The Unity of the New Physics

The Unity of the New Physics

I find it most interesting in the face of new data that we can debate and defend cherished positions of physics at some level of concern on fundamental questions. Many speculations on the frontier have remote merit, but in the sense of the unity in physics if this is an error of the "wrong" or "not even wrong" it seems to me in many cases of a more unified view of things the more scientifically minded among us have overshot the compass of their theories. A sort of dark super anti-speculation then.

I found this reply to Lubos post today most interesting, and Lubos did seem to coincidentally address several of my issues and I thank him for taking to task those who would bias the data. But after all we seem to be reading the same science news. I am not sure the metaphor of gay as to unseen dark matter applies but the varieties of gender in the fundamental particles, like the anti-neutral ones, is the stuff of off Broadway plays. In any case the Kaon violations in 64 were discussions I was lucky to see just after declassification of the Livermore papers in the Charlotte North Carolina library.

http://vixra.org/pdf/0907.0018v4.pdf

And the reply to Lubos was this:

by pbfred
"What if both MOND and the Dark Matter hypothesis are wrong? Just because MOND has some limitations, that does not mean that the Dark Matter idea is right. The major competitor to the Ptolemaic system before Galileo's discovery of the phases of Venus was Tycho Brahe's Tychonic system which clung to some of the tenets of the Ptolemaic systerm. Thus there is always the possibility that both the MOND and the Dark Matter idea are wrong. If both MOND and Dark Matter are wrong, then what we need instead is a new gravity theory built up from a sounder idea than mass. For 1500 years the followers of Aristotle (or the Peripatetics) believed in a theory based on the assumption that an unspecified property of the Earth was able to make all the objects in the Heavens rotate around it in a 24 hour period. Similarly, we have had for the 300 years this idea that mass possesses some mysterious power to attract mass or warp space. For those interested in a theory of gravity based on a reasonable foundation go to http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018 ."

Of course what we are looking for sometimes we find. The question, as in the idea of politics that decides the depth and span of how far a democracy makes laws to protect the minorities, is a matter of judgment. I find the possible viability of this theory (any theory has to be dealt with if it can be conceived- but the fact seems to be even with experimental evidence some theories are questioned.) There are many great speculations that manage to seem intelligible by some method and rarely do we question the why this is so- seeing everything as points, or as connections of electricity between the planets, and so on. Certainly the gas nebula data at least as an idea is something to deal with. In what sense the new physical ideas and forces can be material objects is also a more general question of philosophy especially about singularities. What I immediately see in this paper is that it explores things in the still unanswered questions of symmetry as it relates to thermodynamics (one of the still open questions mentioned in my string theorists friends thesis along with the possibility of the Exotic group E8 maybe the relevant representation.) These densities, looping or gravitational in itself or not, quantized or not, do describe a sort of innate density ideas of the vacuum which may be an analogy to heat for a fundamental particle or for that matter its return again as something happening a the surface of black holes. So, how do we dismiss or incorporate the notions of this paper? Gravity as a sort of topological and arithmetic symmetry breaking, octonians and so on and maybe 16 dimensional effects, seems to me the most likely explanation along with what restrictions fall out of the counting.
* * *
http://zone-reflex.blogspot.com/2011/02/atomic-periodic-table-of-shapes.html

Damn, Ulla I see your post today and it seems to show things along the same lines of my crude explorations last night- so maybe it will not be so long before I find something worthy to post again. Simply I considered dividing things along planes say of a cube which gives the square root of 2 x 1 in such a way that we can make 4 or 8 pieces and of course we can readily divide such a rectangle by two in the same proportion but what is perpendicular here is important as well a horizontal slice. I also explored using the factorial rotation and inversion numbers so as to map them on various orthogons then make them part of some interesting polynomials. In the future discussions here on the 24 cell (and what is it doing there with no analog in dimensions lesser and greater anyway?) exploring its group 1152 leads to interesting other numbers. I also thought more about the mapping of the dihedron to the cube surface and in the 24 of them in the hypercube as to what identity would be describe in the hypercube rotations, was this trivial or not? Would it imply still further multiplications of powers of 24 to pin down the orientations in some space? The 24 squares for all practical purposes as in an earlier illustration results on but one side of things thru inversion- but in 4 space they seem dihedrons so in a line of four of them we have 2^4 or 16 possibilities while in totality we have 2^24 for a notational like representation. Are these not new number properties as understood also? But as I say the theory is too informal to post explicitly.

I gave a little thought to my relation with counting. I recall, in the third grade, one long day and evening playing in the alley at grandma's that I decided to see how far I could count- a couple of hours or so I got to ten thousands, got a feel for the numbers, and then decided to count by ten thousands until I finally grew tried of the project. I am now wondering how it was I counted so well before school witch keeps the uncertainty of such smooth and natural addition in doubt to double check things or perhaps trust the calculator. In school, as I have posted, the apples and oranges concept of apply numbers were a whole different way to count. I do not think this universal ability of finding some whole as if watching the numbers go by as if on a gasoline meter was just a matter of reducing to counting by tens, nor of some sort of exotic base like 60 as said of some savants, nor of the reverse order of adding things. But I had this thought- in the depth and span of space which are intimate with the restrictions of number logic itself as well as operation axioms- that division is of course a form of subtraction where we can subtract down the number from the highest value- this is subtly different than the idea of multiplication as multiple addition that seems to have more room in the span.

Of course I was not aware of this as being something that could have been of interest or depth to write about- I mean, like the poets we are or deep thinkers we may be for most of the time these things occur in the background, some of us write them down and some do not, some recall them later as if in a dream- especially if we are engaged with the real business of life with boredom or leisure enough to think or read. Our process of counting likewise a natural flow of things of which the unity we find before the last melt down is in the comprehension and awareness to which theories fall out like snowflakes and rings in the accelerating background.

I looked up creative science and philosophy in the google images and found so many of my illustrations there- (as I said, I had nothing to post at all) and I found a beautiful lady in the middle of them, a PhD who has always loved science, a neurologist who is promoting the learning of science on her own science show. Let us praise those who do such work for our futures despite petty politics- and for God's sake and the kids let us reward them too.

http://www.kirstensanford.com/kirsten-sanford/

* * *

Art and Thoughts posted the next day:

(entanglements with local politics usually shut me down for awhile. That and minor flu's sometimes. I am also wondering what happens if I reach the limit of photos here.)

Counting seems to me a strange thing in the sense that we are to infer what something means. How often do we count in a group of people and forget to count ourselves? Or if we make mistakes considering there is no year zero or if we cannot find such an absolute notion then go on to see that the plane is not as simple as we thought it was- going on to develop the complex plane. Gibbs paper on the 24-cell was something I feel very much at home with, and with the statement there are some things we still do not know about. In a sense this where to begin in counting, if it makes makes a difference in the unity of the total picture, evidently has higher analogs when we consider more complicated space. At times I feel the intuitions on how space and numbers behave with certain restrictions- like Ramanujan's or the first levels of Fermat primes- may be there after all as a lucky accident or coincident of numbers- just how it is- and not just some departure point of counting. We do not yet fully understand enough explicitly to say. Even if this is the case we can used these restricted and contained models to calculate what is within their compass and more or less intelligible certainty. I do not think it is just a matter of projective planes, although with 6 and 2 we find such exceptions. Am I just taking the (zero) or ideal point at infinity and treating it as reached in some sense? Here we find the paradoxes and even breakdown of formulas as if the Omega point of those who count as if a computer method of mathematics and the almost mystical idea of some as if final infinity of Cantor, or Chardin in philosophy although the last I heard such an idea was a little obsolete as a thesis.

Let us also add to the last illustration the importance of 24 as validity when we reduce the syllogistic logic and note it incorporates information (and this certainly is part of the picture in consideration of all the qubits and other bits) the propositional p's and q's - certainly something we might expect applies to an intelligible physics as well as such more classical ideas of logic as the Venn like philosophical or modal logic. So the question again is what are the system of these abstract higher dimensions makes for a higher analogous logic of validity?

The ten base can be confusing when zero and five comes in soon in the calculation and continues into much larger numbers ( I regret and hope to remedy the language and use of the usual notation of things like n!(n-1)! and so on.) At what point do the triangular numbers pop in to make various higher freedoms in the calculation and is this a universally valid way to do things. 256 + 128 times ten is 3840 for example, and we have integers everywhere and at times the simple integer fractions arise. This counting even before we put them into extended algebraic equations or naively try to place them at the nodes of some graph.

