Deconstructing Physics

* * *


Deconstructing Physics L. Edgar Otto 11-10-10

Here I return for awhile into my childish or childlike eyes. A reality check which we should always allow in informal debates with reasonable time limits and constraints. Some say to make a cleaver point in the chat rooms- What are you smoking? Or that is New Age nonsense. Then there is synchronicity where I dream I needed a lava lamp to light up the window at night in the alleyway- that is if my neighbor looking out is drawn to my small patch of light, and of course I find one left behind by the dumpster by someone moving out.

So I wind up looking at that lamp and all the changes of its oil and water drops. The glass of it and the plastic of the blinds- what is invisible or not as the heat of the appliance bulb breaks thru. I am drawn hypnotically to the young kid who explored the sky and teeming life along the Tidewaters so curious about general science- I wonder also just how much I observed those of my generation and the gods before me personally and face to face- influenced by the old movies and television and current events, the expectations of teachers. I am aware of time in that I know the small lamp that runs the engine will not last forever, that turning it on or off as lo puts the system to sleep. I know that I am as if a hundred watt incandescent light bulb myself as I live, you do the calculations. The third eye, for whatever reasons far from the equator shrinks as the night grows longer and we seek sleep.

I have never claimed to be educated, nor think of myself as genius- I have met a few geniuses. I only have picked up bits of the calculus in casual study and have had a hard time trying to pick it up on my own. But with many things, like playing chess, there are levels of expertise, as we progress, usually by playing or even losing to better players, we find no end to the game that one can become better and look back at his previous incarnation perhaps embarrassed he could not see what was simple then. Yet, some have said that the language of nature is differentiations. What I have come to realize is that I disagree or mis-perceive the foundations of it at its core- that it is not powerful enough to describe the world as I see it or as I experienced science as a child. There is no magic once we see how it could be a better tool in that we seem to have different instars of growth of which some we hold as genius have insight for some issue said without needed proof- for they are outside our view of the subject, but not so hauntingly distant as to be unintelligible.

After all, it takes two equations to describe some things. How thin and absurdly flat over a long distance is our milky way. A disc where one would expect in a world that points anywhere it would be a ball- thus the limitation of of real things in space that corresponds to some radius toward a third dimension of height. Of the supposed higher dimensions than the simple point or line, we impose on them some center and teach the algebra by simple cases of the equations. What is the integration from one dimension or the differentiation to another, higher and lower, is fixed to some idea of a center, an origin, a big bang, a Creator or not against the nothingness we abhor in the logic of our minds.

Clearly, from my current view the idea of a function with such centered derivatives is not one to one only but a vague sea of many to one we now learn the ley and sea lanes are for. Why try to claim all the world can be placed at a center and from that the radius describes the circle at some distance into a quadratic surface? Does this begin to describe the shepherd moons and the braid of Saturn? I can make a circle with a strait edge only and measure form one point to an opposite point as if it were a diameter- but if one ever tried to do this, arts and crafts in grade school or a carpenter- you can check he measure for the diameter and what you have approximated is not likely a circle. It is the oil in the lava lamp that splits not so much a sphere but into a dumbbell shape like some mysterious asteroids and comets.
Of course to my eyes inside the imperfect cylinders the Tori fall and rise in the convection currents- no where else to go in the dark flow that surrounds the flatness of them.

* * *



This post follows all the erudite terminology that is rather a moment of clarity after a great binge of a thousand little bangs of epiphany.

Perhaps, since the recent postings concerned linguistics, what was said of some of us on the philosophy chat forum becomes less a matter of vague perceptions and a call to arms by those with established and expert views that we were promoting a post modern philosophy of science.

This is not my position other than in Leibniz's stance to accept and consider all inputs as the initial default enquiring system. Just as with post modernism as philosophy I feel we have to get beyond it, if it does not evolve on its own toward better world views. But some are not logical or stand on good physics to assume that any direction we go into some past of philosophy is retrograde, going backwards.

