**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!

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.*

** * **

## No comments:

## Post a Comment