Monday, September 30, 2013

Comments fb to NPR article on Adam Frank's cause and effect top down idea...



Comments fb
to NPR article on Adam Frank's cause and effect top down idea...

L. Edgar Otto   Sept. 30, 2013

This is the same old Cartesian claptrap that has been a cultural issues since the early debates of quantum mechanics interpretation.  It says nothing new, that is this sort of breakthrough has been widely discussed by philosophers and physicists, and those with alternative views....  yes, it does recognize a fundamental issue should be accentuated here...  But the truth of things is that the causative or casual flow is both ways bottom and top, at least in part... and this can directly stand out in what we mean by hierarchies as in the dark matter ideas (be they related to strings or loops for example) or that emotions balance effects of learning in more than a materialist brain. Logic aside and all its issues such as complimentary or excluded middles, re-normalization, conspiracy and contradiction, sense of what is real as a compensation...  Let us find that third physics... for there is no big freeze or crunch,  inflation or big bang either as part of one view of the picture only- no necessary mathematical induction - as perhaps popular when Kakau tries his hand at a theory of everything to inspire but half confuse the next generation of students.  We in higher spaces and operations have to rethink how the world is still pretty much a steady state where gravity can be equivalent but not identical with acceleration.

What about the recent idea life began from self organizing processes in the environs of Mars... is that not a viable theory...
Yes, once the initial flow we can bias toward a direction...  sort of like an embryo that the head or anus at first can develop either way... that explains in the issue of complexity (as well the lack of understanding about black holes, singularities and so on, the powerful but inadequate calculus, why half or so of people speak out of the wrong end..."
Nature


* * * *

Of course that is a trick statement, a magicians hint of a problem in how we see or understand things much like the question as if to ask us a choice of the npr article.... which links by the way to an article that argues a theory of everything is impossible...   I heard that before from students at CERN (Americans from Churchill college Cambs visiting my AF base in 62) when I ran against the mysticism of quantum uncertainty be it reductionist or emergent mysticism.   And like Penrose I chose the name OMNIUM for such a comprehensive theory - enough with this Theory of Everything the link says...  yes, everyone jumping on the bandwagon with a buzz word slogan.  What do they teach in the universities?  A top down or bottom up approach?  Well, shades of Andromenda strain Fred Hoyle sci fi and the Martian origin theory of life! One guy commented, welcome to integral calculus on the NPR article comments- as if we should have all we need as he seems to...   what Conway said:   "calculus is a way to torture wave after wavy of uncomprehending students... :-) "

* * *L. Edgar Otto I suppose experiments like this that considers the negative index of refraction... or what happens when a black hole or other object is spinning to the field is out of reach of the materials of the experiment... Light can go around spheres with a small layer (see Frank Lloyd Wright windows) so could be focused by mechanical means... and hotter than the light source... we could use it to destroy the information in CDs like that organic virus that dissolved them... that is if they do not accidently make a bottom down black hole in the lab that eats everything plastic... and outside of the invisible containers even.

Ulla Mattfolk The question about 'black' photons maybe get some light?


L. Edgar Otto Surely, frankly, the NPR article on top down vs bottom up emergent complexity is a sort of loop QM gravity question here that just may allow the information in such a simulated gravity theory (including dark ideas, Ulla perhaps) could make a computer that thinks for itself- unless this thought experiment in the flesh is physical proof of the impossibility. see Adam Frank article on this at Nature

Ulla Mattfolk Dark is almost black

L. Edgar Otto Ulla why would we need to create black matter? Was there nothing before the big bang? Would we be surprised if we, perhaps like a god, could not create nothingess? These are philosophy issues not science.

A Sabine post from Nature, comments with Ulla

* * * *

The science magazines today speak of hairy and bald black holes... something in my blogging I referred to as
atmopheres, auras of structure around spherical models of creative objects and particles... this is the link between the three physics; quasic, quantum, and qlassical of which the grounding of creative objects can be the understanding of mass  David C (see previous post) on google+ also posted the same sort of conclusions regarding fine distinctions of algebra and my long position the complex and even negative hierarchy of numbers can be a way to simplify things rather than interpreted as a form of physicality.  This has the logical questions of quasic and quabic (the counting of a unified model
in relation to yet higher spaces) of which we encounter in the CPT questions, and as in Rowlands the idea a fourth fundamental value may be envisioned.  I note also that David understand the question at the heart of the quasic view wherein as philosophy along the lines of Principia of Russel and all that paradox we need to define better the quasifinite "between" or other distinctions.  What does Lubos thinks he means by the gravon and gravino (how do we in physicality distinguish these terms) of which I have used them interchangeably.  So, there is a grounding in the existential that could in principle firm up the bottom up despite its apparent quantum or Higgs vibrations filling the idea of negative field even more violently as we enter the atmosphere of the quasi visible approaching naked singularity... but the vision or model of the rules of this simple counting should consider the null ideas such as negative (phantom hair) measure relativity deeper than zero to take that formalism literally.  As an atom 3or4D matter-gravity, we see the gap between 136 and 138 so as to finely adjust the fine structure constant.



* * * * *


Saturday, September 28, 2013

Functional Phrenoneurology Model of the Human Mind



Functional Phrenoneurology Model of the Human Mind
(New Constellations in Creative Philosophy and Science)

L. Edgar Otto   Sept. 28, 2013


On this page I intend to post the analogy to the physics of universes and particle models to the structures of the human mind...  It relates issues of the discrete and continuous and the symmetry of the unanswered question of why the universe as we experience it is three dimensional.  The symmetry of the left and right brain distinction in humans is not quite as distinct as we have mapped or imagined it, but neither is the idea of chirality of particles either.  This is a simple model and occurred to me in dialog with Dave Chako on Google Plus on Quantum Gravity's page... which starts with issues of Euclidean dimensions and Platonic solids.

I revisited the idea of electrons in protons, or neutrons in the nucleus as part of the count with the electrons of the atom sell structure.   Such models do correspond but not always in the same general or complete ways- and as we are mentally structured similarly- or if argued that is a reflection of our structure that can interpret and filter our intelligibly what we find in wider known and unknown nature, an atom is a potential simplified snapshot of our mind-brains.  While there has been some progress in neuroscience, the neuron idea is not the deepest picture and the old regional phrenology is not totally abandoned in the spirit of it for we do indeed have functional regions.  I would like to see some questions answered by the fMRI as it applies to the dolphin brain which I imagine would shed light also on other physical systems of chirality.

More to come -  and David, this might be a better place to continue our dialog or supplement it. or what you may suggest.

* * * * *

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Dimensions and Algebra Dialog with David Chako on Goole Plus




Dimensions and Algebra Dialog with David Chako on Goole Plus

L. Edgar Otto     September 25, 2013


David, thanks for the dialog - I certainly and not making judgments or assertions of personal attributes such as perverse or mystical an so on - again, I have no formal training.  When you bring things down to this level you certainly do make it precise.  It show me just exactly where a difference in my understanding or misconceptions may be then I can bring back these math and physics issues to a less precise in a sense issue of philosophy.

Geometry, such as Coxeter, has many interesting ideas... each line of his book faces at first exposure connections to the 1150 or so branches of mathematics so it took me long to read.  Why given a box bounded by six square mirrors is the sixth one not needed in the reflection descriptions?

