Wednesday, January 9, 2013
The Nonnecessary Distinctions of Source Spin and Themes of Future Inquirers
The Nonnecessary Distinctions of Source Spin and Themes of Future Inquirers
L. Edgar Otto 09 January, 2013
Color coding taken as a quasifinite sequence and count, what is a class over some span of consideration or what is in nature a point are taken as notation for what within a system would mathematically be taken as abstract unknowns to be found where possible in a formal context.
The color as elements of a count within the scope and principles of such a context while not defining in detail the abstract nature of the unknown elements nor the bias or privileging of some property like order, these can intelligibly be arranged to tell us something of the state of the system to which we apply our thoughts as inquirers.
We may look into the history of influential philosophers from the past, their personalities abstracted to focus the themes of their time beyond simple questions of what in a code series is conjugate as meaning and information- or more abstractly the product of this principle and its styles of mirrors.
We may also project themes that seem to move toward distinct future speculation on which some personality is likely to develop the trend of new research themes and so in a sense color them this way. This amounts to an objectivity of sorts in the evaluation of actual or imagined trends. So too it may be of use to predict dead ends or dangerous developments in the pursuit of the sciences.
From time to time, usually as a philosophic idea of time more than as it is used in all its scientific senses, philosophers put into a sentence things like "if we do not learn from history we may repeat, relive the errors in it." Or we may wonder why from our world view once a fact of an event occurs or is formalized into law that this law cannot changes again back to what is seen as more primitive and lesser wisdom of past times. We may also consider a certain range of things in this span of our experience of the universe as reality that from our central point in the living, as suggested by quantum theory, that "we can see into the future only to the extent that we can seen into the past."
Stranger ideas inspired by quantum theory, first, that we can change the past as we normally think we can only influence the future. Second, that unless a sentient entity see at least a single photon from as star long ago it did not exist. This is the deeper question of what is the nature of observation and what guarantees our reality or its interpretation. If our mathematics are extended, our numbers, along the lines of a scope of more general methods to solve equations- such as the complex algebras, such imaginary number space outside the "light cone" may have no influence on events inside it.
This then is a question of absolutes at the surface of such a cone or other physical event and location boundaries. Such a space although more complicated than simple coloring and counting needs not be excluded at any general place or time, point in the universe or its flux to which action vanishes or these merge into a closer continuity of contiguous vectors where there seems to be reduction to the philosophy of the discrete and irreducible atoms of general inertia views.
On the way to these ideas of things like limits or unreachable descent into any exponential or loxidrome limit, or in the debate of the day what is below absolute zero or what came before the so called Big Bang we may treat our idea of constants as if at least relatively absolute within a unified theory. Or we may imagine some alternative, even suggesting as contradictory fact of our standard choice "no signal may be transmitted faster than the velocity of light" yet, illusions from our perspective can be resolved where the light is worked out from a wider basis back to a constant.
Still, there are things that exceed that velocity- leaving for now the explanation of entanglement and the information to be inferred from a few bits of data not clearly as strict in its explanation as to why particle pairs "communicate" short of some appeal to hidden symmetries, the wave front of a beam of light obviously must go faster than that of the photon itself.
Nevertheless, we may extend our management of unknowns in a formal way that gives us a false coloration of entities in a matrix or field that other than convincing us of the logic and grounds of our scientific stances as a reductionist inquiring systems, these colors do not really fit into or influence the other entities in the matrix- nor such "vacuum-like" forces from them are so explained even redundantly as necessary and real. There can be false laws that exceed our grasp of physics and society as unified laws by this faith in those patterns or surplus recurrences of entities in such a brane matrix.
To assert such a general theory, a theory of everything, may be intuitively sound in disciplines like theology, but it seems to me not in the spirit or even history of progress or process in refinement of our science this makes a sound stance. It is independent than our intentions and purposes sometimes like those who contemplated reality like Newton and many others who considered the work of discovery in design a token or proof of God only to find this idea challenged by more refined methods. To maintain evolution in itself (and not in the grand unified design perhaps of God) a fact and not a foundational theory does disservice to the spirit of scientific inquiry as surely as does any inadequate dogma we may impose on the universe or on God.
