http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-meta-law-to-rule-them-all-physicists-devise-a-theory-of-everything/
L. Edgar Otto Still, it seems too much a coincidence that from the beginning to the end of my long intellectual life where most everyone comes closer to my QUASIC theory in concrete and trivial detail that this can be the truth.
The idea of an absolute nothingness, a zero point can cover a lot of space, globally. But if the Null is a part of every set then is Null a subset of itself? Must there be a compromise as an averaging along the lines of Dirac's nilpotent algebra? Sure, the matter exceeds antimatter on the average where it comes into and out of virtual existence, quantum-like and over directions of time. But what is to say it does not work both ways. The Platonic idea seems the mainstream physics of our time but does that mean it cannot find unity on any scale with Aristotle's concepts? A is A or A is not A in science and sanity? But I agree that in a more unified sense we can find a universal reference frame for the polyhedral density (n things take r at a time) is a pretty good description of what we mean by matter density. This can be mirrored much more deeply and in a sense intimate with concrete or implied ideas of implication as if superimposition or that as disjoint. You have an interesting stance in your variety of skepticism. Our bilateral symmetry is already such a reference frame. I saw on the bus this morning 20 kids self drawings of which about 2/3 rds of them drew the nose like a number 2, some more like a Y for crescents around both eyes and some the barest hint of a small integral s curve. Physics in the expression of parity is whatever it is... but it seems that both for the child and adult this issue is a struggle to come to a higher understanding of such fundamental things for a unity of what we are individually and socially. A and A or A and not A can be both in a sense at the same time (the excluded middle or axiom of existence can be suspect.) parameters in this deeper maturity of transcending local philosophy and culture is not the most fundamental thing to consider here.
And sometimes the technology catches up with the theory. But here is a case where in either test or theory these gurus have "detected" or discovered at some zero point the idea of a crystal QM cat whiisker detector and told us so as inventors, Charlie. They went further making the equivalent of an isolated transistor of test and ideas which not requiring time fixed nor quantized is essential to such circuits which no human would build this way but a self designing computer chip can albeit a little long winded on the almost certain way to find it by such implied scales of time reversal at the boundaries. The depth of "quasized" distance is at once zero and one, that is, on this level of abstraction a crystal ball or an hyperboloid filled with liquid or is solid glass will focus or condense parallel rays of light. But even with Lorentz xy circular invariant we cannot really do this with a cylinder in the infinite steps of spherical 3D invariant. As in the quasi neutral case of some perpetually moving quantum particles. Pentaquarks, anyone? And some trivially obvious ideas in principle do not appear to be testable in this way either.
Comment on Sabine Hossenfelder 's Backreaction blogspot:
A most interesting and clearly written responsible reply. This bundle of neurons that as if on dimensionless scales feels strongly at some point we are not free to have many different interpretations as we access our dreams or pass them directly to the waken world. We all make up stories but they are not necessarily lies. Is there a deeper mechanism that may ground such a more complicated mental landscape? I have a conceptual formula for it, but as highly trivial it remains symbolic. A hint there is a universal code I call iota iodine for communication or a better resolution of source and search code for this wonderful intelligible question.
Jes, I will read this when I can see it on a bigger than business sizes screen. Gauss started so much in math and.modern physics (gave Riemann some choices for his theses.) Your comment said in a few words something I was not aware I knew. "circular motion and linear motion unified this way but not enough space on the way to find it". So after all this time it is still unresolved that physics as this simple stance describing primitive motion. Beyond issues of curvature and surfaces rich developments does not seem enough. So, let us say in a surface- essentially n-dimensional it has depth and span over an open or closed surface. There is further depth as if a whole new depth and span (some iimagine as not existing, (all motiion circular said the Greeks wh rejected infinity and had no symbol for nothingness. Some use the metaphor of something there or implied as dark stuff) There is still a finite universe in the running as part of the big picture you wondered about in a comment. I have long felt but could not quite make the final leap into what Gauss may have been seeing in the higher reaches of number theory. Can twistior theory be such a mirroring. I can see why that theory appeals to you as depth along the way. We should all review what Gauss had to say. It has been awhile for me and hard as just recreation to know yet not see how all those little squares of quadratic reciprocity came together. Hope you do not mind this long comment.
As well mechanisms of dimensional emergence and reasonable containment over time of intermediate cascading matrix confluences. I find it interesting that in many ways as in N's excellent posts here that progress in the material sciences are ahead of our theories.
* * *
Reply to Christrian Mapia on his QuantumGravity:
Looks like a lot of work put into your QMG with the usual equations, but you do see something in the symmetry of the 4x4 matrix. The logic of it tries to look at things from a higher view (not sure if double quantization is enough). Christian Mapia ... given the what if cases of the axioms the overall logic is sound although some what if cases are dismissed as an overview, the issues of proofs of things - What if the universe is assumed a combination of both big bang and ongoing creation in the same changes of passing from one probability state to another not assumed invariant or or not in the change? So there are philosophic questions here which adds what should seem to be a help to readers from the equations if they are familiar with them. The universe could intrinsically have this condition where at some paradoxical ultimate zero point regardless of time and its directions more fundamental laws than quantum or relativistic concepts allow the conclusion the universe not just local or in general obviously accelerates by alternative methods to what we try to resolve as paradox between the logic as tautology vs contradiction, a step deeper than just radical probability that seems only a surface description. So at this stage of our conversation I have to address your background assumptions as to the metaphysics, or better religion. Christ here as the idea of logos, the word... "The world framed by the Word of God... faith the substance of things hoped for that what is seen was made by that which does not appear." So as in the paradox of physics unification where Heaven, or God as the ultimate concern we have the usual idea of a materialist centered model and that of a Mysterious model, roughly the Protestant and Catholic approaches (of which Orthodoxy is a reasonable compromise where as classical logic at least all stances to the existence of God or not are tenable..) The chief problem here is that at some ultimate Logos, the idea of Chirst as the center of the logic is an exception to which all that follows as a center in time is the one concept that like the big bang outside of physical-material logic remains and not labored upon beyond faith a mysterious proposition. What then of Trinity (not mentioned in the scriptures)? of its possible correspondence to three space, or say quarks as triplicate? A logical compromise still in search of an ultimate unity? One or many gods or worlds? I do not see a calculation that shows your 33%. I would intuitively say more likely 38% and then only to the second "quantiized level". As for the website that allows sending of large files there are some warnings is it not safe to access - but then is anything in our present state of the internet? All this could be sent in a very small file anyway of a better idea of the unity of physics is closer to the ultimate case. I hope this helps you some for it will be interesting to see what you explore next.
No comments:
Post a Comment