I doubt, in you description of what is an algebra that nature makes the distinction between such addition and multiplication on some level.  A number is a class of things even if an integer,  even if they take on the aspect of scalars.  Sure, even Dirac used the 2 rather than 4 formulism but he felt home in both.  Apparently, the symmetries involved did not make a difference to the abstract structures they believed.  Numbers can be a slice or  small part of a continuum (erected like lines on points like in Conway) or in what may be a deeper sense a number is a singularity or if viewed deeper a complex of singularities.  A super black hole object that emits a lot of power periodically (see the recent article) can be seen as a system that materializes into clusters of stars or galaxies.

By convention the null polytope is subscripted as minus one... in an abstract sense null is not quite the same as zero.

So, in this sort of intelligible fantasy even if we were to understand the symmetries completely in 3D,  we can certainly see a range of possible color encoding of higher symmetry (I just saw art at the Guggenheim of color effects without a cue in the landscape that as eyes readjust can induce hallucination or readjusting have residual color effects.  I will post a rather simplified graph of such  symmetry  of the 81 subcells of a hypercuble in my bicolor letter notation.  I can crudely imagine such an algebra if that is what it is describing possible particle paths and decay products but in a much more complicated detail as if unseen symmetries if we merely see the apparent asymmetry of these letters or numbers as point like objects.   I do not mean the usual representing of molecules each of which has six degrees of freedom...  I mean the logic of these twenty objects made from pairs of 24...  Now why is the 15 bicolors, the minimum school children need to memorize for addition... not 16 logically... do we think  a four lobed molecule like NH4 vibrating in microwaves in 15 states have two of them superimposed of the 16?  But for all I know this mystery was solved since I read  of it 30 years ago.


* * *
Let me add, that if there is an unseen and possibly wide range of such hidden algebras that amount to the same answer in what we see in natural three space say for the "quantum measurement paradox" then that question is a non issue across many dimensions... so why the one superimposition of the 16...  even if extended to QCD.  After all between the quantum and classical worlds we have the same results in different mathematics and styles of statistics.... and between them with the local diversity we see of random paths we have  Brownian motion... yet a random walk in 2D eventually returns to its starting space - it is thought not so in 3D.   So in a region of physical effects of contiguity the state of a system may exhibit hidden choices of discrete and continuous or issues of  algebras of consecutive effects casual and causal.  Is there a greater unity of physics or in some sense actually and conceptually bound?

* * * *
Seems related to the idea in a plane of paths that exclude or do not cross over zero and a negative x axis  as in Riemann- not a clearly established idea really...sort of stacked complex sheets,  I have thought of things like this for decades (perhaps wrong), but things on Astronomy Picture of the Day looks to me it interprets things backwards.  Truth perhaps in between,  In 4D we can find asymmetry too in distribution over equal points in a 3 volume.  Now yesterday this shell like idea suggested the black hole at the center of our galaxy was active in cycles, not just of the usual dimensions... science daily.  For me this is evidence of higher symmetries and dimensions, but there is always an equivalent way to describe such processes as some model of particles.  Is the complex plane iy not perpendicular to  x and y planes?  we can cling to the idea of three dimensions and a fourth abstract one as physicality but this is not dependent on but one choice of abstract algebra unless there is a general one choice.  A 1 dimensional object from some view contains information that describes it as a higher dimensional one as well.... fractals and holography both important in more modern terms.  A path around a hypercuble as two space can cover each vertex twice... the essential formula is   2D - 2D = 0D that is  2+2 is 4D as in whereever such doubling or halving appears in formulas, viriality.  But is 1 plus 1  =  2 in this question of even or odd dimensions?  Thus perhaps right angle rays and so on as part of the general picture.


Sept. 26th

I thought I would add more snippets of the dialog I sent to David on Google plus but I really should put it all synced here...  as far as the theme under which we started this dialog I also on facebook saw a link to Sabines arXiv submission of a decade or so ago on the quasi-stability of black holes of which I commented this was still relavant and someone missed an opportunity for origninal and fundamental predictions as in todays new substance of the interaction as if molecular of zero mass photons (see science daily com).

I will certainly check out your link and some of what I just wrote in comments I posted  at   http://www.pesla.blogspot.com  for something to accompany the example for you to ponder.  Yes, 64 discrete is most likely the unifying idea (if perhaps things can so be unified in physics if we cannot have it both ways).  As a discrete view  Eddingtons model fits better than Dirac  or my quason idea which looks deeper into the 256 elements.

Fuller's guru was Coxeter's.  what you posted earlier on icosahedral symmetry is correct.  Of the two greats, Lie and Klein  I found "The Icosahedron and Equations of the Fifth Degree"  a most influential book.  Is it a numerological concidence the 240 soma cube solutions involve that 120 faces of the symmetries of the dodecahedron  or that 120 plus 16  equals 136 and like Dirac a concern with the fine structure dimensionless constant... an but it is not exactly 136  not is the tetrahedral volume of a sphere Bucky's 5.  Yet in this sense would you not say there is some definition of the ten Euclidean dimensions involved here.  In my drawing A is red orange of six colors,  black and white too in that representation of dimensions if we have four axes.

Oh, it is early Fuller... let us not but stand amazed at the fullerenes and buckyballs as a reality...  still, from his view three can be only 92 elements instead of the 120 that may be the limit of elements as we know them.  Do you have a site for your take on the 64 as in the Exceptional group perhaps.   Also we can dispense with the complexity of consideration of a mixture we may call gray groups... there are no gray groups that way.  While Fuller saw a down to earth omnidirectional 4D  Coxeter say 8D and in a note he said... on the contrary  Conway saw 24D... so independently I found the Conway matrix of color matching cubes for my alphanumeric labels a the time just before he posted it to Scientific American.


Reminds me of that Yang-Mills Compactification concept which we can slice thru and clearly draw--- but as Kierkegaard said... to the corkscrew the knife is crooked.  Where are the other four in a 64 shadow polytope or eutatic star representation... perhaps it is like the I ching where for of the hexigrams correspond to the 4 seasons but in any case all the lines count as  384 for the days of the Chinese calendar and the full rotation group of a hypercube. discretely.  In any case two of the 8 not 6 compaction dimensions  may be not observable or time-like hidden, or perhaps half hidden *thus a ray"


to qm  the posted topic itself more directly

Note on the article above on QM gravity....  we see there may be some evidence, not so much just a collapsing into hyper-black holes but an hierarchy of these in a super black hole regime.  So 4+1 I will use hyper- and n+1  n=5 or greater  super- for now.   http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130924091317.htm  .  but as I have imagined it such a range of objects as if mirrored or inverted can be creative in the sense of  quasar like ones making stars over a range of densities.  If this very low dimensional physics images or concludes, that is the gist of it, in the abstract field baby universe may be created and so on (again there is no reason to deny the universe may be at its solid base as flat in these matters... intrinsic rectitude.  If that is the case, and some numbers  like Fullers 2, 3, and 5   or say the p-adic Mersenne Primes, the fact of it would be rather far beyond these lower dimensions.  In this view we should really sort out what we mean by mass itself as well as how it applies to gravity.   since 63  or so I imagined quasars were evidence of this more fractal crystalline world in the ideal.  Imagine a form of matter which would have analogs to graphine and its Casmir dark-like matter properties and so on...

OK  the  wxyz formula does look like it is promising (for awhile solid geometry was not taught at any university but higher geometry is back in force again.)  It shares a lot of my arithmetic ideas by my counting things in my so called quasic grid to visualize some of these things and focus on the suggested principles and interpretation.  Of course in the vast world of number theory these could be put into algebrac forms as well  I imagine.  My system in such complicated but reduced dimensions has a position of initial cells and or terminator cells as in the 64 codon 4base DNA system.  Your exclusion of a pole for technical reasons like 8 instead of 9 gluons as a principle extends to this discrete formula where of the 384 entrys we exclude one of the cells to make 383... that is the initial point of that left constant in rotations and inversions of the 4D cube analog... which is written as 2^4(4!) for that general group.  that is for each dimension 2^n(n!).  The issue is just how closely does this apply to our models of existing physics.  The old model of what was also called Partons,  three layers with the central one full or not of one electron thus proton or neutron or not... and this sort of inverse division does indeed result in what look inverted in the counting of things in an atom.... this principle seemed very profound to me in 74 or so and made me feel I understood mass at last... but this came  a decade or so after a similar corpuscular (discrete) idea of muons and other particles having such structures. (like Matti Pitkanen's model on blogspot TGDdiary who had the same sort of model of such an object)....that said, in 64  I concluded that what we thought was fundamental or irreducible for things like electrons were composed of what I called "iotas" and that in a way is something slowly being suggested in today's speculations.  The spirit of quarks is OK but does not quite capture the general case of such supersymmetry issues in the geometry, not easily to see anyway,  One theoreticians sense of a profound model may seem absolutely trivial to another's and vice versa.  Even when we conclude the same sort of things or similar things of nature our debates may miss each other's point and together the very point of possible results of inquiry.

* * * * 



for Sabines posts on fb:
L. Edgar Otto Everyone complains about the weather (global warming?) but nobody does anything about it. (sorry for the terse smart phone typing Sabine... I was quite impressed by that earlier and I think still relevant paper.) Steve, our natural love of science even if childhood couriosity... I myself took my mother's concave makeup mirror and invented a new for of telescope- yeah, a little let down Newton did it first   :-)


L. Edgar Otto Behaviorism as the second revolution in psychology did not work without deeper science and funding for it... national or international socialism failed as a scientific stance other than setting the race for technology. A third expected revolution was derailed by partial understanding of brain chemistry so as to avoid the problem or keep the people in opiates. Physics turns out to be harder than economics (reported remark of Einstein reversed here). Statistical and top down micromanagement of the human spirit will tell us less than what is needed to intelligently understand or implement models of society. The nations that invest in basic research will be the leaders knowing why from knowing how things are in reality for the near future.


L. Edgar Otto All bh 0 spin recursive leptons. 1 cloaked quasi mass vacuum complex force molecular shell brane particle.
36 minutes ago via mobile · Like

L. Edgar Otto They dropped. Ball for an original and fundimintal. Prediction.
32 minutes ago via mobile · Like

L. Edgar Otto Nature is loop "quabi" stable. Otherwise 1st. Reactor. U238 would have blown up University of Chicago.
20 minutes ago via mobile · Like

L. Edgar Otto Which among others was along the lines of this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/.../2013/09/130925132323.htm

* * * 

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

TOE Theories Of Yiddish Physics





TOE Theories Of Yiddish Physics

L. Edgar Otto     Sept. 24, 2013

Thoughts on my mind posted to TGDdiary blogspot so I reposted here-

Matti,

That was a helpful and informative reply as to your take on the current debates on physics.

I hate to bring it up but Lubos has a guest on his blob today by Andreas Karch which seems to be written well presenting his stance on holography and so on...  I like his understanding of what is called Toy Models as in your concluding interpretation of "spontaneous compactification" as philosophically reductionist physics.

I am conflicted with soul searching as to these Theories Of (TOE) Yiddish Physics that sustains the old order of things fine tuning the theoretical terrain against any possibility of factual alternative systems...   Einstein was Wrong!  Economics is not harder than physics it is physics, and gives the substance of meaning to the prevailing myths of our time as if a quasi religion or inflation idea that rules the world by the mathematical model of compound interest that eventually justifies the elimination of anything higher or spiritual.  We are victims of this cultural war which in the LHC is centered in Europe at this time.

If various theoreticians know where the problems may be then why can they not imagine a wider answer after all this time... the slow molasses like tar drop experiment has what to do exactly with Higgs and other Strong mass and all that? Is this simplest model more instructive than our colliders?  Or is it just living on the surface of our simple physics familiar in our life scales and time?

The sad thing is that even with these unanswered questions the live and breathe as if they are right and feel others a threat or potential one so defame them as crackpots, even to there own natural allies or poor relatives.

What do you think of this article if you bother to review theory 101?
Maybe its connection to Uni Wisconsin and NPR is an emotional all poetry is about the holocaust victim mentality, all the cats in the Big Bang comedy have Jewish names (as in that episode).  Or that 2% of the songwriters form 80% of what is American culture heritage.  Another fund social and political issues as science from NPR.

Hey I like Barbara Streisand and Dylan's  Bible moral issues down highway 61 -  it was my era and he played like me (like music hundreds of years ago before jazz and swing claimed it) math combinations really.  Except I had no part of the hallucination LSD revolution.

But in our cultural experiences I find it hard to find a common language to discuss the issues objectively- but still work alone not much of a joiner after all.

Nor should we beat each other up in the admiration of the themes of the movie Fight Club.

* * *

Saturday, September 21, 2013

New Architecture of the Soul



New Architecture of the Soul

L. Edgar Otto    Sept. 21. 2013  (comments to Science and Mathematics on facebook):

Does this sound any more speculative than what is happening at the current event horizon of theoretical physics?

* * *


This is an interesting direction too.  string views can certainly be an interpretation but such an idea of dual holography needs to be generalized further between interrelated dimension as in an assumed shell level with a center where there is in effect a hierarchy of black hole vacua objects- which by the way may be there as an embedded superholographic unified structure (the so called jewels within jewels and so on, and some description where hyperdimensional matter may exist... the looping view is also part of the descriptions (gravity seen as independent and of course spherical models of the Casmir (ie dark matter) effects to which in the general measure we can tweak or fine tune where such particles may deviate in the superconductivity.  If we make the metaphor of the mind as to have a soul... in the abstract vacua the structure is there but it is unclear if we can show it may contain something or be receptively empty.  I am not stating this as science... it will be interesting to connect this to the idea of something deeper than coma in brain dead situations, that is the expected physical reasons.  In all directions the new physics accelerates in discoveries.

This strikes me as dystopian ignorance of the depth of our minds with natural but seemingly mysitical principles of any of natures deeper compliments.  Perhaps, the tinkering of one mind in isolation could have vast consequences of change in a  clock free world... or one may awaken that brings such enlightenment to others of the same kind- just like the in dependent discovery of non-Euclidean geometry or the classification of crystal groups said to sprout like violets.

The mind seems to be a superconductive, superdimensional, supersymmetric, supercomputer at least, and at room temperature. In a sense where collective effects apply we are advanced supercolliders.

https://www.facebook.com/PHMATH


https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130701-signs-of-a-stranger-deeper-side-to-natures-building-blocks/


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130921092234.htm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmost_popular+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Most+Popular+News%29

Friday, September 20, 2013

Loop Emergence and Reductionism (God-Particle Social Gravity)



Loop Emergence and Reductionism  
(God-Particle Social Gravity)

L. Edgar Otto   20 September, 2013

The scientific mind, as well one of extreme mythology, may bid us take a stance to analysis of our environs such that we may crave simplicity rather than take the effort as if a fine gourmet to mix ingredients in a feast of diversity thru our books of recipes of information and meaning - or we may just consume in influential belief the illusions of mystery by which we are as much substantial in our grounding as but creatures of our own illusions.  To live fully is to be aware and seek the depth and span of every moment despite if the world is complex and overwhelming, or in acetic self-denial we accept with pride the trials of want for the promise of the shadow left us and enduring of better worlds to come.

Reductionism, while a powerful principle, can break things down to a simple alphabet of information. Atoms while trivial variations of the same theme can lose the subtle qualities of differences of use and meaning and even hide some effects of the physical as not felt or not seen, so not real in influences on a system as complex as body and mind.

All the flavors and spirits, but additives reduced to alcohol that mimic the natural bouquets of tasting wine.  A small change in core stances to the world may but mimic the natural diverse -thus butterfly effect by claims of who founded the culture or music in the chosen unique state or monotheism that in the totality binds the whole and isolates it into reduced sensitivity to such qualities of wider meaning, and wider science, that hidden in a higher social gravity as a point of creative light or wall of the limits of knowing and this outside all but the conflicts of push and pull in social gravity. So too in the utmost points of vanishing the mystic view that asserts in the self introspective system, all things are interconnected.

Nature's spice as well our tinkering alchemy of chemical additives may be toxic or healing so confine them by faith or law as if superstitions may determine how they actually influence our interactions and consequences with the world.  Or spice and herbal tea make make hallucinations of our thoughts that resonate to emanating broken sources of some then assumed creative whole- one far from the monotheism into broken many gods, such as that inevitable metaphor of a "God-particle" where in the old physics it stands firm with direct if not all observations of the standard model.  We seek such a parallel fine tuning of our theories as well experiments in the world firm up to the umbrella that fulfills in mystery a personification of the ultimate meaning as the fading rumor of stories, if not renewed in the rebellion of generations makes a fading rumor of old stories leaving but a mysterious empty whole.

Is this perhaps the parable of the fire in the woods that saved the villages of the pale...  The music is universal and there before such claims as to what is the American culture and its heritage.  Let us not keep any people into the mind set of slavery nor the extremes of fundamentalist religions in a world where if speech is free and wide enough we may life up to the ideals of equal justice and religious freedom. Let us nevertheless throw out the money changers of ideals out of the temple of human progress... be they right or left of broken wings.

* * * * * Quantum Relativity (1929 to Present Day):

* * *
A comment for the blogspot The Splintered Mind:

Very interesting post.  As speculative fiction... I wonder if it could be expanded into a wider book...

So Feynman came down out of the mountaintop and carved his stick figures on tablets of stones... then someone pointed out  Three quarks of of one in many of the Godhead...

As the prime proton fell thru the mirror of good and evil in balance that everything outside the standard theory could not be proven and nameless as unseen. Not even if the final ground were the elf light blinking in a falling undulating sea where the crystal particle of God broke again into multiplicity.

* * * *

I get the impression that no one understand the depth of this concept.

1. There is a third way to see physics, not just quantum or relativistic (thus quasic field theory).
2. The content of shells is the same as that of planes, in particular a plane is conceived as roughly what we feel are Branes.  These can be stacked or superimposed.
3. In familiar space of six dimensions this can be broken into two three dimensions and so on if we imagine the higher dimensional "volumes" as a quasi-finite measure,,, not an Escher drawing illusion of water flowing up and down hill.
4. In the axiom of four space two planes may intersect into a point.
5. Statistical treatment and Deterministic models meet in dynamic regions on the quasic brane.
6. Real physics depends not only on symmetry but asymmetry in unified equations.
7. In these higher relations of simple geometry and arithmetic we have initiations and terminations.
8. In a wider emergent freedom two objects in equilibrium to each other may not be in equilibrium to a third but a flow of probabilities may cycle between them, as with temperature in zeroth law.
9. The information, as a absolute measure, in a factored boundary is equal to the region it contains.  But this is not absolutely holographic but is also a fractal self similarity evolving.
10. The idea of groups, enumerated thus trivial explanation, as not well defined like the terms information and meaning, can be interrelated more generally over a range of interrelated dimensions.
11. The universe (indistinguishable from multiverse) "views" dimensions as we do in the physical geometry of it including dark mirrors and does not always match the views we place on her.

Net down yesterday (sync, I think) but I was going to try to post this on facebook science and mathematics page in reply to its reply and update on the Amplitudihedron.

****
Matti,

Was this not the Hammed whom you had extensive comment dialog on the nature of TGD?  I did not exchange with him direct talk but I did post several things between your conversation.  The quasic notation of course is about a positive diagram method and a more general concept of regions involving singularity.

I saw the slides and did not think these were so deep but I agree this direction is little understood by the complaints of overly cautious physicists in comments and the impact is vastly underestimated.

By chance I first heard of it thru Lubos who had an interesting response... to your ideas perhaps as not so out of the mainstream after all...humorous.  But why do you want to go back to analyze how TGD fits in when part of the theory  seems based on your and other arithmetical geometry bloggers as the long standing source?

My Quasic view makes other philosophical stances critical to a wider generalization that is a new physics all documented in my blog and not proposed in papers on or off line.  The dynamic action of the boundary or of the area can be of different senses which is a force or which a falling.

The problem is how we better define the idea of dimensions and groups to which not only are we limited by the old quantum terminology and complicated formuli but by the range of standard theory and even string theory limited in its reduction methods of geometry- scattering angles are just one way to interpret deeper things that amount to ideas of complex analysis including octonions.  We can see this in partial theories where they invole 8 natural dimensions, the Monster groups and all that.

It is also not to be assumed in his theory that this involves a sort of emergence- nor a specific origin in cosmology or particle physics.  That is but half the view.  We see this in the realization that the Big Bang alternative may not exist as such or the expanding universe is but an illusion (better the lack of understanding the symmetry of the idea of prime uniqueness and the use of e^n notations.

It is critical that we understand, as you maintain and see in further depth of TGD the role of cyclic groups and continuum power sets of two... half infinity or more is the issue so to speak that complexity is as well as arises and moves in the positive direction of time as a probability asymmetric average.

The PeSla
Next Day - a comment on TGDdiary blogspot to Matti on the recent ideas of Hammed...

and this remark for Lubos post today for Matti:

At last Lubos has a posting on this idea of a structure (which I have also stated as beyond twistor theory or a generalization of it) which is reasonable and sensible.

Welcome, well depending on where the winds of spin shifts, to our revolution our humble correspondent.

Maybe if you applied this to some form of string theory you just might add to a significant vision that surpasses the quantum theory after all in its scope...

* * *



* * * *
  From dialog with Kris in notes on facebook: 12.- No theory that does not allow for explanation of particle generations over a range of generalized interacting dimensions and groups can be anything but conceptually trivial. The quasic grid or brane does this for all bases, in this perceived monoverse anyway.
* * *


Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Some Comments or Messages to Fellow Physics Bloggers



Some Comments or Messages to Fellow Physics Bloggers

L. Edgar Otto    September 17, 3013

* * * *

Matti,

your metaphor of such a hierarchy to the pages of a book, including the idea these are brane-like, Is a good one. The actual possibility is ahead of the pack and closer to the next big idea in physics troubling most everybody in one view or another.

But consider the properties of a book, especially the older ones with some ink illustrations between the pages. After some years the images can bleed thru a page and make a ghostly copy on other pages sometimes even skipping one.

Such ideas, anything that does not see Planck's constant as a sort of minimum that holds up a total theory miraculously- such as where it comes up in string theory- is not accepted well by standard physicists from many diverse model interpretation.

So the idea, while true in its own context yet not explained in depth seems about forces that propagate as an inverse to n, not n^2 nor any that involve some power of 2^n in a real continuum, much like the image on the Shroud of Turin confirmed authentic of the time but hardly proven from a unique higher being in the flesh.  Can we know the deeper theory or nature in these still or forever hidden realms?  What is he substance of the universe is the usual question along with where does the information go.