I saw on the science mags today the idea that our reward center also is a form of addiction in the negative. That is, the thrill of survival is sought for the risk undertaken. I understand now what the addict lady meant by her "death insurance". Either way she caught in a loop of sorts. How is it we as a collection of cells work as if we are one object- a sort of consensus that other brain cells take up the cry at a thought, an anticipation and elation- much like the emotions of politics?

I saw a video yesterday showing the variation in the sizes of stars and then the galaxies and then the universe. It ended by saying you are not the center of the universe of which it did not feel right to conclude anymore than those who show the vastness of the stars and would have you prove from that there is a God. Again, what we mean by the center of things in our counting is more complex than all that. Maybe emotional reasoning is all at work here and not the scientific. Yet, I find it amazing in a way that in the normal business of life and its close calls I have survived and whatever core visions I have entertained have endured- that and over the hump of mystery wherein I am optimistic and expect great things from the next generation. We have shared a burden, and deserve peace in the rest for such a dramatic and golden age of enquiry.

If there are further frontiers that make our new physics seem a little quaint it will really be something...





And what moves in a direction in the on and off, three plus one, the light or the shadow? The repeating pattern of threes in the qs plane fills the first quadrant of 16 count begins at three, and we add the shadow 4th quadrant to = 22 as if to say something of planes in three space in relation to the 000 ideal point thus 21.

Amateur Physics

Amateur Physics


Today I come to the coffee shop with the feeling I have absolutely nothing to post, but thought I would just touch base with what is going on. I want to write in a lighter vein.

The problem seem to me not so much that in some direction I have outgrown others who explore the frontiers but that I find there are things I do not know (as if we do not question if we can know everything.) So, what time I spent in thought seemed to really achieve nothing new or things that were so trivial and not polished or worked out it was not worthy of sharing the post.

Yet I found inspiration from the dialog between the factions debating space, matter and gravity for
at the frontiers we are all amateurs who first have to consider what they know or do not know. We all come together in a strand, as one of the more psychological links in the science magazines today, to alleviate our thoughts of dying. But more, we teach each other the best we can by minor squabbles and conventions of civility.

We do not always know, when a discovery is shared, if it will prove significant. It can get lost. It can arise again rediscovered. It can seem like a cleaver dead end in retrospect.

"By experiment and experience I mean the same thing" said Peirce although some shy from such ideas of pragmatism - philosophies come and go in favor. It is humbling to think that as we look back to lesser ages of ways to see the world and feel hubris with our modern eyes, that there may come a leap again in general understanding that makes our age also full of rank superstitions.

What I played with last night was simple counting in relation to the usual symmetries of solids. But I found the counting obvious. And where the numbers made no predictable pattern I saw that there are limitations or restrictions in the numbers themselves- a rather messy theory or perhaps I really do not understand some of what Ramanujan saw- if indeed his vision was complete. Nevertheless, the intelligibility of numbers seems hauntingly to tell us something.

So I am in a philosophic mood, and to that we appeal at least in the background when what we hold as the methods of science and its superior stance does not yet give us acceptable answers.

I would not have posted at all today had I not seen Kea's update and the diagrams there looking pretty much as my casual counting of the natural and independent pixels on my quasic grid. I add that she took the idea a little further than I would have found right away on my own. But this is not only something inspiring but reassuring that my amateur physics holds promise.

This amounts to the partitions and sub-partitions of the quasic grid. We can say for example that underneath a matrix say of 4 by 4 are the other recursive matrices and proceed to count such numbers so contained. We exclude certain squares if crossed by certain lines in binary progressions. In doing this we get variations on the number of things counted in a totality.
Alternatively, we can take the usual polyhedra and divide and color code their faces, 4 x the 6 faces of a cube is 24. Or 4 x 12 faces of the diamond rhombihedrons is 48, 4 x 30 of that vertical solid is 120. Of course we can also divide them into 16 and 64 and so on, If in the lower corner of the overal 4x4 division under the main diagonal we have six 4x4 squares in a triangle (but it does not follow in clear steps the triangular numbers) there is 96, And of course the 6 x 64 is the all important 384 of the rigid rotations and inversion of the hypercube.

Geesh, it got technical- I leave it to the readers to show where it has physical and philosophic implications. What happens if we exclude the line of numbers for electron configuration for example?

Alright, today I am also inspired by the article on turtles who can figure the longitude as well as the latitude from, they speculate, the sensing of the magnetic field. Also from the link on the data that bolsters some of the ideas of Modified Newton gravity. These I link creatively for after all what we are debating here more than general unification is the nature of gravity and how it fits into all of this. The article is suggestive of a dual description of the extremes of such theories, of the modified variety or of the dark energy considerations. In a sense we are like a turtle or a bird who migrates to new places or spin around in the oceanic gyres (which by the way makes vortices that collect garbage thrown into the sea.) So take this as a metaphor of our migration into the thoughts on gravity as if a gull or a turtle finely balanced between the lines and spins of magnetism in a space that may view the twists and braids of things with eyes that may not see the higher dimensions but can compute the position the creature is in by the same principles.

The achievement of navigation by humans in the great exploration of the world at sea so that we knew where we were with longitude took the invention of the chronometer- and with it the sense of an intelligible measure of time in a clockwork universe. We forget how significant this achievement. But it is not the only way humans have negotiated the seas- the feats of the Polynesians in seeing the subtle effects of waves echoing off islands- that and the use of the stars- the stars so far away that unlike a planet they are a distant point of unresolved diameter, a nothingness that defines the latitude over the various islands. Humans, like the other creatures evolve a stance to such exploration in different ways.

The great analogy, no matter how we feel about the stars influencing what is down on earth, the compelling one, is that the sphere of the earth in two space has an analog as a sphere of the universe in three space. I cannot imagine the turtles debating in their travels if there is a dark matter or some modification of the natural flow and variations in the cycles of time that what draws them to some landmass is the modifications of Newton and redefinition of matter as some equivalence principle and so on. They just respond to the intelligible experience of space and counting- what comes natural to life in its degrees of freedom and position central in the scale of things. Can we as a species of wisdom long remain earthbound?

I add a technical point of philosophy (as I was offered to explain further a comment on Gibbs blog as to "there are no necessary realities". Much like the quantum saying that "what is not forbidden is mandatory" we might clearly say that some realities may be necessary by this logic. I suspect some properties of numbers distinguish things by this paradox. It certainly seems true of the ideas of space like those of chirality as physics issues- for it was Leibniz who raised this issue of the indiscernible discernibles- in a way I feel deeper than matching left and right handed shoes and socks.

* * *

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110223092406.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20172-loggerhead-turtles-have-a-magnetic-sense-for-longitude.html linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Gyre

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928013.800-does-the-comfort-of-conformity-ease-thoughts-of-death.html

http://pseudomonad.blogspot.com/2011/02/theory-update-69.html

* * *

I suppose if from one possible view we can conceive of a "string theory without strings", what sort of physics would we have if we can imagine a M-theory without branes?

* * *

I just saw this Link on Kea's post today:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0111/0111068v2.pdf

http://blog.sigfpe.com/2011/02/generalising-godels-theorem-with.html

Now this paper has very much I understand enough to make comparisons and it seems to me that things I said intuitively, like the merging of these rectangular tori objects as if shadows (or dust) and the usual idea of the importance of the dihedron (having two faces and no area at the zero point limitations of the platonic solids and of course the D group considerations. That and the other link on the page concerning Godel- Maybe this begins to look like such a braneless M-theory. Some of the numbers at least in seven space I did encounter and seem to be getting better as recognizing them (much as we learn the multiplication tables but eventually go beyond the ten by ten chart) so perhaps things are not as trivial as I think- nor from my view are some conclusions surprising- to say, in the paper there are even more symmetries than expected is an understatement- in the complexity of applying these topological and number theories I have envisioned even more symmetries than that including such modular dualities. When we imagine issues the logic of it all as in the Godel link paper- what are we determining with the fixed point idea but some representation in numbers such as the special behavior of primes (of which the logic works if we make something unique by encoding by primes in the metalanguage. But why should I be surprised, or doubt, our ability to adapt and explore such things considering to a great extent, perhaps uniquely in that we know of x is all of the x but not what exactly it is- fixed points, dark matter, when the organization of our minds and its variations seems to correspond to a high degree with the physical reality and interpretations possible in the universe?

As on another blog link we assert intelligence to the camp of truth and beauty for a measure of some fixed points of theories of physics.

I have enjoyed the work of those here focusing the sunlight and storing up the wheat as well a glass or two of wine. Kea, thank you for such communion- perhaps the measure of the strength and truth of a blog is the quality of its links.

* * *

Linear Fractal Space

Linear Fractal Space

I had some surprising results from some of my casual thoughts last night which as in the illustration resulted in art of sorts and maybe the metrics of the octagon.

I notice Lubos and Pitkanen posts today are a form of SUSY debate- oddly, Lubos makes a second post which finally concerns the ideas of the 24-cell polytope- a rather topological concept. Again, we are converging to the same thing- but it may take contrary pairs of things like the twin primes that seem to converge to phi^2 + 1 and the square root of that. 1.90216... BTW can any of you young Einsteins explain to me what an imaginary slope is?

Superspace symmetries may not be the same thing as what we seem to mean by supersymmetry. Is this a question after all of topological symmetry? I mean along the lines of something like Kea's twistor researches? After all we have known about semi-regular solids in 7 dimensions for a long time. Is it about some sort of hidden concepts of numbers upon some fractal recurrences in space? How do we get past the ideas of Ramanujan to reach a more comprehensible Topological background if we do not understand the simplicity of it and the limits of some of our mathematics which seem to match square pegs and round holes (and conversely)?

What sort of math is it that can have 0! = 1 or 0 depending on if the equations work out. What of the imaginary slopes that give us 0/0 in the trig terms and there is nothing differentiable to so resolve this?

I thought I would find curves but found lines in the illustration. It is clear that in the plane or brane space we can have changing values over infinite depth and direction so as to make this an issue of series which are indefinite as to if they converge or not (in perhaps a fractal distinguishing of primes and other numbers) in relation to unity or not.

Clearly by calculus methods we can generate an area equivalent to a circle from a square- the grid looks rather like bell shaped curves parallel at the poles.

So, from the quasic plane view- of which beyond the "square" limits we can extend it between objects and shadow objects to measure dust and space... the holographic principle- despite the information contained equivalent in the surface to the volume, that the value of the surface circumference is zero everywhere.

Oddly, in my 13 star flag post of yesterday I left out one popular one- which in the pattern in the illustration suggests, with eight point starts, that the rows of 3 2 3 2 3 = 13 one could call the quasic pattern. It is interesting this can have analogs in three space. In the partition theory of quasic recursion of shapes I mention also that in the recursion we do not necessarily have to have the same partition shapes either in the general multiplications. Of course we can go on in one form or another to expand this as Kea does with the Cayley numbers.

* * *

It was a little difficult typing this and trying to finish faster when a friend had to talk about a situation, romantic.

To state again an idea: the quasic plane is a region of unity in itself and cannot be seen in its circumference as if a square- it can be thought of as a circle or even a torus and so on. Now these being a zero and a rather scaleless region save for the concerns of what is happening in the region with the mathematics- these can be connected in the abstract. But in a sense numbers can reach its vague zero or infinity so to appear linear. But this raises my own question as to if between such regions or planes there is after all an underlying pixel grid of things to count between them (the epsilon honeycomb). But in a sense the region as a singularity or wildcard establishes a relative unity of sorts- for example the issue of a hierarchy of Planck volumes seen in the partition space as a limit or zero grounding that may be everywhere on a continuous scale and not necessarily a quantized concept. Or from considerations of the depth and span of things there may be such a hierarchy only a step down or up but these way beyond our concept of universe in fact if not in the paradoxes of these theories- and that would not be even a weak fractal hierarchy. I have seen people speak of these h models (for example TGD) or of such things as a problem, or in relation to scales of energy, or as a reinforcing of some idea in the measure of things to the h level and string theories (to which invariably with this as a reductionist grounding emergence things are declared a problem or mystery or the quantum ideas have no concrete relevance at all on larger scales say of biochemical organization with ideas speculated as explained as "decoherence" and so on. From a self connected and simple view with an appeal to origins at zero or infinity a problem in resolving the archetypal notions and physics is that the theory are seemingly miraculously intelligible. The questioning of the logic or of the solid grounding of arithmetic does not have to undermine its general higher utility and paradox of unintelligible but necessary reality.

Given these general notions I feel more at ease in the natural or familiar scale of things to interpret things like entropy as the merger of wildcard regions that retain a possible view of whatever external and observable structures and symmetries. But to do so is to combine vague shadows, as well as vague realities and laws of energy and dust. At least there seems intelligible reasons to which our human experience at present seems to converge and optimistically so by which we can keep in mind the unique reality and truly judge what are our delusions and misconceptions- if in the end these things in a sense matter despite our visions. The power of abstraction is as important as the power of counting, genius is to keep in mind what is the obvious that is important in what on some level overwhelmed by our archetypal and chemical structures at times, of what in our freedom of thought and enquiry as our basis of living is but chance in encounters globally but trivial.

Left to ourselves, we become the ideas we think those had before us of legend when they but the flotsam and jetsam of humans and not the saints and gods we worship as if they our first parents. That is to say, in your own quasic region of this concept of generating deep thought and its connection to the world, with fresh creativity or just the existential doing things for the hell of it, the effort is in your court to decide and direct the evolution of the game. We zeros of dust and shadow tend to default at times to the heart of things and not just go around them as nature tends to do, take advantage of the differences and perambulations along the biochemical pathways, as we then combine with other zeros in a hierarchy of learning.

Along such an expression or expansion of series and lines- it is perhaps too soon for Dirac in his go to the horses mouth assertion that there are no longitudinal forces as waves in deep nature. This too can be a matter of tastes and perspective.

* * *

Happy spring as the waters dissolve things to Pieces again and are Phoenix reborn. We all know but do not say or consider it beyond ourselves always- like two lovers thinking they have found the ideal and first to find true love- that in the end in the archetypal zero and settling against the parameters of nature for less yet the lure of better encounters with touch in the dust- ultimately the compromises and chances of spirit, mindfulness, a little chaos to ease the boredom as a sort of entropy all its own in love as global warming unto our economics of a Cantor dust- that in us, as we hold the lantern of wisdom to find truth and honest souls as well the batons, be they hockey sticks or gnarled clubs, or elegant Bat Masterson stave's and walking sticks bring law to the lawless West, that in us is as much the Fool as the Magician.

* * *

Where the metric in the pattern of the illustration has weakly recurring fractal shapes of octagons and even stars, this was not planed out but fell out of the drawing, most likely simply the properties of squares and the square roots of 2. It is not just the arrangement of stars on the flag but the points also. The worlds of compacted and centered dimensions and of the extended ones we project everywhere unto some idea of flatland and shared infinity- both apply to general space descriptions.

Clearly, we can use the insight of Riemann up or down a dimension, the seven to imply and eight or assume a higher or lower to explain better a picture and its needed freedoms of motion. But is this not a puzzle piece either a small part of the whole to which we can infer from the shape the global curvature of things as we can say from a geodetic triangle of Einstein? We can also take the missing shadow and make some conclusions as to the general shape of the piece. What I suggest here is that we can also do it in flatland. That the cosmos is not flat would be the problem.

* * *



* * *
I posted this comment to:
http://blog.vixra.org/2011/02/25/four-reasons-why-i-like-string-theory/

Hi,

I like this presentation I found on Kea's blog.

You might see my post today as relevant at least from the philosophy of it all. Not sure if it is an alternate theory needing experiment or not as a way to settle things. (I think Kea is on the right tract).

I suggest that we do need a balance of existentialism and pragmatism, for such a balance would raise the deeper paradox of Abbagano's synthesis: "There are no necessary realities."

The PeSla

* * *

Global Symmetry of Dust and Shadows

Well, it is not as intricate but here is the picture- one can imagine with better consideration of the orientations involved a certain sense of braiding between the faces as if a finite and positive treatment of the particle-vacuum and topological field.

[Sorry, my first intricate illustration was lost in the saving to paint and at the last moment, this is the replacement but not as careful in order and details]
Global Symmetry of Dust and Shadows
(and On Linear Fractal Archetypes)

Two principles have occurred to me of which I am not sure such things do not exist in the literature. Some have said we are but dust and shadows (pulverius et umbra- or some such Latin would sound more learned if I could recall the correct words) What can I say save that we are looking into the heart of dust and are all really working in the shadows? What matters is that something works, and works for each of us in our perception and contemplation on the world.

In a sense we look into and question the obvious, at least intuitively have a sense of the intelligible for what system feel right thus obvious. We thus have a high level internal conversation and at the same time this conversation is influenced by and engages the external between us. The hint of such intelligibility and the exploration that something new on the frontiers may be worth enquiry- perhaps rumors that turn out to be a useful fact, one that on some level defends and promotes our survival. Even under the influence of the mystical traditions some notions are as archetypal and universal as our conventions of counting.

