It might be done this way but it will lead to a vast edifice of explanations on top of explanations, a vanishing if you will of meaning and information in the subjective reduction for these theories.  Of course if somewhere the top and stop (if we must insist on this sort of world view of scale limited at and ambiguous near the Planck scale as the total picture and not just one of several tenable biases of view) as the same particle,  Majorca like as he said in that crude extension of explaining symmetry.  But it was a good try and a good post.

Of course we are not dealing with the other worldly (what does he mean by the five faces of the Higgs if not the usual considerations "focused" in the higher generalized flat Euclidean geometry?)  So on the view of the same level of things, say the string landscape and its imagined reduction renormalization of computable values of observed parameters but not of fundamental discrete unities, we can divide by this four and five fold, thus those dimensional symmetries as if the windmill forces as a shadow force.  By that I mean the flattened shadows of higher polytopes as in the generalization (BTW what does this do to the idea that the important string theory deals with six dimension for compactification?  Is there not a conceptual anomaly here?)

In which case in the general but contained space we have a level of things that divide say the flattened hypercube of which he direction group-wise and discrete forms other centers that these broken subsections of say the points surround as if shells of some type (here we can move it around in space for its shadow then apply the usual transformations for our shifting phases and coordinates which should not be some mysterious random property we chase down to imagine further significant figures to this absolute zero analog  of the scales based on string theory.) I am amazed it has taken so long to begin to explore these ideas- probably because of the near results or negative results of the collider experiments.

This I hint at in the illustration of such shadow symmetry breaking within the one universe of the quasic plane and the one big bang in each of the continuum- but here again we come to the problem in general of similarity, the multiverse problem as well as trying to contain the reduction of the landscape by Hook functions or the explosion of what seems equal models in the general string landscape and its need to explain vast scales on the plateau voids between organized material and energetic systems.  Thus the need for a third but not yet the ultimate view of a (quasic) physics.

In the general case when there are no other good explanations one can win by default and gain nothing by saying it is not the case. In this respect the logic of it all can be enhanced and inspiring as if a compliment to the defeat of core logic that we dismiss out of hand by accepting that something is shown the case.  That is if the science is aimed after all at deciding what among thoughts is the positive and real.

The analogs to this intermediate principle in still higher spaces of generalization must make our current problems in physics child play- as what seems to me the fight of siblings in today's speculative debates compared to the refreshing beauty of sting phenomenology.  This on the face of it seems to know here and now any definite scale or principle.  When I first mentioned such further generalization Lubos said if this were true it would be "interesting".  There may be hope in the new physics for him at last- and who knows the world is full of surprises, maybe he can come up with something original and new if he is sensitive to this much.  In the vague intuitive outlines he does realize some problem need wider vision to shore up the assertions from his views (or like human cased global warming a case decidedly against it).  This is a quantum leap to the closed minds either way for example: 97% of scientists agree there is global warming and based on this propaganda 101 they infer it as proof of our part in it as  if unaware of a psychology principle 101.

We should make our visions more concrete and not wait another fifty years in the doldrums for ideas to awaken- but politics being what it is some say we have to solve our earthy problems so why spend the money to reach the stars for the stars will still be there and will wait.

* * * * *

I just noticed a Lubos Post just before this one:     It ends this way which in itself says a lot in general, maybe our "humble correspondent" is hopeless after all:

"Meanwhile, the arrogance of some of these stunningly hopeless crackpots is so breathtaking that they will come to a journalist and tell him once again that they have surely discovered something that could be compared to string theory – if it's not even better! That's the case despite the fact that they demonstrably don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about even if we talk about complete basics of their "theory". They always find some journalists and some laymen who are eager to devour these feces and loudly smack their lips – because unlike the Universe, the human stupidity has been demonstrated to have no limits."

What, Lubos do you think those "correct" integers in those formuli are trying to tell us, especially about some partition representation of numbers?  Did you not read btw that black holes were around long before Einstein in a flat universe?  So there is no problem here in reconciling with Newton perhaps- if so or not both cite this argument to support their own position or pet "theory".  And admirable and perhaps self reflective comment taking one to no one as if rubs off on another - but how is it fun to be an Avenger in a Bizarro Universe?

* * * * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment