Recent Reviewed Thoughts on the New Physics of Natural Universe Design
L. Edgar Otto July 18, 2013
In the social encounter in the media as well as in real life I am pretty much convinced there is no point in dialog with other theoreticians- what do we gain by reading such a post as this by Lubos? : What moreover do we gain by talking to anyone inside or outside of academia which as nothing there to teach. Where are the original ideas L. M. ? And if such ideas are a given always why can you not see them- why in fact do you try to defend such buffoonery as if in a great succession of older physicists cited to which you so claim but really have not lived up to even their half clear and half deep visions? Some from the universities with credentials are even worse to waste the time to read or wait for a spark from them in a breakthrough. The age of such physics is over. The hidden physics in the world is alive and well but that is not yet understood enough to get a sense of what is truth and what is elite propaganda.
viXra has a new section to day to which I add this comment:
Such a "natural" reduction occurs in our mental organization of models of the world. What is on the other side of the Looking Glass, quantum mechanics, new discoveries in thermodynamics, exponentiation as hyperbolic geometry. Perhaps, depending on what sort of bias a person has to pursue a truth or theory, there are simpler explanations that seem so close to any of the traditional paths. Of these the comprehension of it is something that we may still be blind to see and is the source of self deceptive myths. We in fact need more than the geometry of string theory and the paradox on which we have erected logically the calculus of variations. More than the use of groups and exceptional groups that were supposedly unified in the brane theories. Can our better machines prove within (the parallel description by the statistical side of things) some accuracy anything about the nonexistence of a particular theory? For a start with new mirrors, complex models or not, it should be clear and common knowledge that in what we consider measures, constants and values, involves the subtle distinction between what is continuous and what is discrete.
This reduction in theory making, an ultimate faith in the sensibility of matching theory to the experimental facts, finely tweaking the models or not is a subjective form of higher super-symmetry breaking- for in such simplistic physics like the six colors of a tetrahedral Rubik's cube without a mirror... one can by a few moments in chance solve it even blind,
* * *
Various Recent Status posts and comments on facebook: (more or less in reverse order of posting)
This is a good beginning and long over due... but we still need to imagine such things from a more general and unified view. the concept of expansion (inflation and so on) or some idea of reverse of this like compaction is not only a matter of perception and interpretation, this is reflected in our current mathematics that needs revision. But in the end one does not need to be an Einstein to understand the simple structures of it.
L. Edgar Otto Of course if the supernova cannot make elements say greater than gold then something else higher is needed, or lower as the model of colliding neutron stars (which by the way does not make the number of life supporting worlds more rare) for what is theory in this sense logically has a description as if a physical model... this true also of our ideas of the vacuum dynamics.
L. Edgar Otto Maybe it is Gods way of softening an empire so that it can fall like a ripe grape from an invasive species... If citizenship is of general value the citizens of whatever composition should at least work to support and sustain the ideal before a generation consumes what is left of centuries of our fore father's capital.
This idea of causation implied by relativity viewed as continuous time from one end of this conceptual spectrum or a totally discrete corpuscular view is not enough to explain our concepts of least action as physics. I can show that the parity of adjacent orthogonal cells is represented truly by the quasic binary base physics of the plane (brane) or the dimension in question and the shifting between these is transitive or conserved over n-space representations. (I post this here for the moment as some have taken up the issue of Tesla and such thoughts in new papers like arXiv that I read as if his theory or what we may think of as a bias for the reductionism of quantum bases in the Feynman tradition.)
Coast to Coast last night had a show on Tesla which was unusually clear as to the claims of his place in history and theories contrary to the usual stance toward the paranormal and conspiracy speculations. I find it remarkable that in the debate between quantum field theory and zero point energy as to how they apply the logic involving the discrete and the absolute in the calculus of variations I reached some of the same conclusions to which I find it amazing our top physicists and engineers do not know the solid history and literature. Let us not underestimate the saints of American Inventors for many of the principles of one or the other of these core views are devices you now use more than a century later. But as to why some of Tesla's inventions did not work that needs a new physics, a calculus of variegation's more than one of variation. The solution goes back to the wildcard paradoxical logic involved as to what is zero or one, one or many, and less than a wider vision the ideas of chaos can be harnessed to support contradictory views as to the universes fundamental nature, the idea of an aether or vibrating field vacuum or not... the charging docks and smartphones and way to make profit from them were imagined long ago by Tesla. But why cannot Higgs-like entities break into eight gluon-like ones of broken super-symmetry?