In a comment Ulla asked a question of which I was not familiar and had no way to gauge what she was asking. The mentioned the all important number 8 as a quantum number. I thought this most likely to do with chemistry, the magic numbers of electron shell configuration as she mentions such things in her speculations and one commenter posted a formal paper about such a way to see atoms. She also discussed some of the new number theory and asked a question about the octal bases to which I tried to answer clearly with what was generally known. It was these comments that led me to think of the obvious general principle I present today about the less obvious idea of linear fractals- a simple line in quasic space is after all fractal- and what does this mean for ideas of renormalization in comprehending some general region of space as dust, matter or as a topological shadow (evidently the idea of light or energy is archetypal here also as with all opposites in the West that can become each other even when we accept strict separation of our Good and Evil angels). This duality, as all things perfect come in threes goes the saying, also is an issue in Kea's work on triality where in the tetraktys we come to hints of new global counting wherein the shadow or the dust may be the ground of calculations.

In particular today Kea post things on the number 24 of which I was intending to post on that number and orthogons- and of which it applies to the new number theories as more general formulas. I do not know if we are talking about similar things. I am not sure these two principles I post are related other than synchronicity (this bedevils things really and covers all levels of mental activity and social activity- I mean, I actually used my Allegorical Physics post yesterday to have a musician friend read as he was discussing a friend, a Scorpio in the sense of the Knight of Cups- and of course his usual chi gung applies to music in the chords he asked about for a song he was writing. Despite his formal training I had to use these systems to have him understand the significance of the circle of fifths as a way to transpose his chords and base notes.)

* * *
Linear Fractals In the Quasic Plane:

This is based on a ridiculously simple concept of counting independent tiles in an indefinite plane. It is finite in conception and exists only when we insist on an origin or minimum of scale, a zero.

This zero is a wildcard singularity, meaning the first tile can be subdivided into the whole plane itself and so on. We in regarding it as the origin or zero see this tile as unity, that is a normalization of what is a hidden depth or finite object or shadow. In a sense it goes beyond ordinality, a closure of sorts of distant rays into a ring. The idea of a ray or a line then while a good distinction may not be clearly made so as we imagine. While in theory the line can go to infinite smallness into the depth of the singularity- it nevertheless acts as if a finite value, zero, one half, 2, 4 and especially if we desire to so count that way, as 1 object with successors.

Thus the question as to how we can map something into a sub-part of itself or even between zero and one, or minus pi to pi, has to be asked with this in mind as to how trivial the grounding concept of what seems a line, what seems an explosion from singularity, inflation ideas and so on, applies to the actual physics of reality. On the quasic plane such hidden fractals (I am not necessarily speaking of some fractal ideas in the new number theory here) as lines or curves are differentiable and not simply a matter of say slopes. Whatever trivial properties of mapping in the idea of recursive fractals is a trivial and not obvious property of such lines and ray themselves. It is hard to not dismiss the counting of a grid of independent units as just trivial counting.

But there are several lines that can come from the wildcard origin and these are based on what choices of base as binary we use. One is the diagonal which is the progressive powers of 4. An important one is the octal base which gives us an endless and growing sequence of what we call the magic numbers of electron configuration (The nuclear count is in there somewhere but the electron count is more fundamental.) Of course in our space with consideration of global structures and mirrors we do not reach a sub-shell of 50 electrons. But the progression after 2 for the octals differs after the initial counting because of the normalization of the wildcard singularity as origin.

8 then is not just our ability to divide space into octants. In fact we see readily that this is too rigid a conception of dimension- or that we can generalize the ideas of dimension and then if we desire to impose a standard ordering on some structure. There is a deep connection between the 24 ways of rotating a square (the D group) of four colors and the same structure of 24 squares in the hypercuble. Such a small plane, be it a shadow or emptiness, or a place where it is a particle of dust subject to twists and turns, does not know what metaphysics or preferred dimension or philosophy it is in. (Typing this it occurs to me that some like galatomic may say otherwise that on this level consciousness is at work- but let us leave it to just the topology. It is alright to have an idea as vague as life force and feel excited about the conception (see a post called elegant universe on the philosophychatforum com and how it was discussed and the excited poster treated.- I presume not the same thing as that book title.)

I will discuss these ideas of the 24-ness, the all important dimension that Conway was supposed to see- Conway, who has covered so much area and new area future theoreticians have a lot of archeology to do, in the more easier to digest diagrams forthcoming.

I add, as to the linear fractal theory reduced to counting quasic grid square areas (actually we can get some unusual measures of using the Pythagorean theorem between these fractal lines as to what is left in the square between them as if to integrate over the area. In a sense this involves the very heart of the discovery of irrational numbers for example where they apply to that left under a matrix diagonal.) That upon this we can decide what partition numbers are involved... in a sense we take so many squares and put them in a square along the diagonal or a line along the alpha or x direction. Then we can see that in between.

There is an interesting picture today on Kea's update and links where there are pictures discussing the global SUSY data and one was posted in a different direction as we can explore these lines global over the D group- but the mapping does seem to organize the data on a quasic grid but only because of the use I suspect of half value compared to whole values.


* * *

To lose work at the moment of its completion- well, it has not happened for awhile. But it gets me to think about our costly large science project of the LHC.

It occurs to me, beyond the benefits of experiments that are undertaken to show that some notion is not the physical case that:

Lampion 02-24-11 - The apparatus of the LHC project may not need to be reconfigured to interpret the data but it is possible that the data itself can be used to support the new theories of topology as applies to particle and cosmic physics. In this sense I am optimistic that a new and positive thing is discovered that justifies and vindicates this human undertaking and those who are part of it. Surely those who have explored some of these topological paths should be consulted in the reinterpretation of the data.

* * *

The lost illustration did this:

Take one Plane of a cube or hypercube as the wildcard dihedron, the D group that orientates the totality of the whole, the complex twists and braids on one plane that can be considered as a material (dust) or empty (shadow) singularity. This gives the 1/2 or alternate group of the rigid rotations 24 then 192 which is 24 x 8.

In the cube the faces are labeled as four colors and can be colored such that of the 6 possibilities and 4 orientations of a face the 24 group multiplication applies as if a so labeled cube itself can be used for calculation with a standard cube to compute the permutations to some identity.

In the hypercube case the six directions are labled as a line thru the hypercube or a circle around four of them, the same thing, as CDEF GHIJ KLMN OPQR STUV WXYZ The A and B for the alpha and beta directions of the quasic plane or alternatively as the rotation and reflections of the D group. We are counting changes in the sub-cells here as intelligible counting to orient the rest. These I have often labeled with the international signal flags. But in the cube case (of which the inversion results in the same color shapes possible of the four colors per face) I labeled them abcd and efgh to show the schematic of local inversion.

In this sense the color matching of cubes is also the consideration of the complex rotation and the braiding of them. I have not considered if say of the 6 faces of a cube what happens if we allow more than one face to have a different from standard orientation- of if that difference has physical or topological effects although it would be an interesting algebra in its own right.

* * *

I do not think I have made one thing clear. I see this as a dynamic process more than fixed geometry no matter how complex. That is I vaguely imagine these application of groups and the distinguishing where something is dust or shadow or where it seems to have a fixed origin or not, as a physical process where we may ask for example what happens when grains of dust encounter a vacuum shadow. A description of particle physics perhaps? With innate and symmetry breaking of these things like fano planes and the alternative tiling representations on the familiar level if not in the remote scales- can we not imagine the D group operation as a dynamic description of some such topological object encounters another for decay and so on- and as a much better yet wildcard abstract candidate for our dark matter or opaque matter considerations. Even if some such dust were the explanation it would still have to be intelligible within the context of the arithmetic and topological ideas. Interestingly the 24 cell with a group 1152 is most instructive too for general ideas for consideration.

* * *
At first I was going to call this post Archetypal Physics. One example would be the inclusion historically of the number thirteen. In the logic of Vexillogy (flag logic) the question is- other than the constellation Lyra as likely, what was the arrangement of stars in the first US flag?



* * *

One Last Related Idea from Explorations Last Night:

Allegorical Physics

Allegorical Physics

As Peter Rowlands observed, to paraphrase: just because some idea is claimed by the new ager it does not mean they have a monopoly on such ideas. In my recreational puzzle designing, from time to time I utilized certain themes in the tradition- for example the I Ching, and the Tarot cards. It is not my purpose to bring us back to that ancient view of the world as much as try to understand the uncanny links to intelligible counting that some of the ancients appear to intuitively understood. Of course there is deep research in its own era and context, and there are those who practice divination as but charlatans in the marketplace. There are those who treat some of this as recreation- not quite taking it seriously enough to fear they will fall into some vague mode of evil. Others, on a consistent but superficial level, actually make this the core of their life decisions. I present then what seems to modern eyes as pre-science. This probably follows when the earth is the center of things and we try to count the steps to some beyond thru the babble of voices of the wind and the gods- so tame and name them, make reasonable connection with our human traits as a matter of prediction if not a casting of dice in search of divine guidance.

