Monday, July 15, 2013

Is Quantum Mechanics as Dead as Classical Theory

Is Quantum Mechanics as Dead as Classical Theory

L. Edgar Otto   July 15, 2013

 Lubos Motl does not seem to realize that quantum mechanics is also dead (actually like classical before it transformed) into a greater generalization where a reasonably sane person may conclude after seeing clearly with effort beyond issues of top down or bottom up mental state logic.  This overall structure of models persists and is mulled over in the collective wisdom of the unknown as if such processes being scientific self-falsifies and has a natural time-like direction even in general for that essential difference in local and non-local symmetries.

How do we determine if Tesla's views are used as some claim covertly by the worlds hidden powers so as to say control the weather or build electrostatic principled aircraft?  Is the logic of the contrails in parallel sound to shift the weather by the fact of introduction (in a hierarchy of atmosphere levels including at the ocean) not that of matter changing and interacting with a field, one moreover a generalization of the reductionist simplicity of Feynman diagrams?  That an atom introduced can from behind the scenes not be just a neutral entity but from some dimensional representation a dynamic one  with real effects in the chaotic turbulence (like said of the plankton today in the science magazines for a crude mere 3D analogy).

But a better example (with of course the quasic and projection view of a 2D brane into nD with a sense of momenta restrained or conserved and further understanding of atoms and the projection plane real and complex) would be this comment to Sabine Hossenfelder I posted today on the cosmic rays (I understood this for a long time now before someone suggested some were of quasar or further out origins):

L. Edgar Otto This data looks promising... as muons are catalysts for fusion we can certainly (in this natural but vertical collider...extend the concept (of chirality and reintegration) to similar particles in the generation (electrons...tauons... more) to which we should find evidence of a surplus and local excess of matter beyond the standard monster group 4 natural dimensional case of 120 elements thus higher symmetry of "super-nuclei" breaking as in the case of elements that cannot be explained from supernova but by some other physical process. In the reintegration we do not claim something beyond Lorentz or relativity but a deeper generalization of it...not all such material relations are compressed when there are two solutions for such integration's.

comment to Sabine Hossenfelder on facebook july 15th 2013

* * * *

Next day on fb:  L. Edgar Otto This set of artificial objects (much like Higgs as particles if we must have a sense of the tangible) in color combinatioric interlacing algebras describe physics as sub-matrices from a quasic quasifinite view of a hierarchy of Hessian polytope n-dimensional symmetry. The simplest of them perhaps. These algebras can generalize to multiple embedding depending on what we desire to describe and in what direction of a linear but more general law of matter-gravity quasi-condensation.

L. Edgar Otto Sabine...thanks for the link to the video on the Higgs discovery... I found it half entertaining and informative yet very much a product of the way history is interpreted as self serving yet rather ineffective as a promotion of the enterprise. The simple experiment with the magnets to illustrate forces arising in symmetry breaking was very clear yet did not cost billions of dollars and thousands of engineers. I was disappointed with the ending that just did not seem to ask the right questions. Part of it is the way the data is analyzed and the way physicists are developed in the University of Wisconsin in Madison. While the recent era does seem to accelerate the history of discoveries how can they not see such eras may accelerate even faster from the view of the next generation? The Higgs is more about new principles than if it is a physicality as field or particle and supersymmetry should be too obvious to question as well higher dimensions. It is at least a reduced neutral superparticle but the breaking of symmetry is not just a binary tree of some origin of which (save for the magnet design to sort such debris) we cannot say if its influence is just top down or bottom up in the structural design of influence via vacua. I hold it as untruth the remark by the lecturer that we "we cannot put such laws into a simple formula" quantum theory does not reach into what is going on at the extremes, even with dark matter ideas. The simple diagrams (Feynman's simplicity belong to an earlier age of too much simplicity even in the algebra of closed loops in the binary decay that cannot really explain generations.) One can judge the lecture by its humor as deep or shallow say in regard to the big bang as a sit come or no longer the theory yet "was a good idea" at the time.

L. Edgar Otto "you get Sally, I'll take Sue... doesnt matter much either one will do... Cocaine going round in my brain..." is the SUSY song that comes to mind here... and E.O. Wison and Einstein and IBM founders on Imagination. Can we not have a more general theory unifying the string and qm-gravity viewpoints? What was found in the colliders could have been models before hand by geometric and algebraic roles and constraints provided we state with the simple higher polytopes (of which I imagine the Higgy things may be in their self interaction) all this can be put into rather simple matrix theory here these Hessian (polytopes or cosmic rays) fit logically together.

I did not mention this idea of a generalization dimensionally of my Calyptic cube puzzle where we use color coding to show the design structure of the 36 face 6 cubes 4 at a time color matching externally or internally in opposition on the half shell mirrors... these Calyptons if we have to give them a physical name like a particle do make a fractal like open quasic hierarcy and may be extended to even higher sets of super symmetry.

* * * 
Are the gluons not such an eight cornered orthogon in its partial symmetric conception of mirrors and half mirrors they the fulcrum?

No comments:

Post a Comment