**Philosophy of the A-Brane**

*11 January, 2013*

**L. Edgar Otto**
The
gap in my posting of a day, relatively long in the speed of intuitive
concepts at the moment, comes from the time needed to do some hard
calculations off line. I thought this would take longer before some
results. In fact I considered a longer delay in posting to shore up
new results of which I hold as philosophy in nature. Yet it seems to
correspond to the standard formalism, the usual distinction of
distance in the scalar-vector formulations or the independent shape
of things as topology.

Certainly
these concepts are part of the unification of physics we explore in
whatever language. I decorate on this higher level of concepts of
physics with the symbols for the various ideas or simply as the
combinations of discrete numbers of colors- yet the deeper basis of
it all as calculation is the binary encoding with a quasic order.

I
came across an article on Kneemo's blog this afternoon to check mail
at the library, not to post, that concerned what he and Marine
emphasize as "Motivics" in an article by Rolf Schimmrigk.
This the old synchronicity again as we engage the frontiers of new
researches. So, I desire to present an alternate view, especially
where it concerns our ideas of surfaces in say six dimensions. I
decided to use the term A-brane because A is my notation for
red-yellow as a binary color of the 30 cube problem in the
Otto-Conway matrix. In that that is part of a wider or quasic brane
quite intelligible with the complex plane and projective planes it is
of itself a sort of brane where the same questions we ask as in the
article from my view were a priori from which to make the deductions
rather than build up to a dynamic induction that is transitive over
the wider case.

I
hope my terminology does not add to the confusion as so many of the
limited symbols do already if not clearly defined in the literature.
How do I read in that article what is meant by diagonal and
non-diagonal (is there for example a dawning idea here of my quasic
diagonal orthogonal to the main diagonal or does it discuss patterns
that involves as well rows and columns of algebraic matrices?

Yet
if we call this sub-brane (or any such quadratic concept to which
nature intelligibly resolves so much in the simple completing of the
squares and thus appears to leave so much out) suggests these 6 space
manifolds are not as simple as they so appear, that is, as a brane
they have a vast complexity as multidimensional even beyond the
conclusion these reduce to three and four space assuming the central
"charge" is odd distinctly- and so on. The author hints at
a whole new opening of our scope of geometry and physics.

I
saw an article in the science magazines yesterday that talked in
relation to gravity and dark matter the usual appeal to ideas of a
5th force- it could be this or it could be that beyond the
conclusions of a wider generalization by these so called motives that
general patterns on all scales appeal to this extension of geometry
especially where we have a concern with symmetry and "mirrors".
We do have to expand our ideas of what we mean by mirrors so that
word as I use it may be confusing, ambiguous as well. I mean
something deeper and address it at this stage from general principles
that logically stand as philosophy.

If
this new level of seeing physics in relation to space is reached we
find a new generalization to which en-route to that level our view of
things by methods that does not in their scope lose generality as its
levels of discovery develop, we already in the quest of a wider
theory if we had the view lost the generality where it may apply to
higher explicit explanations. Indeed, how can these abstract
mathematics explicitly correspond to what we may regard as objects of
particle physics- are these surfaces in form and process?

Can
these ideas that only extend by an observation or an assertion of a
dynamic translation be justified from the meaningfree stance that the
universe itself may be told as to the foundations of mathematical
physics? If there are extensions implied that expand our ideas of
geometrical operations they will prove intelligible and comprehensive
over a wider general system or we can explicit show why not.

But
from equal weight to logical stances of inquiry as philosophy the
meaningfree and meaningless is not the only idea we may so treat
negations, mirrors, compliments, what is existential and universal,
the one or many, the flow or inertia as some sort of unity between
them over an interval and so on... a fifth higher and distinguished
force beyond gravity of which we at present do not clearly define do
seem to be suggested by the usual inverse square laws and all the
geometry involving inequalities.

The
objection, given the same set of data- the universe, to my system (or
for that matter the calculus of ghosts of departed quantities and the
meaningfree old calculus without limits as induction now considered
perhaps a valid intuition) would suggest we to arrive at a sound
truth and more certain proof of the matter on some level never divide
by zero- on the other hand such a division does seem where it exists
in relation say to zero points or vectors, or null ones (and for this
generality double zero or Nil for my term null vectors). In
philosophy at least some of the most intense ideological debates
occur where some idea of negation is not taken absolutely as
fundamental. In the illustration I use the absolute |n| as the bars
over and under n as if a "mirror".