Beyond this subjective observation I see a question of which I am not quite sure of such counting systems how to relate them into a more unified understanding. In a sense the ancient numerology confronts again numerology in a more modern form where the core mathematics and geometry are understood enough to apply to modern physics. But of the details of the allegories, say the connection to archetypes or the Greek gods, or even Biblical references I only suggest the vague outlines and connections. It is clear that humanity has been interested in this sort of thing for a long time to the best it can do in its own era. Not the visitors from some other place or those who search things in ancient times already thought a code known only to the gods. Any such things are with us now as the authors of our works of consciousness.

I designed a set of long tetragonal dice of four sides for the I Ching. Each side had the moving and fixed yin and yang symbols. I also related these to the six colors to distinguish order of them in the 6! permutations. Already we observe that of the 64 hexagrams that counting the lines we have the 384 of the four space hypercube group. Clearly there is the old and modern question here of the merger of the evenness and oddness, the threes and twos of things. I note that some time later the Minnesota art magazine sold a set of these but not as elaborate.

Last night, casually really, I looked again at an old Tarot game I made around 89. For me it always seemed to relate to the hypercube and variations. This was influential for some of my lost poetry too.

I cannot say, even staring at things in the links, that I fully understand the twistor methods of Kea- yet I find related numbers and am closer, some things I understand but more of an intuitive and poetic way to it. I recognize it as coherent and highly advanced, and original as a work of enquiry. I recognize it as part of the traditional methods in the field, and very much up to date with the work of others. For me these twist of sorts are not the issue I explore, rather I match things to which I can assume the twist aspects are intelligible behind the scene.

I would like to add here before I forget, the Jordan matrices are a valid way to do things as some of you said and some did not give much weight for it. Only, I have a sense, in the counting at least, that across a grid the diagonal may contain more of them as of different squares, some even intersecting. In this sense the distance on a chessboard from one corner to the other, or down a diagonal, is the same count of squares. Yet, to go down a 32 x32 board we can with such matrices, take 64 steps. This issue of halving and doubling is a lot deeper than complex number images.

The Tarot cards have the normal 52 and a joker. The four horsemen Knights flew away and it is thought that the jokers are left over from the fool of the major arcana. Yet the fool is also spring and rebirth, a sort of moving zero, its number. In a sense it is a "wildcard" but for my purposes this card incarnate is not abstract.

We do have jokers, a red one, and a black one, and one in the middle of it all, the grand joker. These are wildcards of the field and not zeros of the order.

There are then 78 cards in the Tarot deck (more than this may exist but exceeds the scope of this presentation into even more complex geometry) plus there three jokers make the hypercube 81.

These can be arranged, moreover, A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 J Q K * K Q J 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 A
For 27 of the red, and for 27 of the black suits. But there is 27 in the center for we have broken the hypercube space down into three groups of 3^3. The center one is the major arcana, the fool O thru XXI which are 22- note the occult relation to the ideas of the Hebrew alphabet also such a match most likely came much later, in the middle ages. In this higher level of structure compared to the other two 3^3 cubes we note the 22 descriptions of crystal symmetry of planes and such. We also place here the four Knights (which I tend to arrange in the tetrahedral corners) and inversion thru the center, the grand joker, wildcard.

One variation on this game is to divide things into 6 as if the faces of dice. The z axis to hold the major arcana and the x and y four of the minor arcana cards. But all of this is doubled as a two player game. Each side has 4 sets of 13 dice for 54 (or 4 sets of 14 for 56) of the card faces. (when making design choices we sometimes come to variations up to the artist but in general the effective labeling if it matters in the calculations and playability of a game is obvious looking back after the fact of applied intuitions. I have to check my notes again. Do I separate out the major arcana with the joker and four nights? Are the jokers doubled on a die of their own? I am tired this morning. But let me leave you with the gist of the design:

We can now take these dice and arrange them into 3^3 cubes where we match the faces or calculate the twists, such that they describe the varieties of the Soma Cube puzzle. These meshing ideas of the 240 (twice 5!) and the 24 (plus the trionomo as the jokers for 27. And So on. Clearly we need to resolve the counting in four and five space to see what intelligible game systems and theories we so design. Of course the color cubes in all their rotations and permutations are 6! It is a question of what to do with such similar numbers and how to interpret them (not to mention the proper ordering and labeling of say one of he game dice) for such abstract concepts as the wildcard jokers- or the idea of what dimensions are timelike.

I may come back with illustrations to make these things clearer.



One general idea is that we can have in a logical quadrant of abstract motions a set of things that are on a higher informational or notational level than the lesser quadrants of sliced space- and in that higher notation we have a sort of quasic order as if a linear torus shifting- and one of the slices can be but a mirror or hidden to the only 54 observed paths of some topological space.

* * *

The jokers are the most interesting of wildcard singularities in a local context in that for example these can merge in the count just as things seem to break into two. In a way these seem to share our abstract concept of that hidden as particles. A balance of sorts of what there is room for and what is missing in the count and equations. I would have better pictures if I had access to my earlier papers still in storage.

* * *

Simple Thought Experiments in General Science

Simple Thought Experiments in General Science

Lubos and Pitkanen discuss a lack of data for observation of gravity waves from binary black holes. For some of us we have independently considered that these may not be observed, at least directly. For others of us we can appeal to the question of not dismissing too soon what obviously exists because of insufficient technology in our experimental apparatus. Yes, it is questionable science given insufficient theoretical methods to make partial conclusions then suggest beyond the bounds of the systems so designed that there can be more than profound speculation and creative originality to generalize from those principles to claim it too soon a generalization of concrete theory.

Today I return to some early experiments, made independently, without the mathematical tools of my level of school and generation, the general science of which I did excel in class and made projects for my classmates to demonstrate things. But these are simple thought experiments in simple space in my looking back I see why I casually accepted and looked for certain things- in short, with a sense of what was kinetic and what potential everywhere around me I tried to expand my thinking to a sort of idea of hidden or superspace of more dimensions.

Reflection, rotation, and translation as general and equal descriptions of some physical, energy and geometry methods- I challenge as a matter of general science and recreation comment on these thought experiments to see just how far they are from the understanding of those highly trained in the methods of mathematical physics.

* * *

The Mhosister: (as superspace soliton conductor and detector)

In the illustration above I give you my conception of the Mho-sister. As we were changing from vacuum tubes (valves) to transistors, from voltage to conductance I imagined why not amplification based on resistance? Yes, a simple question and thought thru the eyes of late childhood.

Basically it was a Moebious strip with graphite (pencil) making paths around it to which I applied various batteries. It helped my father was working as an engineer for RCA and had a lifetime of interest in and at the dawn of radio. But this is not to say I adsorbed much of his expertise. From the start my interests were more theoretical. I did sign up for radar training but in my time you were assigned where the military wanted you- consequently my service field was not hard science. In fact not finding the equivalent of quasars (ironically the same word as my quasic theory) I abandoned my theories as fantasy for awhile.

Years later I saw an add from Sandia corporation that treated this sort of mobious strip as a "capacitor". But my device tried to take advantage of what happens when you divide a mobious strip in various ways. In thirds one could have an internal and a parallel external ring or circuit with the possibility of transformers and induction. But my thoughts stayed on the level of Ohm's laws and crystal radios and not the higher idea of power supplies. Indeed, this level may not see the ground as the place for zero in what can be built which my father told me would not work save the actual proof of the operation of it. If made by the design things will work was his advice. But if it worked he would say, guess it is OK then.

As simple as these concepts are they have come up on steroids with our modern reaches into theory and applied physics of some quite exotic situations. To what extent is two plates on the small scale explaining the Casmir force as if a sort of capacitor? What if we had a layer of graphene with its effects between the mhosister as layers? Being a mobious strip is half a Klein's bottle and things even in the repulsive and attractive force of the electromagnetism we have the mirrors with action-reaction as if opposite vortexes- that some such effects are observed even if the hidden or superspace other side of the looking glass only virtually there? Alas, can we arrange such mhosisters and their conductive-insulator properties of chemical structures of windscrenes for a sort of complex like a wireless? What would be these associated effects especially since amplification seems to be a complexification phenomenon up from the exquisite flux of the infinitesimal?

