Neutrinomnium

Neutrinomnium

L. Edgar Otto    21 May, 2013

The evidence or hallmark of a good theoretician is the ability to recognize if a new theory or observation contains a given or possible significance, what intuitively is in the balance of importance.

Another part of this state of contemplation is taking two such theories and seeing they are linked together into unsuspected deeper explanation.

This a matter also of the logic distinguishing where the effects are real in our nature of thinking, knowing what is paradox and what is fallacy.  The conceptual patterns that describe both stances toward a theory makes a great theoretician.

Sabine Hossenfelder posted two facebook links, one on the neutrino results detected in the Ice Cube beyond expectations of energy (and over formally in my neoteric philosophy assumed a process outside the normal models of cosmic ray formation.

This reasoning grounded in the normal classical questions of logic on which we may hold as a reference frame pattern for other systems of logic to which all such may stand or fall together if they are in a sense equivalent.

From such a ground some have questioned the ultimate nature of logic itself or in some cases cause to question the law of excluded middle (ultimately excluded extremes also) or ask just how far can we rely on mathematical induction.

Since the early 60's my view toward the cosmic rays although not any standard view has withstood if not the reason my own interpretations turned away from the mainstream all the details in experiments including those that mimic the high energy involved in our colliders or what in new discoveries we observe in the cosmic background radiation, as well non-locality in our useful information for gene encoding.

So, with such background long familiar it does seem I would have not reached the conclusion of this essay as if instantly suggesting some intuitive certainty in the idea that of course will raise self doubts and self skepticism until something like physical evidence deeper than the usual truths by statistics- that such speculation with a natural and healthy skepticism endures as a concept accepted or derailed from the mainstream by the test of time.

But time itself is the issue also, as well our stances toward causality which is also much like our living reasoning as to what grounds or molds our thinking patterns.  This beyond the reasonable measurements is also something to be resolved (as with all issues of foundational singularity usually) between paradox and fallacy including such grounding itself as tautological or contradictions outside the span of useful structural and physical information.

This is a general symmetry condition in nature that may be considered as ubiquitous as our gross (not intrinsically useful and beyond the question of non-locality or wider issues of entanglement) concept of the force of gravity or extension to higher dimensions by looping self referential processes of recursions for their solutions.

On the subatomic level, with our acceptance of reasons to explore compliments and mirror images such as with the complex number analysis, I suggest a particle (or process as philosophic as I imagine the idea of the Higgs to be while still a physical concept) I style "Neutrinomnium" by vague analogy with Neutronium.  Nom (as in nominalism) is found therein and also my and Penrose's term for a theory of everything so to speak, the Omnium.

SB cites an arXiv paper on causality...(I did not download the entire article yet so speak from the barest clues) which considers time and causality and I presume is about some sort of triangle inequality the conclusions of which do not differ far from my quasic formalism in a discrete or continuous center of interpretation.

It strikes me as coincidentally and embarrassing numerological in the finite case of the number of neutrinos into this super-hidden symmetry that a neutrinomnium particle may decay into- still the general concept is there to ground variations upon the realization of what products there may be in the process of colliding particles and the angles implied of the mirror like momentum decay which of course is the issue of when we decide something is meaningfully distinguished as taking finite time to occur or said to collapse out from the quantum theory into its classical form.  It is numerological in the sense that we can treat the symmetries of string theory as relation of intelligible numbers in the finite or integer descriptions.

I suggest also that other neoteric principles are involved as to how we view in nature what is multiple and what but one thing including our concept of the multiverse.  Surely a generalization into the omnium would require the unification of Higgs-like and Neutrinomnium-like aspects of particles or fields.  For now there are a few theoreticians who take this to be some effects of perturbation (worked by accident for the discovery of the outer planets) or in the still highly speculative but intuitive concepts of suspected phenomena like dark matter.

Such guesses may pass by the wayside of new developments unless sound theory that proves the fact or near the steam of the spirit of new facts provided these not falsified from the beginning grounded in fallacy- in which case the guess wins the day despite it unlikely and seems to be the goal of some who work with theory for or against what is fact or sociological agendas they fancy.  Who in these golden times of cosmology and the swan songs of our atom smashing machines in their abilities can deny we need a better philosophy of science?

Some of you will see my last post  E confluence or simply E related principles that will aid in the decoding of the words and processes needed to connect ideas in this essay for it does involve creative design issues beyond the metaphysics and into what we can try to retro-engineer or imagine of Aristotle's lost book Stereonometry.  This is to say the confluences exist beyond physics and metaphysics in that they represent a theory of our reality or universe.  In particular concerning Pythagorean triangles at least where some process may begin or end as in biochemical pathways and averaging remembered statistical histories that the numbers 25, 26, 27  thus the extensions 28 beyond the square or cube idea of a matrix as a physical description may be a whole new science of these neutral and presumably achiral particles in some respects of intrinsic angles or coherent similarity of phases where the universe holds the aces of unbiased principles as quasifinitude.

* * * * * 05:52:51 AM