Thursday, October 18, 2012
The Technological Implications of Quasic Theory
L. Edgar Otto 18 October, 2012
I am not sure I can be a good engineer, that seems to skip every other generation as if a balance of the poetry and mechanical ability to creatively or intuitively tinker. But it is just as likely that theory precedes the applications once theory is established as suggestions arise from discoveries and verifications in experiments.
I reach to some rather intuitive but questionable concepts I considered, perhaps in dealing with the ideas unsupervised that results in questionable methods and interpretations as misinformation. Yet something may be gained from these unresolved childhood dreams as well the maturity over a lifetime that awakens a clear understanding of key ideas and dreams such as the simple square grids that I almost saw as if to delineate the primes in early adulthood after massive hours of rediscovery of the first few centuries of number theory and the computation of all connected discs of eight groves (sold as bloopers) as trees visualized in my mind to the point it seemed to fill up all my mind leaving a protest of the viewpoint of consciousness calculations kept at a distance until significantly the looping seem to precipitate out and the mind quiet again as if crystals of snow blanketing a solid ground.
So I offer this speculation, hopefully those with better training can see through what principles of physics may be violated in the imaginative sense of some law that grounds a science fiction. Take this then as a looking back at those moments of enquiry taken from normal day to day life and recalled with interest of how some ideas develop as we live and if these are written down or recalled, our exploration of creativity and our shared, improbable it seems that we survived the chain of generations with miraculous mechanisms of mind and body as if each of us millions won some great precious lottery.
It seems to me today that useful technology can be developed quite besides the complete knowing of unresolved issues in the quantum theory such as the role of factoring or the foundations and mechanism of enduring coherence. To a great extent the issues of superimposition unresolved also is a technical matter quite besides the need for further theory in order to develop some instruments.
I can image with laser theory of the transmission of energy in the several ways, the helix ubiquitous, and the sphere and disk quite as important as the branches, explosions and waves, at the foundations anyway. In this case the differences in color serve to define some things holographically so as to distinguish and compute such that in the pattern and structure of microwaves in the medium and the amplification something like a CD could do all or the bulk of computing alone with machines to so read them. And in this virtual stereonometry it is not necessarily so we need to develop things too far down in scale to observe the logic of it or the utility of such devices.
There are then analogs to what I have called the Otto-Conway matrix of the 36 space permutations of six colors so imagine an eight fold arrangement like a Sudoku grid of the intelligible 81 four space subcells. The fifth dimension and ideas of the five fold may involve 11, but of this I do not presume it follows mere odd numbers as we encounter wider numbers and dimensions- here theory would benefit from what certainty there is in proof in our partial understandings.
Certainly this involves superposition of one of 16 things or the resultant calculation of 60 things and so on... it also has to deal with asymmetry as worked out at least in the quantum theory.
But space needs not be (while it is in a sense solid) a passive stage for physical laws. Nor those illusions as in the difference of perception events that appear to exceed the light velocity in context needs not be passive either.
Of course on the familiar scale we may encounter what seems certain of some physical law as a limitation to the technology as well imagine things quite improbable and fanciful of new laws- how then does nature distinguish the difference? The universe of physical laws are grounded at least in the quasicity of space as the frame or firmament for actions within it.
Gyroscopes were interesting to me in their physics and naively I tried to orient them so as to cancel out right angles implied if these were limited by the four-space around the apparatus. Eventually the experiment would not resolve but I understood clearly the role of the law of conservation of momentum.
I tried, with more success than those around me to make minimum quantization antennas from the base ball curves and so I thought of these today as a sort of continuous description of the spin as so defined in quantum theory to which in finite or node structures these could be embedded in them that might do some fundamental things (no I doubt it would be anti-gravity or even neutralize it save perhaps by a very small range of balances against that equilibrium, nor of time things any such balance overt and obvious- but the geometry involved may act quasifintitely together.
The result would be a device that can in a sense , perhaps inductively, be a quasic antenna and transmitter as well its innate ability to be a detector and amplifier. This should be true of explicitly material objects too.
How else do we explain, if beyond or to the limit of our understanding of magnetism as all left to perhaps supply a theory, the black hole objects transfer momentum? How in the general scheme thermodynamics is involved as in the measure also of that science arising on the surface ratios.?
Now the idea of a part of space in the small scale as composed of ever more vibrations is a viable one but only part of the picture, so too the idea of a zero flatness as absolute one part of the unified representation. If in a real situation, such as the perpendicularity of fields presumed within the center of black holes do we not in a sense reach this limit and reflect outward again in jets? Do we not find these as rays or bidirectional? At this place what of the topology and change of handedness and where and when? What of field reversals in the suns and planets? In this respect do we not need a further unified knot theory?
For that matter it is not clear to me why the earth spins let alone that the universe may do so or certainly any such creative dark hole objects? Something more foundations needs to be considered when all other variables are so explained. A field cannot just be assumed to vibrate and that the cause of such motions yet motions in a wide quasic space as well as their relative rest can be so presumed as if a final quasifinite idea of what inertia is after all.
Such a spin complex that may also be a transmitter or a mechanism on the small scale that can tame some of our ides of quantum computation in our manufactured artificial devices- moreover one not limited in property rights as it has been reported such is the case with three dimensional printing, but these as with electrical parts are after all designed to those sorts of technical laws to specification so are in a sense a finite or at least a wave packet treatment of design.
Are there flat or disc lasers? What is this difference where the bulge of a galaxy related to the size of its black hole and yet we have a disc involved- these not necessarily in sync or location it seems? But in these dimensions where finite, the nodes in consideration of orbits for example, see Kepler, the compass code of four bases as I used to locate along a loop the codons, these rings may act independently or so be arranged to work together implying a more controlled spin field in the totality than simply one spinning quantum object. To understand this we do need to understand better the idea of dimensions... in some ways this Condenser rather than compactification physics can be quite besides, technically the simple idea of plasma free yet a condensed physics as would be a unification of all such statistics so distinguished.
NOTE: I was not sure the frontier of my speculations were of the best scientific quality so I did consider delaying the post, wondering if anyone really read this meant only for archiving as a record- and yet it seems there was not much to lose or gain in the call for open dialog. I did have a more recent dream to decipher if it is significant but it relates to the issues of the moment so perhaps I will ponder that, a dream very much like the vague intuitions of the early days I talk about here. A subtle difference really in a fixed and moving picture that evolves over a brane or screen, the reality in this difference that like the spin quantum idea, and as in the illustration is there a physics that build the roof we can construct that allows the wire or transmissions from one place to another? On the other hand this may be an awaken to a vast new but what we ordinarily share as scientist I have to explore and learn- if only we had the time, if only our pictures breathed between the fixed emptiness and the always new lost in the colors of the animation. L. Edgar Otto Eau Claire Library...