If in a rotation simple thought experiment we suspend a system of gyroscopes such that the force vector goes at right angles in all directions of three space- how does the system spin? Clearly, what is involved, especially if we say suspend magnets with the idea their repulsive force may be harnessed (presumably from the perpetual motion of spinning electrons in the material) we come up against the general idea of conservation of momentum. One can indeed make a system of suspended magnets that will move despite Lenz's law but it requires external sources of energy and the questions of mass in the momentum equations as geometry results in a lesser or greater, and sometimes hidden properties of spatial density.

Lincoln's ephiphany comment where he felt as if a theoretical physicists when in the reading of data from an experiment he realized the quantum aspects of the problem would explain things and balance out the data- that such quantum ideas can be seen on the mesocosmic or familiar level- goes right in line with his spinning objects on such scales that can be interpreted as relativistic effects. Of course since we cannot verify (as in the crossing over of knot nodes) the handedness in principle or that mirror forces actually exist) we can treat the experimental data as if one sided only without a depth of reversals or negative forces.

Thus we have simple thought experiments I will call soft for they are on a lower level language. Can we really draw analogies from soft thought and laboratory experiments to say something like the visible effects of graphene sheets tell us something bout the Higgs particle? Or such experiments, as say with sound, black holes? While we can do interesting things with coherent light can we really decide from an isolated particle, that is an insulated one, if there is a multiverse as a hard thought experiment or even if the evidence is concrete prove such complexity?

Lastly, the quasic unit at zero- while issues of where a zero ground must be or that it even shifts in the count, or that it is random in any local place in the counting, that is as a wild card singularity- it is evident that the value may be zero or one, and in the real part if there is only a universe, the residue of numbers in that they behave or logically describe the quasic plane be the zeta like one half- considering the base translations to octals to see it logically and clearly. The unity of a quasic pixel assumes at least one more multiplication or division of depth in the span compass of the quasic space and maybe it can be viewed in the hidden or depths of no concrete resolution as infinitesimal. Indeed, Eddington had a point of the nature of dimensionless constants of indefinite values because they are after all dimensionless. Eddington's conjecture rings true but only within the first few hard quasic levels and numbers as dimensions.

But considering the depth and span of the quasic plane in the pixels- and the behavior of primes to some degree a fractal phenomenon, and that certain configurations or patterns may not be but simple space in drawing and connections so not in a sense a recursive fractal at all (in regards to complex numbers) we also may say this of the other styles of fractals as less than fundamental. Indeed, the fractal idea applies more to composite space residues than hard prime fractals that unto themselves as unity may appear, perhaps mirror-wise, as of infinite or continuous influence and heredity of counting properties. Of course we have to consider the exchanging as real or virtual of what is depth or span in quadratic spaces. Beyond this there may be some epsilon honeycomb hidden grid arrangements left out of the picture still (but this is still a matter of my researches- but I did make some progress in determining in the highly superspace concepts just what it is with binary powers we may regard as the natural dimension of things in question which only as a simple space concept is explained by a general fractal configuration quality of quasic space. This is important that we do not extend our speculations beyond the idea of a certain fractal but closed infinity of recurrence only for that concept too is a simple space and idea of the infinite.) The core description may not be fractal at all at the fundamentals of things.

* * *





* * *

About the only good use I got from the Mhosister concept was when some bureaucrat or university admissions officer who did not know the area of a circle let alone the volume of a hypersphere was when they asked me (after a certain point of realizing they had no intention of trying to understand or help my situation) how I was doing? and I would reply I am "irmhosistible" to which I found it quite humorous they pretended they knew what my coined word meant :-)

Simple and Superspace

Simple and Superspace

I define simple, natural, familiar, space as that only of a three dimensional view as the possible dimensions. This presented as a reality check and alternative theory that may reside in our mechanisms of understanding. The given three space is the work of God, all its edifices of superspaces is the work of man (to paraphrase that intuitionist saying about numbers in themselves.) I am not promoting this as a possible theory of everything, just pointing out that in whatever form we build a mathematical physics where they are not simple they represent some idea of this concept as a grounding to which all the extensions into multidimensional superspace (for example the idea of supersymmetry) share the same sense of direction for a world view as unified physics as at least more sophisticated than meets the eye.

We also assert that energy as the ground is equivalent to the idea of integration over volumes in three space or such geometry is the heart of our concept of energy.

The ratios to consider in the variations in the illustration above between the hierachy of quasic planes as superspace and finite intuitionist numbers hold certain levels of complexity where 32 is found as a more general number when we multiply by three again. These after all are concerned with introduction of odd numbers and powers thru the mixing of the even numbers and parts of them. (but this is too technical yet simple to explain here at the moment, posted for reference.)

If the case is that there is only simple geometry and no superspace then most of our general theories of everything fail, being merely illusions or specialized ideas of use only in what on some level seems well grounded calculations. Although considering the quality and education of my inspiring bloggers here I have reports that they do not understand the quasic idea- but from my viewpoint we seem to be converging to the same sort of ideas of more sophisticated geometries. In a sense all the suggested theories do not stand up to this superspace alternative or natural geometry even if we comprehend some theory- including my quasic ideas of the plane and numbers.

I feel that there is a certain level of reading or writing or symbol representations which sound profound but are empty as the well known problem of reading and recalling script in our dreams. This is perhaps because in our individual and collective understanding of the world, our investment in it of ourselves, our erection of myths and stories, our fear of the unknown or magic against all to often real demons, that some grounding of organizing our minds does not want to fact this empty truth of simple emptiness or nothing deeper in the world than that given as if we are only three space and not a complex bilateral hierarchy of superspace organization. We need the veil over the foundations to better build the superstructures. It is these considerations that are the climate of our evolving mental health as we debate vehemently or slowly reach toxicity by the superficial understanding of our life processes and environment by partial technology.

I notice the last few posts of Pitkanen concern closely some of my own concerns. These posts are especially creative. These also are close to the normal view of the mathematical physics- and I may discuss some of these points in general where I feel the notions and notations, as powerful as they are, fail us. I also note that Ulla has some very interesting posts which many of us have considered as to what may be the as yet science of unexplained phenomena especially of mind. She has asked some rather important questions on numbers lately that shows me where I have not left the key that something is easily and scientifically explained. I would think her idea of the space inside the carbon ring as a sort of wormhole (I presume this is Pitkanen's term used here) or portal. It is a problem for us who have to learn outside of the university setting if in fact what we are to learn is not there and no one can do more than assert the truth of some things in the cyber marketplace. I would love to talk to Matti as he does seem to talk some about space as quasic planes. But with Kea's insights there may be a more general combination of these ideas- all of which begin to struggle with the core intuition primes are the key.

The snowfall came again and I did not have much new to say so I hibernated awhile, I am just not made for winter. I could have posted twice more but I needed to take a breath anyway and tighten up the ideas, maybe a little input on hard reading. I will return here to make better presentation of the ideas behind this post as so jotted down casually in my notes. Also I had to get past a few dead ends- and the what is the point of doing this with the people in the world so selfish and superficial of late. Spring came awhile, I expected those around me already so to be more depressed but it seems they all went around frantically inside doing a lot of annoying spring cleaning. They require you do the same, even if you always do general maintenance. Our government in this state and the federal too are trying to do a lot of spring cleaning- but they may crash if they have to shut down awhile.

Economically it is just living room and Darwin, no real understanding of the superspace of balance and abundance of resources. It does not matter in the natural averaging of things if we sacrifice the few for the many or the many for the few- but it does matter what sort of political and economic theory we impose on the world.

* * *

Nonpareil Parallels

*Energy, an abstract and relative concept, is a measure of the (linear^n) dimensions of abstract space... in a sense mass-energy on the lowest level is "the other gravity" that is the properties of three space is the properties of familiar energy.

*Polarized light is such a measure viewing the forces as the square root down a dimension and as an abstract superimposition into a plane (surface, 2-space) of which the electric or magnetic components with lag (retardation) apply

for: it is the finite in the inversions of what is loop or indefinitely extended that decides the quantization and reintegration of styles of indefinite space everywhere its coordinates independent as if all can be related to a certain sense of discreteness of wildcard singularities and such freedoms concretely expressed as if portal centers or simply connected centers of orthogonal like structures.

*The abstract count, one to one and 121 of such dimensional objects in SUSY space is intelligible as the counting of arithmetic itself, coherence as uniformity.

*Between 2 parallel or superimposed planes the "volumes" may be of different scales in the quasic grids in respect to what is surface or depth values, different scales.

*We can superimpose such volumes of different grids and find decoherence or more definition in the infinitesimal depth as a source of internal structural energy.

*The electric and magnetic differences is that difference in circles and lines quantity squared. A biquadratic bi-dialectical difference that later with a third axes sets up the focus into a geometry of bilateral n-dimensional symmetry.

*A sine wave as polarized entity in abstract vibration in superspace, is an epsilon honeycomb in motion but such motion can be intrinsic relative to other superspaces.

*One ideal ekpyrotic event but everywhere a continuum erected between two superparallel planes of space and point continuously at dimension zero is an integration of volumes between them in the depth and span and nilpotency of a more general continuum.

*These considerations of superspace field energy relates to mass intelligibly. But the surface can create hidden and retarded shell structures (of vast importance in forthcoming essay or comment in developmental ideas of organisms, mind, and environmental constraints (false ones?) see Pitkanen on animals sensing heavy and light water.

[*General natural space of such natural plane indefinite connectivity and motion can rarely find fixed coordinate vectors of the fields as matter points distinguished from an abstract empty vacuum.] This one needs clarification due to my writing the notion by very dim light awakened briefly in the middle of the night, the word vary which looked good in that light was illegible- it read it as "rarely" and tried to recover the notion: let me rephrase and elucidate:
In effect such an alternative theory as this views the relation of geometry and mass being abstractly equivalent but of shifting vast measure is to see not from the top down macrocosmic or bottom up microscopic but from the middle out, mesocosmic in which we observe the location of most living things of scale, perhaps ubiquitously. Time as well as space is an "averaging" toward flatness of zero and the infinite and can have what feels on our scale subjective effects. Even in a simple space we can understand that these effects can influence each other even if in a sense abstract and illusion. It follows also that space can have subjective effects- for example the feeling things are longer one way than the other from a to b, a quantum like subjectivity- or that we do not always know our immediate neighbors as we live closer together but those at a distance (some evidence of this on newscientist today). The superspace, and the bandwidths of perception may explain the differnce of matter and the vaster amount of empty space- without recourse to the natural varying of h or c , nor appeal to ideas of origin as a zero singularity save in a math of ideal design only.

I add an interesting reference to science daily that the nerves, dentrites and axons have been discovered that the information flows both ways, that there is a lag where the axons take a longer time to process information then communicates cell to cell to the other axons without immediate dendrite response from external sources. This also shows up in the general development and in things like aging and memory.

In this mental model, as if geometry or space in the abstract is conserved (after all the center wildcard singularity can act as if it has a mirror which seems to express complexification of duplication of space or there could be actual mirrors or vortexes. The 50% in regards to right and left consideration of entanglement a the surface points or center of orthogons shows a general abstract structure of intelligible geometry that may decide such things in the mind and certainly how we set the spin right or left of things initially equally and without recourse to a simple ides of explanation by probability which after all is explained also by the Pascal analogs.

But where there is a difference, as a speculation I suggest that in our age we have too many mimics that mime the appearance of say taste but the underlying chemistry can be different and alien to our evolved relation to sensing and consuming such chemicals (see also the idea between planes that molecules may bounce near the plane in a quantum manner in science news articles today.) If for example there is the androgen theory do we really make healthier baby food by using plastic mixers for say autism- do we not need to realize the possibility of these hidden properties of atoms of which we already know these surface phenomena are concerned with disease when one heavier element replaces the other like mercury and iodine? Cadmium.

While 8 is an important number in the division of three space- let us also realize that by the structure of numbers alone, not necessarily a situation of primes, complex prime analog, or inertial or infinite primes at zero and infinity, that it amounts to what Kea also understands- the relation of 8 and 4 in the extended superspace idea of information octonian and quaterion, as a source of mass-gravity in the idea of measure.

I add too that steady state ideas would not hold up with the three space only theory for they too are based on hyperbolic like spaces. While the invariants are only on the z axis of hyperboloids as well as spheres- the idea of rotation as the Lorentz boost- we do not directly see the idea of a repulsive force of the angles less than 180 as he interpretation exactly as we would the case of spherical non-euclidean space. Thus, while matter may arise creatively somewhere it is not clear it must arise from a lack of nearby matter as such a steady state space expands.

Again, the wildcard, the only invariant in the tetryacts of the 4 space matrix of Einstein from one view is the steady state in the simple space or the simple space realization of complex infinitesimal micro foam which as induction does not violate the intelligibly of the counting of things in simple space globally.

Plato, in the surface triangles of the polyhedra was first to have a subatomic theory of sorts with the rules for its chemicals of the elements. From the viewpoint of the vibration of strings and the sacred number 192 it is clear that he also had the first string theory of sorts.

In the fact, in mathematical physics, that we can have tensors, vectors, and mixed elements it is clear that to some extent our ideas fit the quantum relativity of Eddington in his fundamental theory of 1929, only the case of such not obvious superspace is a little more complex than the data of our reality of the time would suggest as physical possibility.

Time, again does not have to vary but is counted as if simple and unconnected so we can see it as a constant if we desire over simple space. Sorry, I only wanted to make a less long winded revision, perhaps it is not good to skip the sequence of ideas in my posting and expect them not to grow in considerations.]


* * *



*We note the various analogs and general formulas and views as to that happens and what is described, both classically and quantumly in the Casmir effect and its analogs to other theories where this applies to cosmology.

Lampion: 02-21-11 If we assume only an entity of energy as geometry of but only the third dimension, the assumptions in the edifice of theory requires no "dark matter", and no external "teleology or tachyons" needed for our ideas of some sort of superspace. These ideas too are not as metaphysical fundamental or at least not shown so. Otherwise they are a viable part of superspace.

* * *

Action, Conservation, Multiverse

*Least action has a "purpose" in symmetry of conservation but what does this mean at a spherical singularity as multiverse?

*Geometrically then the multiplicity of action is modified by the depth and span degrees of freedom in superspace. Even with limited integration over the quasized infinite depths and spans.

*Quasi-space and superspace at least locally explain the possibility of decoherence.


Alternative Theory

*There is only a three dimensional space that applies to the familiar physical world. Other dimensions are abstract artifacts of the edifices of mathematical systems.

1. The idea of the relativity's are absurd.
2. The idea of quantum theories is equally or more so absurd.
3. Geometric theories, M, string, and inflation theories also.
4. Energy is merely a matter of natural counting and division of three space scaleless roots of positive unity as unity.
5. No extended set can be mapped to part of itself, nor independently is this forbidden.
6. n-topes, polyhedra, polygons are abstract entities

*no path or lines can be necessarily of infinite extent
*no circles or knots need be necessarily closed
*there are no points nor are there totalities beyond three space
*the more extended indefinitely the classical time the less is space
*the more compacted space the less time
*surfaces are a mapping of space coordinates into themselves
*quasic ideas also vanish into flat space trivially.

*Three space as vacuum and mass are identical as a real solid given of indefinite extension in classical space and time but of constant existence.

* * *

These casual notes of the last couple of days much more difficult to read than I recalled- the number explorations not included here. Some of the themes seem to have recurred as items of assertion or consideration.

* * *

Thought from today:

I have objected somewhat to the formulas as presented where they use the exp symbolism and the tensor symbols to express some of these more fundamental ideas.

I have wondered but not fully understood why we should limit things to 8 of the 9 gluons for example- what technical grounding for such an exclusion of same flavors or colors. But it seems that say in a 4 x 4 matrix of tensors only one will be the flat and euclidean space one to which the others have a gauge and metric. This leaves the ten at rest of Einstein? or the 9 and 6 to accommodate the eh field? In any case it concerns the superposition on a wildcard singularity at zero or infinity.

From my quasic view where I map the subcells of an orthogon into such logical space there seems to be "implicative singularity". Which is to say that in the upper right hand corner we find the 0101 position which is the abstract wildcard center place or singularity of the orthogon in question.

A sine wave does not need external space to vibrate within as a superspace of its linear sequence- such spaces can be intrinsic. But should we map them in a general idea of numbering the plane regardless of bases used there will be points of the plane left out in a sense which can be filled by considerations of overall group rotations of the plane if used together impartially. This a sort of epsilon honeycomb idea of grids and space but an independent one from natural space.

* * *

We are not just a collection, biologically, of globs of things in a three space. At least as we develop and are organized we are a bilaterally symmetric superspace in the intelligible description of our complexity.