Even as I write this, especially with a view of the foundations of the sciences, without equations, its compass of terms becomes complex and long winded with strings of difficult though fixed order, metaphors, idiomatic style which is as universal as disguised in a private dialect or language. While steep the learning curve works near and about the fundamentals of physics 101 to start raw and anew- only more learned in retrospect, only in the Chi at the face of metaphysics can we move the discipline so as to secure the future in our present.

Although in the more serious chatrooms, some with desire to learn asked me to explain something as if I were talking to a child. I have often replied I felt it wrong to talk down to them for they were not in fact children. Certainly, especially out of context of historical development of mathematics, what seems hopelessly complex to one may seem simple and obvious to another. We sometimes over estimate the hieroglyphics of those who speak on the unknown. Here I write this post as if I were talking to myself as a child.

Rowland's suggests as a metaphysical principle that there is the muon and all that is not a muon a vacuum and this things begin to move. Now we are like small planets in the symmetry of Newton's laws- the sun accelerates us and we in a small way the sun- but can a small particle accelerate its left behind black hole?

* * *



The Illustration: Walking past a house today with some of these simple thoughts on my mind I saw the balls of old vines. They are on a pedestal guarding the gateway an more like a liquid I thought of the LHC colliding lead together and this is a sort of model of what is the result (perhaps a shadow of its result) for in a sense we are thinking again of the water drop model of fission-fusion. Much like the doctored experiment to measure the charge of an electron on an oil drop.

Of course we can see physics, even the Dark energy in terms of point charges (see Rowlands) or some sort of flow or field. It is not really a choice so much as a greater generalization for our matters of taste, our frame of reference of our spiritual cores and language, our attitude toward others and the world.

* * * *

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/11/sidney-coleman-quantum-mechanics-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29
Lubos today has an interesting critique, it shows his strong position on the general ideas of the quantum theory and here is a quote:
At the very end, Sidney paraphrases a wise comment by philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. People used to believe geocentrism. Wittgenstein asked why people usually considered such a history "natural". His friend told him that it was because it "looks like" the Sun is revolving around the Earth. Wittgenstein replied with this key point:

Obviously others are concerned with the bewitching aspects of language too (and not just our local centered perceptions "geocentric?" indeed) made into a wider sea of uncertainty of which the article says some questions like the qm cat alive or dead are not really good ones because the classical formulation is only an approximation to the underlying hidden symmetries. So in effect from a more general view along these at first blush contradictory lines there is no deeper ground than quantum flux and the virtual void therein. Newton and extended space of action at and beyond a distance is not to be considered a grounding for science if one understand the deeper general view of laws over all space, time, and dimensions.

Not that our quantum theory, or even the logical space for general relativity, are in themselves approximation of something greater for these have their intelligible place in the universe and each can be the whole compass of the perspective.

Let us not as post modern philosophers of science whether we realize it or not play the political or even religious game of what was past (so we cannot change the past in this quantum view says the article?) Monet's flowers psychoanalyzed as keitch in a blurry landscape? Art a once time performance and all things seek their own level to the world becoming a landfill and its parts humbled into dust again? How can science endure any longer without it catching up to philosophy? We reach back to claim the ideas of the past, claim existentialism or surrealism as the priesthood lineage and forerunner to the design of some present faith when those who founded such ideas would if they could point out it was no such thing for new faiths?

It was Zeus who commanded the lightning bolts if we had to choose one God to elevate above all others in theories of everything, not only the Aton, Jehova or other variations on the children of Abraham perhaps, Nor the three in one of the unity as one in the Quaternity of the godhead. Nor the ten forms of this quaternity as the tree of life in Jewish mysticism. How we treat the dimensions at heart a fire of fantasy divides us as surely as our religious notions. What sort of world is there a true fate to the threesome where there is common sense in non-locality that it makes no common sense and ground as hard science they do not interact when in grammar school there are photos of young Adolph sitting a few seats from Wittgenstein with the blond haired boys between them?

But how can we, knowing that there is a difference of total energy of a system that varies, all things being equal with the distance between stars and planets not so measure it?