Quasicity = Chirality = Dimensionality

Quasicity = Chirality = Dimensionality
May 1, 2010

Last night when I did think about foundational physics I indulged in a little further recreational mathematics. I read more of Rowlands theory behind the Higgs mechanism and felt a little out of my league (as if I should ever forget that in the first place) but from what I see I do not like that beautiful theory and do not expect it to be a very fundamental truth of things, and yet when we measure the simple ideas of space as an origin of mass this does seem a better interpretation to me).

Quasi-singularity or "Solocal Lattices" was the title of my page which aimed to count the number of squares in the difference of squares or the same for the cubes and I found it all from a bassackwards approach. I in fact realized the beauty of some of the simple formulas of basic algebra and what they mean (did others miss this in algebra one- did they sense it like Einstein as a simpler fundamental theory?) Of course there is so much to explore given the work of others and if we only had a well presented course in such work in the physics we would get there faster to some clearer pictures.

I rather hope the standard theory is not the case in its grand unification- not that way- and if it is not then just as once thought of the string theorist that one can spend a career even if it is the only game in town down a dead end. I have known some professors who, although it is an important part of scientific enquiry, to become obselete such as in the bootstrap theory over night- personally it can be not a nice feeling- I have experienced it a few times early on but it lead to even greater areas of clarity and exploration.

Yet sometimes, casually, the more philosophical ideas rise up and I have to remember to put them down or they may get lost awhile- a poetry habit now really. We all are poets in that sense but the difference of being named one is the writing down.

Of course the illustration above is the barest outline of what can be explored for example the center of cubes of the higher powers (two volumes intersect as a point or three player games... trinx I called these) But the idea is that the general particle -after all c h and other fundamental constants Rowlands says has no meaning intrinsically outside the formalism in that they result from our units of measure. Long ago I imagined an electron (classical radius idea?) being composed of iotas or aleph-0 singularity points (a little more radical than the zero point field ideas) but these points were also like a string and like a field- the general term I coined was uroid (not my favorite word but akin ti Eddington's Uranoid which also seems to me the universe as iota particle or i as universe.

In a cultural or social sense it occurred to me that the Higgs being called the God particle was a fortunate metaphor- for it is how we see God that may determine if a culture is on the rise or on the decline intellectually and religiously. It seems the Christian view as if a trinity physics is just as much in a speculative mess these days.

A word about the illustration above in terms of the lattice points being iotas or as Eddington used the term as if a point particle "monomarks": We can imagine this also like a magic square (but let us finally dispense with the terms spinor and pseudo vectors and the like for better terms) for the round things like circles or spheres become lines and the lines become spheres just like in the projective space ideas and the complex plane ideas of Riemann) for each line and the two diagonals in the quasic plane maps to a sphere in the 4 cubed representation. And each row and column is such a sphere if we privilege some corner of the quasic space. The issue of information in a plane or projected back into volume and the issue of the holographic ideas where the numbers above are after all in a sort of assembly code, is a question like classification the soma cubes, of that happening in the space itself 4 cubed- not the same idea of information between quasic and cubic space of a higher dimension either way.

In the cosmos we observe as three dimensional the quasic lines or spheres in such ordering (and my guess as the numerical partial tone level proved out, partial for here 1 is the generator not zero in the calculations and counting) has a quasic structure nearly fractal like across the quason- this I offer in the sense of the chirality involved as a better way to understand galaxy evolution, or stellar evolution. Let us not forget the arrangement of nucleons in the elements undergoing building up in star furnaces and the limitations of their number say 5 or 8 in the geometry of it all.

Why else, given the alpha-n infinite nilpotency as a ground do we allow a difference of chirality to imply mass- why the exception save in evolving terms? If an electron of iotas can be represented as say an octagon and the models of such structures are not fundamental then can we say just how fundamental the electron is? In some ways it as a torus as and old model rings true- that only the beginning.

I see the sea of reflections to the nth dimension and wonder if after all some simple algebra could make some sort of analogs in higher dimension so say the icosahedron. While the idea of bonding force as quark confinement at the fine structures of the idea of nucleons (as if I could see the world last night as the nuclei of atoms in a sort of imagined twists of things like electromagnetism you do not feel directly but may think of as a separate substance to say gravity force.) In any case n-ply of Riemann as density, and of course under fusion the mass defect as say the contraction or expansion of space- the idea of gravity or black holes as acting differently in the envelop of star and vacuum structural parameters of change as if these were a classical gas- the idea of "impressions" or groups of things, of orthogons- say between 4 iotas is an impressionism of a square or area, in a sense the impressions are indeed as Rowlands points out philosophically or physically or not, a matter of discrete and continuous (thus quasi-continuous in my systems philosophy) moreover these are wave particle and dialectical dynamic dualities.

If we regard the stellations of the icosahedron as composed of edges and between some shell of edges there is a general impressionism of waves that ignores the other levels- we can show the sequence of all the stellations as if we light up an array of florescent lights only on each level- thus we would see the structures grow from a core to the whole again as that design- a beautiful project to construct. What then do might we mean by minimum quasication that would suggest some sort of quasi measure to time and space, and systems of matter in this world? Can we simply derive this from the difference, phi or not, of integer and irrational numbers- that is a more arithmetic rather than algebraic approach?