Space and Calculator Play

Space and Calculator Play

As I said some ideas in the back of our minds occur playfully which may or may not have any meaning for a future path of enquiry. Certainly at such a frontier we all appear quite the novice. So I looked at such states of mind in general and tried to make some sense of it as if trying to interpret an awakened dream. Such a process does seem to be an engaging with what can be in the real world, the physical world, even if ultimately it may be quite an uncertain and random unintelligible place. But in the search or rumors of some vague intuition we learn to ask new questions and shore up new methods- but I tell you nothing new here.

So, what is in the back of my mind informally that led me to consider these patterns of 13 and 7 ? Part of it is the haunting similarities of reading the conjectures of other minds and the sense that there is a wide scope of new problems to understand and solve. One such concept is, taken literally, for the Monster group and the we see such things in general, how in the heck can we visualize what (Tony Smith http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/TShome.html ) said was the natural representation of the "maximum symmetry" as 196884 dimensions? [some of his same numbers came out in my calculator play in fact the speculation here today may have some relationship to what is considered inside and outside the nucleus of an atom but this too a playful speculation as an alternative to my own areas of intuition's with this informal and bare post today. ]

Certainly a group of mathematicians working with this over a long time and with complicated calculations would know more than those not familiar with the terrain on the meaning of such trivial or seemingly magical coincidences of matching numbers- especially where they seem to have integer values.

But what was this exploration really but finding the ways in such a symmetry of how things move in normal three space? That assumes a lot about the structure of the cosmos and what laws of physics depends on our three space which so far it is said there is no good explanation as to why the world is three dimensional.

I can discuss this today at all because I took a look again at the making of a twelve pointed star mould. I even begin to think another attempt at the candle company as an actual business or art is not worth the effort and that what I learn from such designs in space, for its own reward, might in itself explain why the attempts only succeed so far. Nothing was wrong with the art or production. It is hard not to believe that the state of society is simply that to succeed one has to sell a lower form of crap to the masses. Truth is, that if I had just bought and sold raw wax I would have made more money than turning all into candles. And somewhere in the back of my mind I know we have light bulbs (save the day when the lights went out all over town and everything sold- and the fact that with my tapers once could read by candlelight with a steady burning over a long time.) Still, the selling of candles has a certain compensation, a romantic thing to do really. And it has mystery in that what may seem the same product sells better because a worker somehow puts his stamp of his sense of art on it.

Vaguely I imagine that when we slice a tetrahedron the section is a square. Or if we slice a cube the section is a hexagon. So what is the analogy really to the hypotenuse of a Pythagorean triangle in space, or the diagonal of a matrix. Apparently it is not just a slice of the next dimensional plane thru a solid.

So, in the complicated world of space in these super high dimensions, I thought there may be analogs. For if we slice a Soma Cube we get hexagons and triangles. In reading Kea I got a sense that what this slice amounts to on some real level is a fano plane. This sort of imagining things in space, on the particle level or deeper (of which I believe it has more general application) suggests to me a more general concept of symmetry breaking as presented to us in the various forms and related to the various concepts of number theory. That is to say, that given the same number of things in a pattern- here involving three prime numbers, 3^n, 7, and 13 and in a way that does not just suggest the division of the Monster group by the three highest primes when nothing after all can be said more for a simple group, That nature is expressing some numerological difference in square and hexagonal things. In fact they seem to be a sort of alternative lattice. What happens in general if we divide space into a set of overt and hidden dimensions? What after all brings them together again in a sort of global relation in a world where it is not clear that any such connection needs to loop back over a range of space to itself?

My question then is, in a world where I have conjectured at a certain (quasifinite) level we cannot distinguish the inside and outside of things other than arbitrarily, what makes it possible in general to so distinguish them on different levels of physical effects. Perhaps, this matching of patterns are sometimes separate realms or fields that work together when we choose, without explanation, just to see it one way or to merely assert there is an intrinsic asymmetry to things, even if this can be computed to some degree by ideas of complex number fields and asymmetric directions, even where they correspond to measures by statistics and averaging of weight values. The matrices at such an iota point are not so focused and rigid in the application to physical objects. Part of the problem, always the issue with if point exist or not that comes us, is how they relate to at each point or object that behaves as a continuum, or similar but subtly different object that behaves as if a singularity is that of at any such "point" we erect whole continua or multiples of them. Again, the old statement "we understand the infinite but the finite will take us a little while longer" what clever truth under that seems to apply.

