I have only been in the coffee shop every other day but I have had a few thoughts, among them the idea of vertexes taken literally, topologically as the vertexes of the Feynman particle diagrams. But through the storms and my neighbor dancing in the eclipse like night of midday I managed to begin the classification of all my cube puzzles any of which would make interesting sets for playing. I also read more on Peter Rowlands method of foundational physics and continue to be impressed with his interpretations of the physical world and particles even though with my reading other places such as the net and from various institutions and people I regard physics of our time a a beautiful mess.
Up from the "so called" vibrations with the imaginary numbers we make the amplifier and so to imagine it as if a model of inflation, or better yet jitterbugging of the dark matter and related forces. Rowlands is right to apply the standard model to biological systems- but this is only the beginning to deeper models so applied.
We live subjectively on a higher level language of which we interpret and amplify the deeper truths of physicality (and even deeper assembly language of information) so what is true is perhaps a matter of social or political power only (as in a comment to Lubos of the reference frame blog today). My experience with those of turf and tenure for the most part has not been a pleasant one. I lobbied for the superconducting supercollider but wonder now what it really will achieve if it is not along with fermi lab strictly done without politics? The again no great projects like the pyramids were done without cost over runs- money is very abstract to me lately a sort of meaningless higher level language and in that sense is not a very scientific enterprise that makes the subjective experience of living and trying to do the work of science free of impediments for individual lives of enquirers. There is no measure really of the collective intelligence once it is political and a higher level language- for all practical purposes we are in the stone age still at the beck and call of crackpot priests and greedy overlords.
* * *
Comment to Lubos:
Lubos,
I think your analysis it right on. You look at the consistency at the foundations which as mathematics of the models or facts of vacua has always been an exploration by analyzing the inconsistency of models. Clearly, as Rowlands said, the fact of 1 + 1 = 2 brings the foundations down to deep and almost metaphysical questions of number theory.
Is there some model among the zillions that would suggest as a reality that the "as newscientist said was a rumor designed to make famous certain bloggers" that a gluino + b = b + Higgs ? I mean experimental evidence or proof aside is this idea intelligible in theory? Certainly the intrinsic chirality (my position from long ago) favoring matter over antimatter is a welcome result. But as Rowlands suggests the weak force does not recognize either the strong or the electric force. What does it mean then in your calculations the mass of such things if we share the same formalism on different physical scales?
I am here on the blogs by accident and not in academia- which on a higher level language seems more political than science as a method of sharing enquiry. Yours is a service to science.
ThePeSla
* * *
New Scientist today lists a thrilling link to this article:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4053v1.pdf
which ascribes the maintaining of the helix shape of DNA to quantum entanglement between the bases.
Of course more than once the sciencechat forum physicists and biologists chastised me and other for asserting any such quantum effects to organic processes especially the psychological ones.
In view of Rowlands et al trying to apply the standard theory to DNA and if we consider the bonds entangled in the way suggested in this article and in the alternative way in Rowlands of the tenfaced deltahedral stacking then this should send us all into true epiphany of what we are in design and further creative speculations.
Not to mention the idea of what entanglement is at the foundation of things (but I forget that work needs to be done on these levels- for me some of the more advanced relations in the topology apply also from the ideas of Coxeter - that is what is going on between the bases and the number and structure of the molecules themselves using these higher relationships.)
But if in a way the standard or some such model applies we should connect the dots for would not the predominance of matter and handedness apply to the biology as it is an analog of sorts for the standard theory? Where are our creative scientific epiphanies even if this work is to be but small steps doled out over the lifetime of a research scientist? Today's astronauts are tomorrow's underpaid city bus drivers! Apparently we can have bus drivers who bias the field praising their epiphanies as astronauts.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment