Mirror Symmetry

* * *

Mirror Symmetry

1. A wildcard or "star", depending on its value in a topological context with respect to having a central singularity or not, can be set to 1 or 0, sometimes dependent on how the notation finds the right value for formulas.

2. In a universe of one object in reference to itself, say a planet, does it "know" it is the only object? Can it know if it spins? Can it determine if it shrinks or expands or is of a fixed scale? Can it define its entropy or its being as isolated?

3. In a universe of two such objects, an observer at a pole facing the other one, and seeing that object spin in one direction or another, can the observer "know" if the object observed or the one he is on is the one spinning? Both together and the spin not observed?

4. Can we determine the spin by inertial or tidal forces measured within or upon the observer? If the direction of spin goes one way that it may shift or change for the observer can this be distinguished short of observing from a higher or lower dimension?

5. A constellation of objects, reduced abstractly to a Plane or Membrane, may reflect the structure of some prime number of symmetry in reflection upon itself.

6. Geometrical objects that seem to have mirrored forms like the "snub cube" may in fact from some general perspective be considered indistinguishable. Some objects that seem symmetrical and the same in a mirror may not in fact be so.

7. An abstract "particle" say the iota string-point on some scale or level in the universe, in a constellation, given a sufficient context of lower dimensions will exhibit a level where chiral symmetry exists and may have physical expression. This can occur also at some level of complexity of concrete particles.

8. Within the field or context of such interrelated dimensions, their concreteness and abstraction intelligible, a constellation will express internal force realization as a measure of the concept of close packing as if the units or particles are infinite polygons unto the dimension and as such the shift to so pack them results in the chirality or handedness of the constellation as if in a mirror.

9. The ground, abstract and real, for such geometry of a constellation and its intelligible arithmetic, also defines the mirror itself regardless of what is image and what is concrete and establishes the possibility of further symmetries which may or may not be doubled in and at both surface sides of such a grounding mirror. This can make a difference in concrete weights of what is at least locally mass and energy and philosophically a ground of intelligible gravity.

Possible Notations:

v^+- v^-+ -v^++ and so on where as in v^m (Kea) m = the logical possibilities of structures of abstract space or real space given sufficient comprehension of the topology and algebra of such virtual or opaque numerical structures.

[It occurs to me we might be able to take the neutrino chart Kea posted down a further step to the iota- and the variations of iota neutrinos and antineutrinos or maybe somehow varying the m values and anti-mirror values- I do not readily see how but suspect that if such "particles" are real and cannot be observed it is because in a wider topology these connect and cancel intelligibly. The concept of such mirror particles in the context of Kea's topology, if I understand it right, has to be also a great breakthrough in theoretical foundations.]

* * *

By "observer" I mean, in as much as we strive for a concept of metaphor, that from the macroscale what is perceived or is a physical fact of things that what is seen depends on the general situation the observer finds itself within. Or from the quantum view on the mircoscale, that which upon being observed is changed from the perceiving or physical fact (distinguishing this as a duality not solved by the simple unification of either ideas of observation in modern physics)... And in our general sense of the scale of things, we the observer central between these scales of observation so as to be considered mesoscale centered, that which can observe to some degree, be aware, of itself- its perceptions changing and changed by its state in being.

Clearly, we can almost invisibly accept the possibility that of these abstract descriptions one can show consciousness in the dynamic core of things and not just some artifact of a particular incomplete theory or vague unsubstantiated intuition.

If we so generalized the idea of chirality (be it some sort of geometric spin or an interpretation of something said fundamental like charge) does indeed ground the idea a little deeper of abstract geometric structrures and twistor formulations- which of course on the level of that theory has not asked a deeper reason it is.

Let us not detract from the evolution of these abstract thoughts concerning the ideas and expansion of dimension, be it the vision of string theories, or the inner connections of complex numbers, or in general any of the insights of Riemann on which we have built. Pitkanen has taken a leap in all the models of variance and any such ideas of slices or layers of fields that can be tied to intelligible numbers but of which these act in the jumps in a more fixed vision in Riemann's sense.

In the abstract algebra concerning general group ideas, those of compactified space and higher symmetry breaking, and of the relations of methods of surface to volume holographic and algebraic analogies (these too held in a fixed view of dimensions less than variance beyond continuity) describes useful possibilities of space structures which for me are a steppingstone to a little more intelligible vision of dimensions.

The concepts of connections of some abstract structures, ideas of wormholes, mouths and such, or in general such fixed topologies, to fit into a wider vision and a useful one, needs to understand the interactions of such brane like objects be they the actual substance or skeleton of a description of consciousness, at least life, itself and of course what in the concrete world such wider topology may represent. But nature too can treat these in some cases as intelligible simplified models for various purposes. Again, we have to determine an orbit around or default into some real or virtual centering of a singularity. The amazing thing is not that we can see whole numbers between angles mirrors but in the wide shifting of them we see partial objects as if a division of these transcendental spectra.

* * *



Thinking about the dimensions of 8 pt. star moulds last night.

I also got an interesting email thru of all places the sciencechatforum which sent me this interesting PDF on an alternative physics. Note- email is LoversOfWisdom@yahoo.com for those interested for direct communications.

See: Message saying:

Take a look at the article "The Universe beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm
of Physics", which is located at:
http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/beyond.pdf

* * *