QUASIC LENSING

Toward a Journal of Quasic Physics: Speculation 06.18.09



QUASIC LENSING L. Otto

It will become clear enough how we get from the quantum and relativistic physics to classical physics. The next question becomes how we get from quasics to those physics. In particular how we can salvage the geometrical relativistic views as concrete physical phenomena and not just an artifact of some sort of illusion of perception. Such an idea of possibilities for any more general concepts cannot be a decisive gauge if these abstract systems so as to exclude the other abstract systems in a vague encounter of relativism.

A lens, including ideas of polarity and diffraction indexes, can have a wider "depth of field over causal intervals" than simply with linear or complex number space mathematical laws on some uniform deterministic ground. Can a falsifiable theory effectively falsify another falsifiable theory? Can an abstract geometrical theory present a possibility of experiments falsifiable and testable on a more general abstract and purely geometrical level?

We know for example, that "gravitational lensing" exists. It does so relativistically, but can it be but a narrow case of a wider geometrical picture? We modify the inverse square law and generalize the Pythagorean theorem for the concepts of force, quantum photon number thresholds also as a matter of probabilities. But what of a more general inverse law of binary powers? Can the quasic grid physically constructed on a classical viewpoint , much like the ideas of a Fresnel and flat lens, a plane notation of slit experiments as if in a trivial seeming matrix act as a lense?

Moreover, the sub-regions or quasic state levels of the grid come into focus at different distances (as if along a time direction) of depth of field from vague clouds of interferences. So to we observced the lifespacn and the shell structures in the evolution of the structures of stars.

When we consider these abstract structures, say in three space, it is clear they have physical application too in the realm of cells and biochemistry. For one thing given a certain order and encoding a projective plane quasic alternative ordering is possible wherein what three space is contained in another three space toward some center (a 4D cube within a cube) acts as if a linear partical in an axial direction- yet in another order it acts perpendicular to that radially and with what appears to be jumping motions. There is evidence of longitutional motion in quantum reality. This explains on this (absolutely fundamental level, not as the co-discover of the tau(on) in the book I am holding in my default photo here as if fundamental is defined as a level of our non-falsifiable and thus useless ideas of metaphysics to a deeper level, say preons. I see this clash of opinnions with his hope to support the standard theory as no different that the idea of conscious particles in structrue like that of "galatomic's" ecotoms or my iotas which compose also the electron from an intuitive guess I made in '68.

What is the state of explanation for how the flagellum of bacteria move? What is the mechanism and why from a left view the path is random or the right view the path is directly toward the nutrients? In this quasic view embedded in space we derive this assymetric and natural difference which applies to a greater sense of polarity possible in the simple photon. In this sense the light can be "corpen" as if ships signalled to move and cohere together or they can seem rather random expanding perhaps from some center with considerations of energy and quantization at certain depth of field thresholds.