Meanwhile the computer part of the bundle will stay on, the unused phone and cable television will be turned off as of Friday. Wifi left on should I need the other puters on line or radio access...But I will still reorganize the space and equipment and other aspects I can plan of my projects. There may be no point in dialog with physicists who do not understand. If the universities cannot defend themselves as targets of spam and hackers then... maybe they should unplug too... Now, more time to organize my music and set up for baking. Perhaps some new inventions when between those grounded in either touch or sight alone work with half a deck and I crave that old feeling of discovery as in childhood- miss my microscopes...
I am in the process of reorganizing my work space mainly to have the option of more modern on-line Techtopia and books and ink drawing as well the digital on and off line computers and from air only TV mainly for weather.
Also to try to keep ahead of the dust in this messy transition then upgrade to systems not relatively becoming junk.
I may go off-line awhile. (perhaps a few public posts from the library or coffee shops). I have enjoyed seeing what everyone is doing and how their lives are going... but access at this speed is not what it is cracked up to be especially in trying to balance economics with on line products if things are not in sync and there is so many changes as the seasons change and we like more rapid seasons are leaves blown by the technology wind- not to mention how we can be healed or divided by so many polarized viewpoints- even what we eat may be good or bad for us as a byproduct of our beliefs only (for example). True science is not that hard but research should address the problem not the crumbs of work or desire to contribute to the community. I am going back to cash and pen and paper at a desk - it has been awhile. Back to the whiteboard or blackboard. Just maybe I can one day keep ahead of the changes and dreams of doing things now that I can achieve them are no longer there even in our consumer landfill to repair. It was much better when I could just quietly do my work and not have to deal with others with ambitions and pretensions and foul medieval language. True the more you do the more you can do, the more you remember the more you can remember... sometimes it helps to find a place of quiet so as to leave the asylum that tries to keep you bound in their vertigo of noise that once was the refugee of monks and nuns and the metaphysically inclined. But you already know all this. Off the grid to pull the tangled plug such light cannot follow nor undermine your beautiful dreams of light.
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 hierarchy and may be extended to even higher sets of super symmetry.
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 What about the concept regardless of where or whom it came from? I have thought similar and even more radical things (what if the universe was uniformly expanding or contracting everything at the same rate- how would we know this? Is it enough to put in physics theory into exponential forms or is that sort of math not on a good logical foundation? If mass is a scalar regardless if it is treated toward the quantum view or the zero point view, as discrete or continuous or some variation of contiguity in between can we not imagine such questions? Ideas that are sensational in appeal to the masses usually offer a sample that one subscribes... the more technical ones sometimes are readily available.
* * * * *
L. Edgar Otto So why is anyone surprised... it follows from the binary nature of mathematical and physic encoding... multidimensional and super symmetry as well just like particles and black holes, gravity and string theory... moreover in information the code can be read in groups of 4 rather than 3... 12 strands the article asks? It should have asked about 16 in new physics unified theories... not all us primates know so little about ourselves especially if we are outside what cannot seem to be found in the universities. At this stage modifying things when it happens is actually a new finding and idea.
* * * *
L. Edgar Otto Let us imagine a proton as if such a black hole. Some idea of measure, perhaps tied to fixed or change in Higgs mass value that accounts for the missing proton spin, would this not be the same question? Would it be an "event horizon" if it did not contain in unity or uncertainty a black hole?
Free will and determinism is the acid test of philosophy, and perhaps for science too either in the epistemology or ontology approaches to qm theory. My experience is that first there is just the universe we find ourselves in and react or wonder about. Second, all the loops of everything absolutely determined which for me was a little oppressive and too strict. Third a place to hide free will into teleology, beyond fate or election as if by a higher sentient being or wider physics of the world. Then we come to a stable model of a unified reality.
comments to SH on facebook July 19th
and to the viXra on Phil's discussion on naturalness:
The logic of a universe that in a sense changes and fine tunes itself, its constants on the whole remaining the same as in the quantum world in the main existing more than not existing, is the same as that of the logic of DNA in its general range of forms and expression. A cosmic code or natural code analog to DNA, RNA, proteins and so on somewhere between our ideas of universe or multiverse - or a multiverse of string landscapes as one landscape in totality statistical or absolute or not.
Perhaps we should consider all as speculation until we put thermodynamics and its symmetry on firm ground beyond its first two laws (and the zeroth law if you want to include it) so even to understand any such laws beyond the third and how far this may be extended.
Fine tuning, that is if we accept the more mass the more compact the object, would be observable in the case where such ideas may show the expansion of space is not the explanation as recently proposed but a focusing of more massive atoms. Did not Weyl consider this (an idea Einstein doubted as unlikely)? Are we to fine tune our theories or does our vision of them become more dense - that is more spaced out?
* * * *