A narrow or reduced theory of action as multi ply or not over a focused region is the same problem of one or many-worlds which in a more general case may be one idea. Riemann did not say in these matters his geometry was complete.

So too, as Ulla points out (which I have not read the link) it is also about probabilities when it comes to the uniqueness of "the class of things as an irreducible number that is a prime including Gaussian and so on.  What makes this aspect of primacy possible and generally unique in the first place?  What forbids the pages from not being dissimilar as say a page on the internet that in its unfolding flow has turned into an almost unmanageable mess of complexity?

This would suggest that the pages each are p-adic in fractal complexity and the entanglement is only observable on one shell or layer of a higher particle, atom, group of galaxies exploding but closed and finite over the shell.

So where the story has a flow we so follow it in our awakening minds and developing theories as best we can, restrained perhaps by unique genetic scaffolding and endowment but certainly in the creative cortex of our dreams and imagination that a first blush does seem a seat of consciousness or memory of some type, even predictability.

Is the action in a reduced linear sense or over the M-like field different in the informational and physical content?  Lubos posts that string theory explains quantum gravity and other theories as incomplete are just wrong.  What is a trivial reduction to one camp is actuality of the other.  Rotating Feynman diagrams does not show the deep nature of asymmetry as part of the picture nor the short range of entanglement, nor the coupling strength hierarchy as well that acts like an overall multiplicative factor of possible things outside it.

Philosophically, locally for example, we debate that something can only come from something and nothing leads to nothing- but as dark matter concepts hint and many try to relate to it conceptually, nothing can lead to something and something to nothing.  Ones and zeros and so on. But do we not ask such questions scientifically and mathematically of the universe?


* * * *


Sabine

msgs on facebook:
I am making an attempt to look at the foundations from number theory and basic geometry as counting... I am not sure how deep this study goes, how good it is... why are there loops in the first place do they evolve? How does this differ from other symmetries as in the 720 degrees say as used in string theory with so called "leaking looped strings" to interpret as gravity?  Anyway, I made a neat photo today and some first principles and calculations at http://www.pesla.blogspot.com   It certainly follows that there are vast things we do not yet clearly know intuitively... I do not assume my own models are free of this consideration.

I found some pdf number theories on arXiv  rather advanced but contain many of my new insights in obscure hieroglyphics.  I have homework to do but it surely must mean something  to come up with such theorems of which the articles evidently supply a proof.  If there can be stable sets of persistent primes why are there no stable elements when we approach Z=120 ?  but you need not reply as my knowledge here is so undergraduate... but keep in touch and keep the faith!




Lubos is not interesting to me anymore- http://motls.blogspot.com/  String theory is a complete theory of quantum gravity post takes the cake and is an example for my comment on gamma ray bursts as trivial or actual difference.  I forgot to mention I also agree with you on Lorentz in these contexts.

comment on facebook:

 I like the ideas raised in this post... I wonder if your win-win situation is a lose-lose situation for the stringers (Lubos just posted string theory is the right view of quantum gravity!) But there is a subtle difference on a deeper level of things. It raises metaphysical (still physics unknown) questions as well for me and I have er gravitated to these issues from another view. I see in all the alternative posters the same sort of core problem in their theories. If the flavor generations are contained and not toward some higher or lower level why should see them act differently... this trivially is evidence of some sort of more general theory as real say for symmetries... why should not entanglement ideas not be also limited to the physics at hand? Lose-lose for the standard theory as it stands. What is actual from one side is trivially useless to the other side beyond where it works- for example the idea of quarks or Feynman's notations works but was where theory took a narrow turn down what seems for now a dead end. Philosophically the problem is what we mean by something from something, or nothing from nothing, and we have not worked out except by hints nothing from something or something from nothing... and so on. But if there are higher systems that we do not directly see so name them dark... in a sense these may be something but not something as simple as our ideas of gravons. We have to think outside the quantum idea of what is particle and what is wave, what is actual or trivial. And we have to understand where foundationally asymmetry locally arises. All this said I agree with your insights in this article. Quantum Gravity is not a very good term to use in all this nor should we think of it as a vast vague unifying ground.

* * * * 
Mitchel
This blogger I follow reported a view relevant and similar to mine a the issues above touch upon.

* * * *  
Note to Myself:

 I did other things like consider the digits of the square root of two and their normalcy or how pi can fit in to an exact area of a lune for example... and a more general question as to how do we treat the digits beyond a sequence of them as in Cantor's diagonalization...of which I have not posted yet to add to my last posts on number theory.

* * * * * 
I put a poetic form on my other dreamikin blog of some of my thoughts on Lady Gravity

I see a couple of posts later  Lubos reports on the ideas of the "AMPILTUHEDRON"  again we need some poetic constraint on such terms, gluon the worst, and not functionally descriptive.  Follow the links on this posting (does this not disturb Lubos faith in strings- is he now supporting ideas he formerly called crackpot?  As presented does such a structure exist or it it too a holding idea to which some of us, such as Baez finally understands in simplified ideas of vast symmetries of eight space or my abstract idea of the general Quason.  In any case you see many principles stated in my work a long time coming and not quite here by these princes of Princeton.  There is no reason we cannot simplify and compute, on a single sheet of paper light this with quasics, only I have approached it from a more discrete Klein-like formulation.  What grounds the idea of twistor stereonometry in the first place as foundational and thus quasi-reality?

posted on this on facebook just now:

Well, I found this just now on the The Reference Frame Blog which may clear up some of my long held positions on the value such foundational physics... check out the wiki link.  Of course this idea has a long way to go to catch up and I agree Feynman diagrams are cumbersome even with supercomputers.  I am wondering also if Germany at her height of new physics will lose that position if a new chancellor restricts funding.  I am also wondering if the author of this space time blog is closer to ideas he had formerly called crackpot.  I find it neat the yang-mills 6D idea is a "toy theory"  but something incomplete is not necessarily wrong.  Still, it would help if we had better poetic terms than say gluons...too descriptive while not clearly useful...  I do agree with the blogger his first photo of a 4D cube is interesting only as animated and very far from the ideas that begin to break thru the contents of this paper.  It is OK if you get off on comic books in the fanzene Lens-grinder era (Spinoza) but there is a vast difference between Porky Pig and the Silver Surfer.  Einstein and Sheldon and their sisters.

* * * 

Friday, September 13, 2013

The Philosophic Implications of Loop Quantum Gravity



The Philosophic Implications of Loop Quantum Gravity

L. Edgar Otto   September 13, 2013

This work in progress will be added to in the days to come... it seeks foundations from the three ideas of continuity as Newton defined it,  consecutive, contiguous, continuous while looking at the assumptions in regard to physics from the alternate view of the role of arithmetic and geometry as general principles of philosophy, that is the core ideas of Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Logic as relevant if not unified systems.

*1  It is not clear that the only general case for an axiom system of arithmetic is the assertion there is zero and its successors.    

*2  This addresses the idea of normalcy of digits and their frequency and sums.  While a transcendental number can be defined as that not expressed as an algebra, in the expression of such numbers in the physical universe could allow something structurally and dynamically in between.

*3  It is not clear that a string or sequence results in a unity over a range of so many generations for the initiating cell of a 4 base (quasic) grid may shift and shift dynamically with predictability in its apparent or real randomness.  But such a unity may describe intelligible loops that describe gauge, force, and field.



* * * *

September 14, 2013

*4  When there is unity of field looping over some normalcy sequence or series, over binary number patterns of the loop extent to dynamically decode or encode other sequences we have Universal Turing Machine patterns.