Newton seemed at a loss to explain why the planets generally moved in their orbits the same direction saying it may be evidence it set in motion by a higher hand. The counter to this was the finding such tandem order can be the product of averaging of random orbits as surely we do not imagine the spirals of galaxies or sunflowers more than some effect of pressures between circles and ellipses and so on. These ideas suggesting a life force and geometry but the product or secretion of the influence of this imagined force. The philosophers who promote it are generally looked upon as lesser philosophers, and scientist who do so not scientists at all.
Of course we may ask why is the earth round and in the existing mathematics and physics understand it as minimums and maximums with equal directions over a surface. We may say below a certain point say in an asteroid the perfect sphere is not the norm. Yet how is it in all the turbulence on the sun astronomers have found it has aspects of a perfect sphere?
Can that be merely some idea of surface action, the purpose of light to find the least path (Noether) over the K or sphere group? Can this really explain even by forces of repelling or attraction (that is what may really ground the observation or assertion of Pauli exclusion) the apparent onion layering of electrons and shells of the nucleus and their "magic" numbers or even failed projected extensions of them into the stability expected in some trans-uranium elements?
So I ask from perhaps just a philosophic viewpoint why things spin, why does the earth spin or anything- especially the vague idea of spin as used in quantum numbers? We can imagine some general theory, based on a more unified stance of what is the laws of Inertia, what is the mechanism that supplies mass to particles or what gravity is after all. But even in the scope and panorama of Penrose's twistor theories we have the same problem of such orientation as a code that does not necessarily explain these elusive goals of science as if an active or passive phenomenon. It may help if we expand our ideas of symmetry a little better and unify the theoretical inquiring systems as they interact with each other.
From the Quasifinite view if we draw a picture on a flat screen of which I question the reality or illusion of optical effects, a four or thee fold arrangement of lines or points the same entity can seem to be at rest or have the illusion of spinning. I do not know why we choose the meaning for these ancient symbols we have- I myself have associated certain patterns of them with nationalist or cultural traditions of their time or even odd popular cults (that is the process in the early 60's as a theme for London night clubs- hey, if any of you guys are left I want you to know we did role a die and come up with seven in your game).
In my illustrations today you may see forms of the fylflot but it can be extended into three space as if a cube and from a certain angle with more centering it becomes a shield of David. Much of this abstract counting is useful in the actual construction of dimensioned objects in our familiar reality and the order in which it is possible to do so. We should be sensitive in our design as to where there is a concrete synthesis of motions and rests and what is twists of vacuum illusion. Spin direction persists in motion theologically as well as probabilistically, unless Newton like disturbed- but recall there is no necessary esoteric or exoteric of such forces in a finite set of entities, in short the irreduction unto atoms.
If we enter into this general contemplation the idea sentience or something like consciousness (Penrose suggests both the physical and subjective formulations in QFT are the same) we may consider again the role of a gateway entity in the entropy like Maxwell's demon. But is this not about Maxwell and his symmetry as a ground to predict physics from the metaphysics of the time and conclude radio spectra as light?
The apparent two ways to read his core formulas then may each have further symmetric mirrors but these in a syntheses or what may be the balanced and the irreversible, all relating to the questions around monopoles?
And what do we imagine happens to a fundamental particle at some absolute zero if not an absolute stopping of its spin in these ghostly generalities deeper than their possible vanishing? Have we explained Einsteins caveat as to why the equator of the sun goes faster than its poles?
On what foundational grounds may we distinguish and shore up the processes and forms of the universe in its systems of inertial descriptions and not reach unmanageable equations or show really the necessity of why it so- perhaps to transcend the whole that is the case of the only hole to higher dreams.
While we live we can pretty well see some natural trends to which those with an open mind and eyes may think worth following, this perhaps true as we honor imagined researchers and theoreticians to come who perhaps are sensitive to our world, we forewarned of dangers, of better times to come.
* * * * * * *