Dimensions and the Omnium

Professor Rowlands,

In the past I have talked to some people and found the ones willing to talk with me even if not a student had a better take on the world in general. I interviewed by phone some writers of popularizations of science. The exception was Heinz Pagels who died before our talk when his Cosmic Code came out (I use that term but your co-authors term Natural code is a nice one also.) Pagel's wrote in his previous book that quantum physicists were drawn to mountain tops and he wrote of a dream of his falling off a mountain.

Your introduction states the purpose of trying to make sense of physics as a more basic theory and on deeper reading I see where things like the stacking of icosahedral elements in DNA with the ten faced deltahedron you address. In my illustration where posted your email replies I included the work of Dan Winter and all his disputed claims of some rather new agey discoveries (when he come thru town a couple of decades ago I was the one who told him of the significance of phi in four space as he was having a debate with www.meru.org over the alphabet code origins) So in the internet the way was wide open for such Sacred Geometry speculations as I talked with both men. Of course it is easier to see the speculations as opposed to a firmer science view with those who try to say see mystical things in the fourth dimension. Yet something more for me as if a simpler theory was not as difficult as I thought, nor that I was as isolated as I thought, nor that in surface popular reading the giants of old had not thought about such things in depth- indeed your mention of Newton considering descrite gravitons I found utterly amazing.

Some of the things in your book do hauntingly sound at least superficially new age but the relegated to a blog I felt free to say whatever I wanted the way I write it- I apologize for the lack of clarity of languge but some words are rather finite and idiomatic. But in considering some of your positions in wee hours of the morning the power of them is not only to have me question some of my visions but opens new ideas to contemplate. I almost wish I never tried to bring my thoughts in line with the existing terminology for it feels like my overview as far as it goes is a prefectly satisfying unified theory and one perused even after when the majority of scientists thought perhaps this a will-o-whisp of a dream even for old Einstein.

Your have a lot of clear words among the formulas that addresses the issues of our time including perhaps a goal also for a making sense of evolving systems. In some ways I feel there are still things mystical and magical in dimensions which if we think about them it will lead to a more concrete understanding as science. A better generalization than say Coxeter of his geometry as group theory. As far as the truly mystical that for me is another issue on the back of my mind as creative philosophy for now. But I do not want to make assertions about things I really am not sure about if we can be sure about them in the first place.

Now, the DNA, way back I sort of envisioned a sort of rolling icosahedron based on the 20 as Gammow suggested for the code (indeed some of his ideas on it can be seen I believe as a way to view it with a little mathematical rearrangements). In particular where we try to build up tetrahedra it is also an unclear idea that if we go a little deeper it becomes crystal clear. GGG UUU AAA TTT does indeed from my space (quasic) appear as a tetrahedron but it is part of a rather more complicated projective structure. As far as the binary codes go my simple quasic grid makes for very easy educational and visual translation between the various bases, It took a long time to realize that this way of looking at space had any significant use and meaning to me.

I notice in the properties of the amino acids the use of Carrol's four Venn like diagram of sortises for the overall general sixteen. All these mathematical models are steps along the way and I admit trying before and coming close to some patterns of these properties that I was hampered by lack of deeper training in the universal language of organic chemistry. But again it is a matter of logic by the usual rules and the reduction of them in terms of more modern valid syllogisms, By that we deduce the 24 only one of them does not obey the rules but is certainly there to complete the pattern of validity.

I did notice a sort of increase in mass between ggg and ccc, gly and cys, and a lot more even if like the electron configuration of atoms it varies from a perfect pattern. Now in the grid we in two space have n dimensional representations and in a sense it makes a game of even two dimensional chess moves that have a wider scope than say checkers when we shift thru the dimensions. A point to consider is some codon combinations are in a sense connected in theory to four space in the frequency of their occurrence (and yes the issues as you call duality as a general principle certainly apply).

I am willing to find again how I worked an example of the quasic grid to DNA if you or your co-authors are interested. Again there is a lot of new age speculation and I had never known of a prescient for this idea until I came across a passage in Hesse s book the Glass Bead Game.

As I suspect and you probably could analyze I am more from Klein's finite group approach then Lie. I studied on my own group theory up to say 500 yrs ago and got some vague thoughts on the primes involving squares something like Gauss but could not at that time quite pin down the vision. I also feel that perhaps there are still realms of reality where somehow the zeta zeros do not hold- perhaps a wider multiverse of sorts but remote from this one and certainly a first blush falling of the conservation of energy law.