*5  A given transcendental sequence, such a pi, may combine with the same or similar sequences so as to form a wider frequency of encoded digits that may represent every possible ones when we take the product  to a power in this abstract dimensional sequencing,  The natural log base should also consider this aspect of a wider field of power dimensions.

*6 Due to the unique nature of (prime) factoring but not clearly determined totally by the primacy of a number in itself as the sequence shifts discretely within or outside open ended intervals we observe a fractal or p-adic like rise and fall over the harmonics of the expanding curve of differences of digits and sums of digits.

* * * *

September 15, 2013


Dark Bottom Down Representations of Quasic Tablecloth Fractal Steronometric Superdecay in the Super Teleomniverse

* * * *

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Quasifinite Wormholes and Intrinsic Quantization in the Cloud ( SPCF )



Quasifinite Wormholes and Intrinsic Quantization in the Cloud ( SPCF )

L. Edgar Otto         911 + 12


Comment on facebook to the Science Philosophy Chat Forum  from PeSla

Early on in the science or philosophy of where such relativity theories have developed or been interpreted as points of departure in model design choice, some ask- what is outside the light cone.  That suggests to some, imaginary space geometries and vague states or illusions of causality.  In a spacious now we could imagine that inside the light cone (physically everything) can be seen as a wormhole or black hole (ends of a string or mouth?) of lines of force of limited connectivity as if a neuro-network over which information flows with physical limits and changes of speed.  But what do we mean by a stance as to what is outside in a non-necessary reality of a "Quasi-finite" aspect of universe?  Do we mystically assert all things are connected albeit in hidden or higher dimensions and symmetries?  To some more classical idea of infinity where the equations break down or get so complicated to consider?  Do we accept intrinsic randomness that the ground remains statistically some measure of what is always to be accepted as a quantum mystery- or can space be intrinsically quantized as such forces (mass, gravity, charge...etc) QM theory in a sense the measure of our ignorance?  Do we split the world into what is finite with unique ends and beginning or time imaginary and open, together one situation as Hawking suggested trying to ask about the QM state of the universe and where does information go concerning the horizons of black holes?  What is inside, so real as science becomes a focusing of saving the face of our inside ideas of theories by controversial speculations like catastrophe theory (Euclidean planes and embedded Non-Euclidean spheres) or all the varieties of compacted topologies so to define laws of the physical world?  James, what is outside the light cone?

* * *

I had originally intended the topic on my mind after many and recent talks with people having problems and given up on the confusion of what advice others give, years of acceptance one should not bring to the solution of say physical diseases the expectation of hope for cures.  But what does that leave for any place on line or in the cloud for knowing the sensibility or truth any anything.  Sabine raised this question as I come to the blogspot with it... and as I am delayed finding a good example of what some feel with good intentions I I presume to put forth some grasp of intelligible wisdom and spread and share its value as the SPCF series and link on space time  as an example above.  Enough of this cloudy sea of information and it is possible we may question our core beliefs just as easily as finding some enlightenment. But even in an unbiased non-necessary world the exceptions are not forbidden in a unified (Omnium) quasi-universe.  We can have answers (as Feynman somewhere in the cloud said)  yet not be certain of the truth of them let alone who has the trust to so interpret them if not a focused and open minded thinker.  I mean his sentiment seems to make sense but so many of course follow this sort of stance forever without question... from one stance this is a rather cracked and schizoid type of thinking.

* * * *

Oh,  911 ... as if I was capable of caring or even knowing about it at the time  (yeah, the cloud and some conspiracies real or in any case-  we should save our worry before the fact and not waste it on that afterward that cannot be helped or done ).  Is science prediction then, outside of causality of some sorts?  How can we fold up a sheet of space to connect the wormholes if the sheet itself is broken and not continuous in the space time fabric?  I mean, James, (and Lubos, that drawing betrays a thousand words of understanding or not seeing).  When does the glove take on the shape of the other hand somewhere out there turning around and on the way back on this one side of the speed of light, and where?

* *



Next day on facebook, comment to Joy Christian on Sabine's post link article by Fuchs:

Joy Christian If you seek to write a story of an incomplete theory, then all you are going to get is a fantasy without a beginning or an end that no one buys. Will Mr Fuchs recognize the *complete* story when it is written? Or will his friends attack the storyteller?
about an hour ago · Like

L. Edgar Otto Other than the vagueness of statistical ideas such a proposed story will stand as sound as anything so far. If it works in the axioms of principles it will be a complete theory of both the two physics as we know them that stand from there own perspectives- a matter of trying by reinterpretation and updating a sequel. That said such revision may still be incomplete where open ended in scale like nature may be herself. The article while seeming solid in its closed logic contains the deduced points of paradoxes and apparent contradictions in a way wider as physics than current views or our sense of the possible abstract unifications (Omnium, reality, series of theories of everything, the old Unified field... and other compelling mysteries be they a compelling creation myth or questions in our thoughts or not so as to satisfy the complexity we are).
10 minutes ago · Like

L. Edgar Otto Besides, Joy Christian, science is in a sense partly an evolving and dynamic incomplete story, and from my view, and the sense of unity of many formal or informal philosophers with alternative physics views, such a story already exists of which it is clear (not a matter of social debate) such that we recognize the issues and where it is complete. Moreover, issues such as the nature of structure and count beginning with duality and entanglement and say the number of bits is something the article's author recognizes... But is it quantum mechanics, something of the more relativistic variety... or a new physics that does not replace the others so much as clear in our heads our more primitive terms with evolving disambiguation. Still, do we read the abstract of a paper first (previous links to this question in the conversation) or after the body of effort go back to it for a summary?

* * *


Thursday Sept. 12

The various places I encounter of that video by Brian Green - well, it leaves me with the impression the popularization of science talks to children so in effect dumbs us down--- since when is money something that comes only in bits of coins and not something subjective even continuous?  When was it OK for an establish scientist to write such popularization's on a public level (OK, guess as a belief or need it is what sells and who controls the distribution even if it only gives enough superficial knowledge to satisfy those who swear by the effort to restate or even misinterpret a slogan- our culture is a victim of this secondhand smoke screen.  Anyway it was Fred Hoyle, and Asimov, Wells, Gamow and the like that made science fiction something the established physicists could do with respect...  And sci fi has taught more science to the masses than these children's light reading books as if facts.  But I must say,  Lubos, your last post was quite a cosmic speculation of almost Biblical Cosmology in quality and it is too little and too late,,, you like to bet but in the strict string like terms and model of so called eras of the universe (perhaps God had several Eves in his prototypes or perhaps those odd preachers are right  about ancient times when the aliens seeded us monkeys with better DNA.)  That God is dead and even Darwin cannot save him...exponential dark matter expansion like the old ultraviolet death and quelling of things to entropy... not sensed and pure Nonsense! Not a bad spook story to explain lightening or keep the tribe, wives, and children in line.

* * * *
This interesting article linked from Bruce Duensing...  This should ring bells as it did with Bruce...early on I too, with some extraordinary experiences (hey professors at Duke studied it, I did not know better) anyway this makes a lot of sense and hard to criticize having concluded similar things early on myself, but regarding it as science...you see, the memory is after all something of our structured vacua- much like todays cosmic speculations as theoretical physics beyond quantum ideas... and yes the teleology and measure ideas.
I found on google+ a link from Baez on number theory... and did some interesting things from those more standard formulas, I do not think my comment got posted which suggested many things among them the need for working base four... this is still a work in progress and is about random numbers and so on...
* * *
Sept. 13th

fb comment to James on spcf

James, color is qualitatively on a higher abstraction of thought and physicality that some vague philosophic term such as qualia.  This is true in how it relates to what we mean by pure information. In any case such terms in the language where they are philosophy terms seem to change as to what the fixed forms contain as meaning.  The founder of the forum called my idea on this "whacked".  I am not sure scientists make good philosophers nor philosophers without a depth of vision and abstraction good scientists.  Clearly the fundamental terms now debated with science at the driving frontier (how even the other animals actually see or we orient dimensions- that was the whacky idea- is now very abstract yet the mainstream as we explore new areas and experimental evidence and observation of fundamental cosmology models and particle physics.

fb question to Sabine by msg.

