Vacuum Structure Materialization

Vacuum Structure Materialization L. Edgar Otto

"You get Sally, I get Sue. Doesn't matter much, either one will do. Cocaine, going 'round in my brain." from the song Cocaine

I commented in the last post I did not know where I was getting all this energy. I do know people who make puzzles an addiction of sorts, a primitive form of video games the villagers of ancient Greece played in the sand. So I go down for a cigarette on the porch where I have done some thinking and computation as the habit on this blog from last may when I watched my son's dog in Chicago.

I decided after yesterday's post I could take a break. In any case the ideas seem to come from nowhere- all this having nothing to say led to rather long posts- and part of it is dialog what there is and inspiration from the others here. But no. A rather strange idea came to which I thought nothing could come from this line of enquiry. This morning sleeping in a little I recalled even working on it a bit in my dreams, more of a restatement to shore up the thoughts from last night.

I note today that Kea is discussing these issues of the ideas of mirror neutrons and so on. I suppose in science we have to have our specialization- that is we do not tend to merge things on one, say the atomic, with the body cell mechanism level of biology. It was an odd feeling way back saying hello to professors who work on different floors of a building and rode the same elevator but never really talked with each other- I had to be a force carrier between them in a sense to ask my question. I am more of a generalist in that I see little difference in the discipline of say chemistry and nuclear physics. It is most interesting to see differences as say a hierarchy of symmetries of crystal groups or nuclear magnetic resonance- and particle resonances in general.

So, I give you another paper of conjectures to make sense of the new particle zoo. Is the SUSY dead? or are well from the topological view in a sense making the same sort of zoo that strikes us as falling? Super symmetery Alternatively (Sally) is my question. For we are talking about the real dust and the shadows or at least the mirrors of things. In a sense the parties for and against these sorts of ideas, at least in theory, have relatively gotten each others view backwards. So I can fundamentally see why my comments on handedness for example would not be readily understood- let alone a part of a wider inclusive theory.

Anyway, the basic idea of last night was to consider Kea's structures in the Higher dimensional sense I had shown for the 3^n Rubik's cubes. What if we reversed things such that instead of the three wild card jokers they became in a sense concrete and the rest of the structure more imaginary or jokers themselves?

I first thought of a slice thru the 3^3 cube to make the 7 of the fano plane- in fact it seems we can continue this 1, 7, and perhaps 37 as slices of these higher dimensional cubes- so, do we not sally forth with a whole see of virtual or other super particles?

I already determined in normal space there can be observed effects of abstract motion in several higher dimensions into this space- so what would restrict this more amorphous view? I think we need a better understanding of the foundations of what be mean by the C and P in CPT. It is not enough to simply reverse one axis or all three of them so to call that space or distinguish mirrors. That there is a general bias in nature, in the matter as shadow or dust, comes from the fact that the background on many fractal like levels is not symmetric but depends on the directions x and y of the quasic grid as to the orthogonal numbers so contained.

But it is OK to say C means electric charge for clearly it is a radius of vectors from a center as if a sphere that we use to describe such charges- and I suggest that in the parity as a surface and Chirality as a volume that in both cases, the electric and magnetic and their notions of mirrors, that these reverse, four way reconditely (like perhaps the wider idea of Kea and the observed types of neutrons.) such that in the depth and span we have a sort of mirror of both types of distinction.

Now, in the early days there were puzzle explorers who tried to color the faces of a Soma cube pieces so they made a matching puzzle with some various success. In an odd way this lead to the Fuller like internal mechanism of the Rubiks cube which I after seeing this early work in Hungary almost made such a cube as did others- in fact one I tried to make with permanent magnets the Japanese had a version on the market. Of course other geometric and geodesic shapes were obvious to any of us I did make the great dodecahedron and a few trivial others not made (one a sphere of 24 that needed no internal mechanism.) I was surprised that the solving of the Rubik's cube took about three chess games of complexity but of the Rubik's tetrahedron very swiftly one could stumble at random on a solution even blind.

In the world of dust, the materialized world of things, we tend to desire that matter is the basis of things (I am more used to the near integral number of ratios of particles as a description instead of the idea of a measure in electron volts). But it is not clear on which side of a mirror is the real and which is the shadow. Nor that a difference in the energy in such indiscernibles can be a benchmark.

So in the world of dust we want to say that atoms, stars and and so on form aggregates and clump together. Before the Soma cube, Stenhaus I believe made a puzzle using pentacubes and one tetracube and one tricube for a total of 27. But one could make many with this restriction of number of n-cubes. In fact it has one solution. In the illustration above I placed the p u q articulated ones for more possible solutions, ( or it may have a mirror solution depending on if we so choose to count it different). Now in familiar space outside of the internal or not existing symmetries of things we can have the freedom to make such aggregates and in many ways not necessarily connected- and yet this precursor to the soma cube- that more from Hein's distraction at a quantum lecture- seems to have a solid if partial materialization logic of its own, that is I now have more respect for this puzzle.