So, in the simple pattern - one really that can break 13 into two squares, I find to color the (quasic or quanta like bundles of integer space points regardless of the thresholds, density, and energy patterns) one higher broken symmetry as if these bundles are dimensions require four colors and one three colors. Here again where we apply numbers to patterns and dimensions we make a ground of different interpretation as to what are in effect a three or four dimensional interactive view.

It is alright to reduce by considerations of symmetry (or from all this plethora of new conjectures playfully perhaps asserted for those to be the first with an idea in general for new physics such as deciding by Poincare what sort of point like things or singularities reduce to say hyperspheres as the general manifold. But in the freedom of nature to establish changes said to be say 2 space and continuous motions we can within so many levels of natural dimensions apply these matrices as if what is expressed is not that simply intelligible to the dimension in question or what broken symmetric patterns intelligibly occur.

But what is wax but a crude distillation of what mineral wealth we find on our small ball of light and dust- does the physical stuff matter or the patterns and processes? For after all we add time to the mix, and ideas of added value by the application of heat- and moreover half the methods involve different or empty spaces from what makes the excluded volumes of a mould, even wax itself its own mould or ice or water. Not to but mention the relation to exact lines for the partition of so many pieces for a mould that it be extracted easily... the parameters of heat and expansion or shrinkage with chemistry between materials part of the picture so as to have some modular control and standard for a product. Some stuff and the surprise when it becomes an object we can name even if it is a fleeting object as art only that in the end become just a matter of abstract geometry again as if that is stuff.

* * *

I must add that in a sense, in the more esoteric of these neoteric and playful speculations- that many of the ideas on Tony Smith's page have slowly come up somewhere in the net and on the literature. Again, the genome is more complicated than the simple six dimensional case and there is nothing really new in the glass bead game of applying binary I Ching to the genome. The problem in our world views as if our consciousness match the "outside" world when such shared senses of universal patterns are intelligible with the purposes and intuitions of our minds is always to determine if the model of our thinking is expressing what is "outside" as our own intuitions within ourselves. But as Kierkegaard observed in matters of group therapy- the purpose, when the strength of the group is measured ultimately by those who participate- is in matters of realistic ego that the unique individual finds himself again.

* * *




* * *

While I'm playfully speculating:

The doom and gloom comment made that the creation of a black hole in our colliders, even by my considerations, does not strike me as good science. Great, we have exo-planet geology showing the need for deeper theories- but what sort of creative object or black hole does such limited theories predict. Sure, ideas of things like how we do fusion, especially containing plasma in laser lattices, even those that hint of a useful cold fusion hold promise and it is good to hear.

It is possible then, that with newer topological understanding of how the dimensions work from a slightly more general view, that all the values do balance and that other than being on one side of some abstract structure there is a neutral or balanced symmetry of these things. Short of much deeper theories even the changes may have there natural compensations and the actual construction of such entities might be out of our reach, even by accident- but on a deeper level our current physics cannot say with assurance the possibilities are more than open questions. It is good to know that the mixing of neutrino mass generations for example gives us a reasonable certainty that our sun does not go nova tomorrow and there could be analogs to these ideas after the generalizations are worked out. This is not to say that, as some suggest, such objects may come from elsewhere to reek havoc but if they do would we see any implosion or explosion effects more than what the new data seems to be telling us about deeper structures of space? But what is science fiction but the suspension of some law of physics enough to give the idea credibility? Kea's quote as to our stance to new or conflicting data is right on whether it conforms to our theories or not.

Well, certainly the needs of this world is worth the search still as well the promise of some success- but the resource of our dreamers has value too for what we are especially if we share the same dream without it being a fallout of false fears. Someone has to do the vast work of ever more specialized exploration, let us not discourage such dreams of making our world a safer and better place. Science is not as post modern in this era that we are so powerful that like Foucault it is the script where we write ourselves out of the play.

* * *