* * *

Note- in some correspondences steps were left out of this post do to it unclear what I was supposed to include or not in my hopefully clearer explanations of the the view of numbers and so on. The last posts concerned certain topological ideas wherein the interesting concept of the negative index of refraction (where we can see those in say a swimming pool swimming over it) as a question of what effects as if an inverted topology of the hyperbolic and elliptic spaces represent what is internal or external to an organism or mind with respect to the depth and span of whatever conception of the coherences of such four way bilateral phenomena.

But in that simple numbers relate to such superspace geometrical concepts one cannot help but feel we are closer to a more intelligible understanding of physics.

* * *

The idea of a three space model only of physics is presented here not as a serious alternative theory- but just to show that such an idea, even with our vast edifice of mathematical models, is lurking somewhere in our natural habit of defining and seeing dimensions. Why is the world three space and only there can we tie linear knots indeed?

Dragons in the Foam

Dragons in the Foam L. Edgar Otto 02-19-11

Grasshopper, how can you expect to walk on the rice paper and not wrinkle it?

As you eat the Botan candy its wrapper made of transparent rice tastes to you of cellophane.

Are the dragons in the foam not the same creatures as if they're looking in a mirror?
All things being the same, you taste the one but cannot taste the other?

What does it matter that they have five toes, of if the candle you lite its connected by or surrounded by other flames at some distance, synchronized like fireflies?

Nor that the pyramids we build have steps in tune with the planets in the sky and seasons, our shifting zero or that at some beginning or end in our reach to the top of the world imagine them covered smooth with alabaster and crystal finials?

We speak of mythical creatures as if they part of the natural zodiac without them leaving holes while in our meditations we awaken to the thought we too are mythical.

Caught between idolatry and godhead, we beggars in the paradoxes of learning, of seeking, we cloudy foam perceivers, our hearts burning in worship of deceivers

* * *

At least from my perspective, if we read between the lines of this debate on the nature of space and physics, someone might one day look back at the drama of it and the connections of fundamental ideas to which many here hint at what is needed or not desired, or said about the same thing in a different language. This level of blogging, and who knows if the same thing occurs beneath the formality of submitted papers in our institutional settings? I hope others have seen and entertained the drama of it- for unlike trivial drama this enquiry may change our futures.

I read through links today the essential difference between the quantum foam ideas as to how we relate them in higher dimensions. If one cannot understand of course the issues are over their heads- or if from some higher perspective with care for contemplative things, one can hardly understand what is not an issue to him. Yet as we sift through the sea of papers and ideas- we clearly can see the reasons why some notions are held and some from a higher level not seen as an intelligible truth.

* * *

My question today, and recreation of last night, is topology 101- that is Pitkanen raises the issues of handles describing the genus of topological structures- something I had not considered for a long time. Consequently, I did not mention the details of his posting directly.

If we represent a torus as a square or cube as far as the possibilities of internal motion- where is the hole? It could be represented as a loop or handle outside of the cube- but this raises deeper questions as to how we apply such concepts to general geometry for physics should we ground it in the terms of mass and energy.

Now I see a crude drawing in one of the links, wiki, that has a plane and handles over it which they say is a model of quantum foam.

The wiccansphere I thought would be a simple object to contemplate and map the internal structures, an exercise in imagination really (I found a new way earlier of numbering the quasic plane diagonal for expanding squares wherein in the 1024 celled grid the jagged diagonal goes from 0 to 63 with some interesting properties of those cells which are not contained one way or the other in the diagonal. This relates to how Lubos is skeptical of such methods in the linear algebra and matrices. I find it significant and reassuring that this was one of the few times Lubos said he did not understand aspects of the paper. Those insightful objectively should ask why.)

But as I said earlier we can take some of these geometries as literal realities of the descriptions and representations of systems as nature herself does.

I recall vividly early on in Gammow's book (hey, I met a student of his once who said he was an amiable old guy who gave lectures sometimes with a hangover or even a little drunk) where the human body is considered a torus and the gut the hole and the picture turned this inside out such that the universe was contained in the whole and the human body the rest of the universe. All I got from this at the time was that in a sense what we eat is really outside us.

One thing in that paper was the four space smoothness in relation to some sense of what is a monopole (and not of the point particle descriptions of some as one way to view say the Casmir force). The concept I imagine is the asking of what is one side or two sides of things logically (or even in a sense illogically if we seem to have to say both things are there either/or at once when either thing seems to state the whole of the logic of the argument.) But this paper along with many others cites the idea of a pure four space and variations in it. These variations suggest, even without appeal to the higher dimensions of string theory so favors the loop quantum topological ideas, that things are rather multisided, more of biquadratic and bilateral four way dialectic or dipoles than simpler space descriptions. Newton btw did not see a pure definition of continuity without consideration of consecutive and contiguous properties of the down to earth finite and discrete. This is one picture as of Leibniz and his space models of the inductive infinitesimals- but others like Riemann have refined these ideas of how to access such areas and intervals.

Ulla sent me her paper showing life a little more complex than these descriptions of physics in that there is a difference in the coherence and decoherence if we use the quantum terms. But from discussions on the science forums it seems even from a viewpoint less than the complexity of living things the members appeal to decoherence in general for emergent properties such as mind but really do not understand it in depth or a global theory of depth. (Ulla, I am very impressed with your formal paper and documentation to which it will take me awhile to follow the links.) Material priority aside for mental things one cannot show decisively anything more that a place for some mental experience and not the substance of the experience and its reality itself. In general we have here, beyond the philosophic duality in modern terms- two competing theories of everything which in reality both descriptions apply in a wider picture to which it is obvious many cannot understand if their depth and span directions are reduced or limited, or even allowed into unlimited speculations. After all, what is an explosion but no room and the reaction of implosion after some critical mass?

Yet, I in the center of the dragons cannot say I am doing more than floating in some indefinite realm with no guarantee in my multi depths and spans (and btw, I thank Ken Wilbur for the terms and his independent study of Buddhism and holonic views) surrounded by theories of everything. I am not sure therefore my Omnium as a vague general goal of unification of physical models is a theory of everything itself but it is of sufficient generalization to evaluate that of others and for the untrained I am like a guitar player who knows the chords so can deliver the music yet not the hard flamenco of many melodies at once. Yet it is here that the improvisation can fix to some depth of learning, see the whole, and be creative in the details.

The Wiccansphere, The shell itself is part of the substance as well the connections within it of substance and the spaces between and in some of those connections. We then imagine the connections as external loops- in effect at zero parabolic space invert the hyperbolic space inside to the external elliptic space.

Lampion- A region of space, quasi-connected topologically (with that a matter of the widest sense of what remains invariant) does not "know" what depth or span it is in. It can as singularity or "centered and focused mass" be either or both in response and reaction to influences. (this explains but does not predict after the fact of observations, the local influence between location and variable creativity of light or dark centers of matter (recall, Lubos does not understand this smoothing in the more pure four space- not a defect really- anymore than Pitkanen in his model treats such as more than islands that over a sea of entropy finds indefinite averaging in the pure four space representation- mine and many such ideas of weak multiverse averaging short of assertions of variable action scales, the ultranscontinuum, Ulcm, of which some mythologies make models, Poe, Urantia, and so on.

Information approaches would do well to unify these dragons with a better understanding of the nature of entropy. Ulla mentions Prigione btw.

I thought also to represent depth, at least where it corresponds to internal grids of hyperbolic crushed into orthogonal euclidean regions, that we could represent it as vertical quantum formulation notation |n> but this is somewhat confusing and also hard to print. |1/n> = |2^n>...

I lay on the kitchen floor with just a thin pallet and drift to sleep. I feel the gravity that for a second I do not know which way is up, only that I can feel myself feeling I exist so when I feel a wall I know it exists (Sartre) The floor is like a wall and it seems so independent as a force or no force at all, of gravity- and I do not fall really. My world seems so one sided between the stuff and space. The moon is high now after all the lights failed awhile and I lit a candle for the spooky gal across the way who finds a flash light and shines it out her bedroom window- a ritual of her going to bed, a goodnight although we never speak. My roommate Bonpa has no problem in the dark so he sits there am meditates. I fade to sleep after stopping trying to count in the dark the damn grid keeps coming up with 668 maybe a little close to 666 for the superstitious. I dreamed the neighbor walked by in a hat and actually said hello to me- like normal people passers-by. Sometimes were are connected, then sometimes embarrassed if our random sparks in the foam of our minds merely wish for things.

* * *

Yet, in the middle of it all, with finer vision and detail, the old out of place quasicontinuum of the chessgame with its new depths and spans asks me to coin another word again, super-quasicontinuum (Sqsm) but in a sense our warmth is limited across the twists and turns of turning inside out and free fall as nature seeks her rests and sleep.

* * *