Sabine, I encountered a property of numbers (integers) that has me ask myself a question which I thought you could better answer. It is either very trivial or leans toward the LQG stance.  I understand the quantum in this but just how does the loop idea enter the model? What is the Looping mean?

* * * *



Saturday, September 7, 2013

Bosonic Counting Art and Dark Stars as the Subconscious of Century Old Relativity




Bosonic Counting Art and Dark Stars as
the Subconscious of Century Old Relativity

L. Edgar Otto      September 7, 2013

I get the impression Lubos (in his critique of Sabine and others in his last blogspot posting) presents a contradictory and narrow view a little confused when considered in totality.  If it is important to keep the social ideas away from the scientific ideas (not to mention the subconscious or hidden symmetries that should deal with alternative versions of flatland even the string models cannot make sense of in the extremes) one cannot prove this interpretation of Einstein by Freudian primitive models.  In particular the wider vision and issues of which these first models suggest and the authors suspected as not carved in stone where it concerns the logic or postulates and problems there when we combine general uniform laws and ideas of what ghosts are involved in differentiation such as where acceleration kicks in... surely this raises the concept of dark energy, matter etc... issues as well a the nature of spinning objects rather than their shrinking and so on.

Surely, a pure science and not vague but necessary speculation, string theory including the way it treats higher manifolds and dimensions itself is analogous to a special relativity where beyond the looking glass we could take the hint it deeply needs a better generalization.

But I was only going to give an artful example of counting by the stars in the vexillogic (minimal art of flags and how an artist is constrained in his conceptual improvisation by intelligible arithmetic and geometry.

* * * *




Here a sampling to consider the arithmetic totals of possibilities in the count.
When we consider pentominos squared we can distinguish deeper inverse or mirror symmetries that make the grid and the bounded space as if a general material self fine tuning content of natural phenomena, thus 48 three fourspace structures.  Note the diagonals, flat, read 13 or vertical and horizontal 14 for a general depth of  field of structural space of 27 cohered objects 3D and so on...
* * *



posting on Pitkanen's TGD diary blogspot today:  Cannot post as I cannot open recaptcha image...

Recall the elements of 76  Bicentinium  126 or so proved to be a false conclusion.  The hype was in all the news and journals. (I mentioned on the radio I could not believe this... maybe if I held it in my hand.) The retractions were put in the back pages.  Turns out the tracks were just echos in the mica.

Still, your instinct to try to find a sensor of some sort is right on and I have suggested from the beginning some better physical methods.

But if you mean organic you mean also the sensitivity of our brains or consciousness on a different level of physics...  This of course raises the eyebrows of the established regime with some justification for caution... Tesla, Eddington, often totally ignored or with some physicists of established successes their mystical laps overlooked and not mentioned.

Lubos mentions Einstein had sound exposure to electronics and Maxwell's theories were complete (I keep thinking he reads our blogs even without a dialog).  But those in the know see lack of explanations in Maxwell's symmetries (holes and electrons and the direction of current flow, or the speed of flow in a medium, eddy currents, monopoles and so on...) I find it interesting that our humble correspondent talks about wormholes in planes and mouths and black holes like anyone who imagines a higher physics or claims some sort of string theory should eventually conclude.  A true theory does not exist unless he and his the discoverer apparently, so if he does not believe something deeper or more general concretely I quite imagine such organic holes are shielded from registering in his mind and vision.  Where does the information go into the internet- lost or mangled? Your bright galaxy of ideas puts forth much more than the core of such galaxies was expected...in a sense whole and not lost.

* * *

Sunday Morning (early)...thanks to a link by Stephen on viXra. org blog and from the beginning a century ago by the theoreticians... I feel assured the quasic view and some of its intuitive principles are grounded also in hard arithmetic... so I offer a first blush illustration suggestive of the n-adic and fractal like functions described in that link...  Of course the initial values in quasic ordering in this picture needs better clarity as to the apparent differences from a pattern of a balanced matrice sum... so ordering may be seen in new ways.  But the critical thing is the one half, that is from a quasic view half of the indeffinite infinity in two powers.  The general idea is we square such functions for a plane or brane space ?(x)^n or ^2N which asks an informational question as far as what is conserved over some region - let us be assured the half real value applies as in the Riemann hypothesis depending on how we see or notate complex number systems... the power of -1^n indicates oscillation in general with unclear beginnings and endings in the quantum like wildcard of 0's or 1's over some deeper and more general idea of absolute values.  No wonder the idea of fractions in the number line came rather late compared to their place in the hierarchy of numbers.

In Eddington's Quantum Relativity of 1929 in the Fundamental Theory the monomarks or Euclidean address coordinates correspond to the idea of mass or gravity and mirrors in four space.  2^136 is a factor in the constant or finite on the average number of electrons or protons at this quasic state of the universe.  The 16 or 32 fractions represent 4 and 5D aspects with half values in the quasic order of 16, 64, 256....objects.


* * * *
comment to Sabine on Pinker later this morning on facebook as linked to her fine essay:

Sabine, nice article... I noticed you mentioned Pinker before, a popular writer of course- but I find some of his insights ahead of current physics as more fundamental.  That we can orient things visually (with due regard to some evolutionary reason) in three space (I think in more dimensions) or that in the periphery of vision the boundaries are unclear and indefinite such as reminds me of the raw idea of horizons an black hole questions.  Well, do we go back to some blank slate, do we debate if there is a limit and boundary to whatever the mind is?  Where does the soft and hard science begin... in its history or trends of prediction?  In a sense some of the soft is central and the hard outside...  We might represent a model digitally like the recent one that seems to map the WMAP data or we might not, you cautiously understand...but beyond soft neurology and psychology such models may be but one of a wide set of cases.

Also:

Dante, thanks as it makes clearer the point I was trying to make... in the model of the WMAP we can imagine (quantum theory according to Penrose can be describes just a well by consciousness as the hard math of it)... that from the core to the cortex this model may match the pattern of our brains and how we store things as if the universe is like or less than one big human brain... once past this we have to ask- and there is some variation in dreaming, memory, truths and lies top down or bottom up, is one brain the only one possible and uniquely special- the old problem of whole and parts again, and hidden psychology.

* * * *

TGD comments  September 10, 2013 :


Matti,
this is a most excellent post and clears up where we differ from each other and the various complicated models in development and discovery.

I have asked you questions that you may not find necessary from your position, and this shows why. I for example began with some sort of lattice idea which (also as information, two bit at least, is more fundamental than our limiting quantum terminology and notation to which you remedy in the assumption of positive power dimension being the ground linear like level in its simplicity.

Essentially we point to the same directions where things meet. What is a quarter value of Planck's if not the minimum lattice that the forth power (set negative) is the general measure of (organic) metabolism?

From one view, we can dispense with the Higgs field itself as an assumption as well a different view may dispense with the dark phenomena assumption. You seem to see the GUT idea as also not fundamental from a scaleless view.

What then does that leave in this approach (fractal like) or absolute (binary and check bits (holograph like) but some still primary (nature privileging them via p-adics) but the elusive meaning or properties of uniqueness as prime numbers? My first thought is that among the symmetry ideas that we ask how they are broken this may be the question of the arithmetic and extended conformal way we factor composite numbers.

