Sunday, March 17, 2013
Quasifinite General No-boundary Models:
Quasifinite General No-boundary Models:
L. Edgar Otto 17 March, 2013
Given a nonnecessary and shifting concept of relative scale in the universe the fractal concept may not be uniquely fundamental anymore than the holographic principle in general. Fractional dimensions (in one of many interpretations or privileged stances) reduce to hierarchy of fields and branching multiplicative powers of initial counts at each node of choice or decision branching to which the next generations may be further generalized and further looped or folded into the description of space possibilities in itself.
In the animated illustrations discussing Higgs-like or other particles we may view at the threshold of having more like philosophic interpretations. Two particles clash together to which we count the debris- or if we expect rather that we can create a "mini black hole". In a dimension-free concept where gravity is thus represented- and this would include ideas that similarly relate on many scales to a condition of mini time travel and paradoxes- which allows a certain freedom in possibilities in hierarchical analogies, albeit they are of a geometrical but proof free environment of inquiry at the foundation where direction and reversals - thus more to the strict ideas of change or inertial horizons of symmetry into a unity. Two particles then imagined, at least easily seen in a four space context, a binary one of products of axes or illusions of brane layer reduction virtually concrete, to arise in some interpretation from the same quasifinite horizon boundary models of scale.
In effect the objective viewing of the animation could suggest that when we collide say protons they act as if we are colliding two stars- which would not necessarily be the simplest model of such sized stars to the limits of our measurements and instruments, thus of our physical experimental possibilities.
If we have in fact deeper structure than the proton as one entity as if it is partitioned into sub particles of a hierarchy of values, a generational property, we could say this is the interpretation and the case. It is reasonable then to ask, if these are stars in fact in relation to black hole like objects of scale down to singularity, what do these proton-stars radiate or evaporate if proton-black holes? Could we not imagine an analogy or near one that these deeper and less strict emissions have some different or lesser value of something like Planck's constant down to so many quasifinite levels?
Dirac noticed in the value of gravity as a less stronger force at the Planck or particle level that the general number of particles where the forces are strong seems to balance out across the universe. (the quasic view by the way would consider the influence of forces on the same level of this primitive idea of unity in a theory to be an array not just cyclic in order but combinational in the reading of orders just as the property of number series of integers involve properties foundational such as the factorials.) Do dimensionless constants balance, behind the landscape, the range and interactions of regions in a multiverse of vast dynamic evolutions, expansions, and changing, ordered or random?
Part of such balance and why we can have intelligible partial theories of everything is the foundational ideas that is the theoretical physicist's proper work of computation in the more general environs of what is fixed or quantum cloudy at some pixel or point-like coordinate space and property in relation to it under consideration. Numbers in a very abstract sense seem to reflect this property as if they are intimate or identical to the physical realm as does other mathematics intelligibly do over our range of possible perceptions generally.
If we take the stance that the scale of things are more rigidly ordered then no such deeper analogous symmetries can realistically exist, the Planck level corresponds in scale to the minimum of a physical system where protons are in a general sense everlasting and not broken down with or within the ultimate level of stars, nor are de novo created. It would follow as to what on any scale is observable that the observations in our collider experiments can only give us hints outside the theory of which things like even supersymmetry can be inferred, that our procedures of physical inquiry should not surprise us with the results that we only unify the standard theory of three forces. In a sense while we have some quasi-philosophic anomalies possible the general state of design and models seems to run out of anomalies short of our deeper tweaking for a complete theory. But in whatever case certainly our minds can make accurate and mature judgements on what is the case in our immersed in the mystery of reality as mystery of a theory.
I find it striking, from my own chain of experience and eras of contemplation of the cosmos, that my mind has become aware of the general flow of our inquiries into the physics of our day as if in a wider universe of thought, my efforts like a parallel universe of such experience and descriptions. What I find even more striking is the similar parallels to various depths in this experience in others, this itself more like the soul than the work of the spirit of our search for energy, and in the achievements of the intellect of mankind I find this still a neglected area of resources to explore in our awakenings by our pursuit of science. But what is the power of science if not at least its spirit if not its soul? While we are not everything and the worth of doing something is not clearly guaranteed, we seem in the facticity and fact of the world part of reality as part of a theory of everything.
* * * * * * *