One problem bothering me (and I philosophically disagree that some higher systems would not be useful- say the quintics as Riemann thought not so, or the octonians and so on) but a few more steps would be so- granted you made the Euclidean and three space a little more real and down to earth to me (I suspect there are at least a triplication of them we only see a third of in the sense of a natural dimension). I also suspect that we can encode the quasic plane into alpha and beta linear elements with the same information and as a finite positive system algebra as the 2 space but the results if we were to so encode it is quasized itself which in a new way in four arrows expresses expanding and contracting intrinsic levels of linear space. It is always a problem to just consider these things (like causality in Einstein as you said) by merely adding them on successively in a rather Hume like manner.

I like the idea of an element map with neutronium because I feel there was a whole other era of element formation- of course the first stars. But for me for a long time something like Bicentinum around Z=126 was not possible in a three space- there are only 120 elements which brings us to the 240 of the eight dimensional spheres of which well there is a center one they surround.

Conways analysis of the Soma cube was enlightening although I tried to figure it out from inversions not the surface. I called him once at Princeton and he was very sociable and he invited me to visit if around. He has three solutions to the coloring of a dodecahedron of which I reduced to one and he honored me saying it was very elegant. As far as his matrix (the coloring of six sides differently of cubes) it is in the heart of the space grid of 256 quasically but that I also try to do by inversion, so too its application to the DNA.

Coxeter pointed out to me while he could see in eight dimensions (so to speak) that Conway could handle 24. Surely his stacked polytopes are more advanced than the metatron cube.

I hope some of this is intelligible to you. I will post the charts again when I can find them, what efforts I did in the philosophychatforum were put into odds and ends out of order and I have not been able to access all of them. Oh, I did find your discussion on dark matter and the Casmir views most interesting. I also wonder if in the dimensionality from making candles actually of the independent chips or points, to lines, to planes to volumes and so on that aleph0 and aleph1 is related to the continuum hypothesis question when it comes to the continuum and point like properties of physics.

I have been amazed when people in universities do not understand what I say save maybe the young string theorist once- it is as if some ideas like procedures in linear algebra are what they see that clouds their views. I find it an odd thing that in the putting the ideas out there they may as well not be- not like a song someone uses but does not credit. I am also amazed at myself and development as any average human taking time to think about such abstract things- we all have roles and interesting stories. And as for you a lifework and lifetime of dedicated enquiry.

L. Edgar Otto (ThePeSla) Eau Claire, Wisconsin


Note: fast typing and many spelling errors in original letter, sorry.

* * *

Added as a separate email for thoughts for the sake of completion and upon some further reading- interestingly this is a book series on Knots which do seem to cover the idea of Moebious structures and 3-D as the only dimension to make linear knots.

While I was typing this I forgot to include a mental observation where I say I vaguely in number theory thought of a solution similar to Gauss for prime patterns but that direction may be where it lead. I recall someone saying that if we have to make several yes or no choices as to the value of a theory, say ten, the chances it is perfectly right would be one in a thousand. In a sense we intuitively choose among things, rather beyond simple induction and deductive thinking, we have what can seem an extrasensory knack for picking say a hit song on the radio- and yes to stand up against even the praise of the media if one feels it wrong as in the case of Bicentinuum (which proved to be a shadow in mica and retracted not on the front pages but in small articles in the back pages.

I was amazed that one could calculate the observed mass of lambda zero particle in Rowlands book and how it was done and the limitations in doing it for other particles. BTW as I understand it the DNA code is read fractally and can be read both ways and over a distance mutually in concert- I note that in the new scientist article on the parallelism of the neurons I talked about while in Chicago was mentioned on the sciencechatforum with the obvious glee of how it call can be explained by materialism which as I said I simply think unclear and dishonest- yet new scientist did give alternate views (that is we could see them as contradictory views) On the other hand in things like schizophrenia and therapy early on for autism one can get the idea that the view of the world by such victims are in a sense not the complete picture of how our minds might work- that perhaps beyond a certain point there is no direct and meaningful cure. In this sense my blog is more haunted by these psychological issues than the biology as the frontier of my interest.

I find it interesting that the looping idea of a string can describe what some think is the underlying gravity for if we have an evolving world then it may start by a period of expanding trees that fill all of actual and conceptual space at ever increasing speed only then to loop and make rings that rain down as if snowflakes from the clouds for the next level or cycle of structures.

Again, I find in the back of the book on predictions and predictability the idea of a fractal like reading of things as 4 fold or base within 4 fold and so on which is exactly the manageable base K L M N I use in quasics based on what Fermat called one of the most recondite mysteries of number theory, although finite even with the regress or recursion (usefully infinite if not elegant in proofs). Specifically G U A T is mapped into 00 01 10 11 although in entanglement it needs 8 not just 4 bits of information to access all the numbers from zero to infinity.