Binary cut offs may be dimensionless and open in influence, certainly dynamic, yet an absolute level of substance - not the evolution program as the most general state as approximation or any such statistical methods as the only available and logical way to access the nature of physics.

I added some illustrations that held what seemed disordered patterns that became more relevant simple numbers (fractions and the first few powers of primes and the all important even number exception, 2.

I know all this can be put into the standard number theory formuli but hands on counting and not reducting (or when it feels like generalizing) will not lose the context of information, nor hide it
from view - certainly in how we connect to the consciousness aspects of all this, the nuts and bolts of it.

As it stands to todays physics the minus one is at work here just as with Eddington his intelligible but finite system was derided as the old plus one when he said 137 and not 136 on that approximation of his vision of quantum relativity.

While pure TGD applies in its concepts in the new physics and does so outside other explanations in the physics is not necessarily the only model for such new systems - at least for now as the ideas may meet or be proven not able to do so.

With quasics also we need super-spinor concepts, but even then these as well as chirality may not be foundational or deep enough so as to relate all particles to the muon generation. If my universe is quasifinite and explicitly so then there is not problem with a view that in the non necessity logic it can be quasi-metastable.

I am in a sense derived from Fermat and you from Mersenne (things we rediscoved if not originated beyond them. They were correspondents and most likely part of the general wisdom of that age just as we have so many independent new theoreticians here.

*  *  *


An abstract space alternative to the dynamics of gauge and compaction theory where the geometric is related like numbers to the nature of physicality:


 * * * * PeSla

facebook status sept. 10th comment:

Such a model would go a long way toward generations force or mass differences as measured (and even beyond that too) as we refine the dimensional levels of ghost particles and analogs to photons such as gravity.  Thus dark matter ideas like the graviton idea are temporary models that will be simplified by more comprehensive solutions.  The "fat gravon" idea just misses the total picture as with ideas of other mass and energy breaking symmetry standard particles of which this sort of cellular structure can be interpreted as fitting many such phenomena.  By calypton I mean hidden (or half hidden) matching of four of nine color pattern cube faces (based on the Hessian polytope)... but these are part of the interacting surrounding of other virtual dark polytope sets.  A fat gravon seems to be restrained in the information leak like now realized for black holes that do not consume everything around them by simple physics momenta models.

Of course this quasic model , regardless of the number of dyads or monobranes has been around for years in the form of my 4D chessgame...  Biological applications (such as energy from an algae cell) are not far behind as a concrete science.

Friday, September 6, 2013

Quasifinite Cosmic and Other String-like Objects



Quasifinite Cosmic and Other String-like Objects

L. Edgar Otto     06 September, 2013

I.

The discrete flow of point in a frozen plane that cannot be observed between continuous spaces, but can be assumed as animation influences of hidden symmetries, sets the possibility of drawing from a higher space on this canvass of quasifinite shapes by binary powers of absolute values that sum to unity as flatland harmonics corresponding to the description of complex number spaces of indefinite quasifinite scales and extent but not necessarily one interpretation of what is the real, or imaginary (or negative) axial labels of  distance.

II.

A discrete point assumed to have a binary value of 1 or 0 as in the trivial case of quantum computation is ambiguous or a combination in this discrete flow or particles or currents that is the ground brane for higher dimensional phenomena where 1 or 0 are *, or a wild card that also can lay the grounding for dark complimentary mirroring with local diversity over an indefinite extent.

III.

Between these 6x6 doubled dimensional manifolds the potential for the persistence of quanta exists outside the absolute definition of time up to the given natural three or four space.  This persistence also allows for the coming in and out of existences of quantum objects as well the net asymmetry of time direction that material objects resonate, may decay where they have sub-parts and paths, or within a context of some generational extent level and energetic regions of the quasifinite universe reach predictable points of random spontaneous creation or disturbances in the quasicontinuum.

* * *


I made this comment today thru facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/PHMATH?hc_location=stream

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/9280/20130905/new-compound-reverses-down-syndrome-mice-implications-future-research.htm

This is interesting consider the link with Alzheimer's on chromosome 21 where 50% of those with downs syndrome develop the plaques earlier.  This needs the insights of new physics beyond the standard model in that just as twins may develop differently the doubled chromosomes and which are dominate in the symmetric developmental paths is evidence of such higher physics hidden yet influential.

* * * * 

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Informal Journal of Quasic Physics




Informal Journal of Quasic Physics

L. Edgar Otto  September 5, 2013

What is the point of trying to explain things that so very fundamentally even the educated so called experts have not evolved to understand... Some have not even evolved to improvisation competence in their expertise that is in a cloak of ever growing  not even crackpottery (although from this vision for those of you who are now or will be capable of seeing it) "our humble servant" to use Putin's term, Lubos, is transcending beyond his worship of his own race that seems to have inherited the living philosophy of the Third Reich and the stealth playing all sides to hedge bets of civil wars in the flesh and in the market place of ideas.

I expected that educated people could at least see things better at the foundations- how naive, guess there are lesser functionally and intelligent people in the world.  Those who want to control your psyche and soul or those who say there is not soul (to lift a line from the movie about Kite flying in Afghanistan.) OK, maybe everyone thinks we are to be one sort of face in the nameless crowd to worship the dictators right or left, or maybe we are just a bundle of nerves (notice the four dots of the Neurology lecture in Madison neatly forms a swastika... to treat this a science such that in a lecture there we can by brain scans try to distinguish that subtle difference of how the brain looks when is lies or is telling the truth (or what it thinks is the truth, or what it things dear Lubos is a way to tell by some sort of  Freudian psychology how good a physics is by what one believes on some level who btw do not just parrot the party line of the day.  This is how you know them preaches this secular rabbi of physics who cannot see or resents the Arabs are successful like Jews on steroids.  What good is trying to find truth by water boarding when some souls as ancient as Egypt wants to worship the sun as the one and only god, an idea by the Pharaoh who moved further south into the desert to relieve his water on the brain?

Of course, the undergraduates are but pathetic college football players to the drama on this level of concern.  It needs not be written in stone that where there is no vision the people perish, as well where there is no parish the people find vision... All you quantum tomcat physicists don't know what they are doing when they try to upstage the leaders of the past - all men, I mean which of you so many in the great books are men and so many of them Jewish... That leaves all the ladies really with less chance of pay and tenure while you promote them as crazy quantum cat ladies...

Anyway, I have had enough of the virtual world, its unreal money, its wars, its greed, and so on...so I will totally be off the internet awhile including the god awful smart phones made too complicated for us to master the technology before it breaks down or the meaning makes so many obsolete.  Transconsciousness (structural truth and fact, dynamics of memory and so on...) is more than our petty models of our mind and what such media may or may not do or allow in the development of our young.  Sort out your own lies then...maybe you can learn something from your own neuronetworks... maybe you can be happy in a world where our technologies only work so well if we design them with a little lesser physics and a few safety factors as if we did not know observation changes things.

One last tech thing--- yes I saw the article Leo, not think about it, if there is no one great ylem or hole as such how do the galaxies themselves find a center of the universe to so align?  It is perhaps a contradiction to which our ideas of multiverse, raspberry or ultranscontinuum part company or goes off into each its own necessary directions...  But I did understand what you see in the main...as well a few others while they are still evolving in their visions... this sort of science and speculation goes way above those who have no experienced such acts of creation, and it seems to be evolving just in time our social world is again at the risk of crumbling.

* * * * *