Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Thoughts on Grand Unification Formalism
Thoughts on Grand Unification Formalism
L. Edgar Otto 14 November, 2012
I find the nature of human minds around me, as differences in time or under the influence of chemicals, and in relation to the imagined mechanisms of memory- dreaming, sleep walking, the whole gambit interesting but perplexing. More so in those who have climbed heights of understanding in some area of thought which may eventually reduce to simple ideas of arithmetic much as nature seems to do in her unification and reduction to simpler but human processed super text and intuitive symbols.
I find it especially instructive the young, perhaps prodigies, among us who do theoretical work react to the frontiers of the exploration by which at the foundations there is not much beyond the standard views as science save a white board of intricate equations and suggestions these hint of principles some needing to be included by postulates alone- in short, how they symbolically arrange and react to the diffuse imagined immensity of the frontiers. But is this driven as a cultural thing that an individual has expectations or in the communicating it to others goes back to illustrations of colored spheres- to awaken perhaps in others or themselves a familiar language- to talk down to the students as if coming from some great beyond, some higher symmetries perhaps, that they begin to understand- if those as if gods may come back so as to spin and shift in time the dance, educate and entertain with the music.
So early today I went back to Peter Rowlands book out of boredom and out of new ideas and for inspiration. You see as new evidence mounts in matters like super symmetry and the Higgs mechanism that and my growing understanding can reread passages with still greater depth. He is all about Dirac and that algebra from a nilpotent view, things like all fermions may be massless or the privileging of vector into quaternions or vise verse descriptions. In the dialog on the internet I find many making assertions or explorations which amounts to the metaphysics at the frontier who would have saved a lot of time reading his treatment and insightful evaluations.
But I have long realized that parts of his algebraic approach and my own dimensional quasics seem to have many parallels. When it comes to simple numbers how is it that in all the elaborate equations the simple numbers come up as matters of speculation by otherwise young Einsteins? The fine structure constants in particular to which even the likes of Dirac held keys and mystery worthy of consideration.
I find it hard to see into the algebra but that is probably a matter of taste and education. In any case the questions of if the ideas of higher or super symmetries (perhaps not just the crude idea of super-partners for the standard particles- explain it people!) seems confined on several levels outside our intelligible intuitions to which do any of our theoreticians add anything truly new? Yet in the geometry, in the quasic idea that can stand on tested principles and in the vacuum in our heads does indeed work as pattern pictures a little better for me. I see for example, after the fact, that my catfish runes, the lunar crescents with five fold symmetry (inspired by a shorthand I made around 69, and the use of four fold mirrors of the electric and magnetic fields to describe particles, a direction I shifted away from after the quark theory for awhile- I who relish the freedom of new frontiers) can to some degree represent the i j k and i j k algebra and interpretation of which the forces as used by Rowlands. I do not know if the pattern is a complete match but then as he says some connection such as with octonions and string theory or with complex spaces (4x4 Dirac) are speculative but a possibility.
All I did really was form an alphabet or number system that would have a 256 letter (two crescents) system so as to extend but overly similiar symbols perhaps, idea of what if we could see them would be higher colors than our spectrum. But this simple fact, the 64 and the 256 and so on in my quasic system (especially where it includes the five fold or the pentads and so on) in a grid suggests even further generalizations as well a grounding for mixing of things like those of charge if we desire mass mostly from the abstract motion as well as one of the nine things by brute multiplication that carries the color.
Such generalization is conserved and yet open... in an array of nine bicolors we can imagine a neutral set outside it as if to question the illusion or nature of charge as unified or fractional and what that means. I imagine then that the Higgs particle mechanism may not be the only inertial mediator where those are needed or to be followed in the many paths or decays possible. The quason that does in a parallel way relate to exceptional groups does seem to apply and even cautiously to beyond it ( the old Eddington or computing shift of plus one for example...)
It is not so much the values if measurable or even the idea of hidden symmetries of some sort or these as concepts of dark matter that keep the supposed theory of everything open as much as the observation (over the Omnium) like that of the idea of such matter dominate over normal matter at different states of the universe that we have the apparent phenomenon of acceleration thus question of what is the gravity involved. Clearly the quason is a stance toward the limits of the lesser unified forces beyond and perhaps breaking into the neutral (as observed) Higgs as particles.
That said, it is certainly rewarding for civilization to pursue this work even if it seems exceedingly slow and the simplicities exaggerated as if the affectation of true genius.
Yet in the added mediator, which adds something else that grounds mass and gravity, it is not clear that the generations of forces at the bottom of the list loops to the top and this the wider picture. But is this a matter of feelings and debate or a matter of the ideal we have tried heed and called science?
Are we afraid to explore so know things or in some established order it may not be the humbling by say a more advanced species of gods, angels, ghosts, aliens or something around us and within us in the dark?- but that we stand starkly before our ignorance within that those who want not to see or let see then find their visions hollow. The earth can be the limit of mystery and blind worship of some myth.
* * * * *
A Fifth Estate
The idea of ZPE and variations (to some horizon with wide refinement in experimntal accuracty) of the Planck unit energy raise to a wider theory outside the local ideas of confinement of scale are in principle incompatable for a relaxed non-necessary theory of totality.
This inuitively sound and logical paradox is the anomality at the frontier of theory and experiment that if it can be resolved even in stages or as generalized transcendence or emergence- even as real or virtual phenomena of averaging is the source of new science.
The observed mass value of the so called discovery of Higgs:
The Higgs field itself is not a fundamental foundational entity of measure or its values 1/118 1/125 (these from P. Rowlands at points were we do dissagree) or with the 1/246 Gev, is the quason description that is a general theory of vacua and fields over the Omnium... a shadow condenser maximum symmetry or less as atomic like atoms in the structure itself so reduced as if a fifth level (yes these involve Euclidean assumptions, rest mass etc and zero values) that we should not give equal weight to the chirality of E8 and its mirror to be assumed that of Gravity traditionally which is a vague term as a force rather than a wider array of out current physical concepts.
It is not a mistake in TGD to imagine the M89 particle as that of something on the order of Higgs or near Higgs generalization, this is true of the corpuscular that corresponds, superimposed or not, to the more wave or continuous views. Nor the Higgs as a quason as a potential reduction of symmetric structures the totality of a more unified grand theory- for both our new theories point clearly to more than this rather explicitly in the arithmetic and topology.
For me it is now a question of how we define dimensions for example in the incomplete landscape of string theory requiring 11 or 12 dimensions (the quasic theory sorts our these basic counting ideas where say 24 or 20 is involved in things like the analogy to the DNA code to which it turns out my vision and those of authors in Rowlands book compliment each other) is the limited or reduced idea that the dimensions exist independently- where is the two dimensions or the four dimensions (perhaps in the same place) we observe. But does that leave just the physical three as Rowlands points out is the reality? Do other dimensions as such exist outside the standard and slightly shored up standard model? If the dihedron in the extreme is a sixth Platonic solid albeit brane-like singularity, are not all dimensions present and obey rules such as there can be two sides on any level and the boundary? A corpuscular object with hidden symmetries can be in the volume-less sixth solid where the less than fundamental units as if three space or with time is in a sense an illusion of scale yet on our familiar scale or on some side of the ends of a spectrum only sometimes seem unreal.
* * * * *