From
an intuition about the nature of higher dimensional space and physics
to the solving of problems of the 30 cube, finding the patterns and
order from more a finite approach, to have a unified and simple
formula for the generation of the shapes and possibilities of the Soma
cube- it proves one of the most difficult of my puzzles, trying all
the methods that involve higher space so in this three space puzzle
from the inversion thru a center rather than the usual surface we
have insight into that higher space.

That
Conway arranged them only as the square of these cubes is after all
the result of vector and distance concepts as in the scalar-vector
space or as in the invariant of hyperboloids. Again, is there a
wider natural view like we imagine the usual idea of dimensions to
which we and nature party can picture in our familiar experience of
space?

Will
some future algebraist order and solve this problem explicitly- part
of me would withhold the hint of it until I worked it out not being
one for seeking answers in the back of text books. Only because I
have worked on it so long- but I do feel that is not a lack of
ability as others in their development have shown me the scope of
this well, recreational problem. It is a problem of the foundations.
The paper and my intuition do seem to hint these various methods are
resolvable- for me I call it the Omnium (Omds) as matters of the explicit measure of a general distance as if concrete.

If
anyone bothers to decode my color illustration or finds the paths to
the application or concept of intuitive principles that led me
yesterday to look again at the informational foundations know that I
used different orderings of say the abstract cubes generated as if to
color the corners of them in three or four dimensions, the quasic
order, the order of three by three things, or the so called and
discrete minimum quantization or base ball curve. In the number
theory the hints also of what to conclude around 26 of Fermat's
observation of n^2 and n+2 ^3, that is 25 and 27 and so on were part
of the background mix of influences.

In
our general vectors algebras concerning omnic or A-branes the
constructible and general laws of structures and patterns can of
course imagine physical entities that the idea of sub-branes in
branes as the Otto-Conway matrix may act in the sense we say of
things vanishing or merging between generalized or jumping or other
scale related ideas of such contiguous vector boundaries... These
semi-branes with super-mirrors may also from a set of embedded
objects over the omnium and intelligible within quasicity of a wide
new form of such string like theories moving into levels of more
complication in our imagining of space.

With
a little thought we can see this applies to the artificial and
organic biological world also- consider cholesterol as one of the 256
carbon chiral forms our bodies react with. The M theory is said to
unify the various string theories but it seems we still have to unify
the stances of the various brane theories. And philosophy apparently
is still needed as well

my
own take on symbols as a metalanguage of metalanguages.

Also,
for various reasons, certain social rants I posted where it affects
us and to which I feel outside or beyond the new generation of our
time as education seems to be descending and even without challenges
the capitalist method seems to exhaust or implode upon itself. But I
do not claim insight on this area whatsoever. The metaphysics may
convert in some higher system to the physics and vise versa but that
is outside the scope my my current design argument as science.

I
am a child of liberty enough still, perhaps molded so, to consider
the right or option for revolution should the state not protect the
freedom of inquiry and life for its people- but by this I mean a
higher human ideal as to whom can and want to do the work democratic
societies expect from academia. In a balanced physics we should
praise those who carry the tourch of science, as well those who dare
its needed revolutions- I am willing should anyone want to show my
work in detail or even debate it provided we respect the apparent
human need that the world works best when we can individually think
for ourselves, even in the complexity of our shared creative
experience.

If
such projects are true, programs of inquiry system expectations as
that of the string theory, the quasifinte counting considered
possible by motives in all the varieties of space and time hinted at
or implied and thought to be made explicit at some level of
complexity, complication if not the limitations of mirrors as complex
numbers the author suggests among many grounding concepts you may
find in my notations, then we can justify and explicitly measure
within the universe as the system itself its ultimate inquiring
systems as physics, a relaxed form of useful applications and proofs,
the ultimate wild card as if to be considered into even higher
abstract levels than the scope of our imaginations and intuitions now
discuss, as if there were not already a matter of inquiring in any
language generalized abstract enough.

*
* * * * * *

## No comments:

## Post a Comment