On Reading the 27 degrees of Freedom

On Reading the 27 degrees of Freedom in Peter Rowlands on particles in the standard theory and the notations involving them and Dirac.

Thus I send him a letter today with my thoughts on the matter. I imagined I was doing some sort of string theory and particle physics but I did not realize that this was as deep as we have gotten- mine from informal methods- nor that the similarity of symmetry elements does not necessarily mean they collapse into triviality if we see things globally and as Rowlands suggests there is the possibility of such global particles well beyond the idea of simply the Higgs. Maybe some beyond that of which my word quasics is still pretty good.

Which came first, the idea of the ground we walk on and relate and merge into and exchange things with and touch and store and so on... or some right or left hands of the Gods?

Hello again,

I wonder at the use of speed reading if even if one recalls it in their head it still takes time to read and ponder it. It takes awhile to learn the terrain and language also. And it is hard when things are so similar and remain the same or vastly change- either of which puts us in a world of surprise. This the source and field maybe, where they meet.

Last night I looked deeply into your discussion of the standard theory and found my color things very close to how the matrices were applied. The double quaternion algebra and its possible isomorphism with the E8 symmetries I feel right on (and I speculate there are even higher levels that go beyond the periodic table of the particles and strings.

Does the crazy person realize he is crazy? Does the genius know he is above the rest who somehow and sometimes look up and need him? But I take little stock in this question of our universal dimensionless human experience of intellect. Still, your analysis of Newton seems to suggest some cornerstone for genius. What surprisingly little genius I have reminds me of this analysis- that I am at home with the sort of thing Dirac does (I did not know just how close) and at the same time the sort of thing Eddington does, Both aspects of qualities of viewing the world apply on the higher levels and there should be at least an extension beyond standard and group ideas than what is now contemplated. I still long for a little more after these foundations are mastered.

Thank you for your book. It is clear to me a lot of professional physicists should be aware of your view before they utter words you spoke first in concept. I am sorry my eyes glazed over with the i j k notations (as I imagine my color codes go psychedelic to average eyes trying to live or deep eyes trying to make sense of things.

I will share your satisfaction of knowing where you were right as it slowly comes out in the science news still further even if it is written there in the vague hieroglyphics of our inadequate notions and symbol systems.

I had a doubt that chirality was the key to mass and the evolution of galaxies - that neither gravity nor mass is ultimately the creation and reason for being of the world- but I am not ready to address these points of metaphysics yet.

Oh, it was the further investigation of the ten faced deltahedron that led me to write you and touch base today- one that I constructed as a fourth grader and thought I discovered a new shape! I am not sure of my most recent ideas on these virtual particle thingies but If I continue along these lines I imagine I have to deal eventually with the complex space of such deltahedra.

Leonard Edgar Otto Eau Claire, WI

* * *

Krist J. Martin who worked with me on art and science on the philosophychatforum as Eyes_Only
After 29 hours without sleep and long rides back and fourth to Kansas, we still manage to catch up on our theories involving his "Regulus Space"

I saw him arrive this afternoon back in town while I was in the pavilion near Racy's thinking how much the view of subcells of some geometric structure if duplicated was like the way he sees and draws things in that space coming up with the right structures I know of even with a hard to see and I think original way to draw. Perhaps these ideas are not difficult ultimately more than ideas of geometry of which it takes a knack to become familiar and comfortable with. I was looking in the quiet afternoon thinking I might compose a poem but instead counted the ways the trionimo or first piece of the soma cube of the 27 thus three from that is the 24 of the other pieces in the sense of color along the lines where Rowlands suggests these colors may represent in the Dirac formulism those of the Higgs like particles and mechanism where the colors cancel in the background- there of course being 6 into the three. Oddly enough Krist thought about the 21 dimensions and I see that if we multiply by three to the Conway Matrix we have beautiful intelligible numbers that perhaps extend things into even more complex ideas of what are particles. Krist however is thinking a lot about the time and time travel aspects of such spaces which I imagine is more the gauge or more general relativistic viewpoint.

I find so many principles of the standard theory on a vague basis that seems to work on that level- for example the lesser (5) forms of string theory (Rowlands) and the addition of say an 11th or 12 dimensions because we need a higher space to see the string. Still, as in my span and depth, an almost holon idea (Wilber) as he definition of the Higgs, Rowlands is right on with the distinction ultimately of the terms field and source.

* * *