All these new imagined and named particles! the Super-zoo. We are back to the simplification of the use of original terms for number theory like "irrational" from the poet Euclid. Not to say there are not nor can be some of these particles at least from a structural viewpoint in the vacuum, observable or not. This clever generation of physicists are highly imaginative but not poets, really.

Now, let us recall that Riemann, who did a little work of number theory- well, he was studying hydraulics at the time- and so many of late reach to these primitive ideas of fluids and dark fluids. We build on our own set of ideas and realizations and I mention this because what else we are doing at the time has its effects on what we may do differently or what path we to down. Surely what is inside or outside of these sorts of external and internal geometries in the mind of Riemann and from the suggestions of Gauss, there must have been some general concept of spin and voritices as well the return again as if magically to what is a denser space in its initial multiplicities.

* * *

This is a challenge then, really to develop perhaps what is a sort of fluid topology of matter and dark matter ideas- can quantum ideas ultimately destroy matter or not in the real if not philosophic viewpoint? How else would we observe the miracle or paradoxes of creation from nothingness?

* * *

Oh, in checking the links from Kea's post today I noticed that they had found but not named 118 elements. In 1976 I stood alone with my doubts on bicentinium which proved to be echos in mica for the evidence and the idea was retracted. Maybe we finally can settle this issue experimentally- for the next ones 119 and 120 I take to be a sort of limit as to what we mean currently by mass. These of course have the properties of H and He ... was Seaborg right or from at least and arithmetical view if there are higher forms of atoms they do not simply follow things the way we understand them. It is not enough to double things as the mirror structures from the same polytopes of say electron configuration- nor such a strict view of strings and quarks and so on. From the recondite view in all the super-particle speculation who has imagined spins of 4? Who has understood at least the virtual possibility of a fundamental 16 or perhaps 24 dimensions (with Conway the exception)? But it does pay to ask these questions on the nature of decay and coherence and symmetry breaking and point or string particle concepts of mass. After all, old Gammow whom I met some of his students saying he was sometimes hungover quite sociable in his lectures first raised these issues in the crucible of the stars- launched theory wars in the cosmologies, and dared speculate on the nature of DNA.

* * *

I am not sure about the synchronicity of all this- it is close as the last part of my positing came half past noon and began around ten- But Ulla sent me 4 interesting links which in my eyes are very focused and relevant to the issues at hand- and yes, for our topological theory posters with braids and things.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/17
http://focus.aps.org/story/v27/st9
http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.057002
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/19

1. was to organize materials with a concept and application of a fluid background.

2. some effects on materials on some level involving magnetic fields.

3. further effects with light and magnetism involving pairs and superconductivity.

4. and one involving the folding of furrows of which I make the quote:

"The analysis of the formation of a sulcus suggests that similar nonlinear instabilities may occur in any scale-free system with free boundaries that form singularity like structures. The formation of cavities, bubbles, and cracks not only share these features, but their nucleation is notoriously sensitive to experimental details. The work of Hohlfeld and Mahadevan may provide a framework to organize and perhaps, ultimately, control the formation of singular structures in materials."

The last one I am not clear to what extent it involves simply non-linear processes. But I am reminded of the controversial application and theory of Rene Thom from his book on catastrophe theory called Universal Topology an author whom I placed high in my mythology of secondary physics (and if not mistaken actually had a campus conversation in passing on the effects of mammal cell differentiation in embryo's- a question beyond 32 cells still not tested in space due to the shuttle disaster). In any case his amounted to the embedding and the topology resulting in observed space of hidden "butterfly flips" of the non-Euclidean spaces into Euclidean ones. This certainly appears to me to be part of the general picture of some of the things on a deeper scale we have been trying to do. It is worth a new look. But these sorts of ideas are part of our clinging to the familiar world of dust- the chaos here does seem to in a sense apply in realized flips in the dust over all dimensional scales.

* * *

I wonder if the Er=119 and Qr=120 in some sense of the analogy to H=1 and He=2 that the same differences albeit they small applies- in which case those theoreticians who can work with such values and equations may be able to predict such mirror differences. Does this have a uniform function across all the periodic table of such conjectured analogs? It is here, BTW that thermodynamics may be more involved in determining deviations from ideal electron configurations of atoms more than just the magnetic aspects and even the quantum aspects of things across the span and depth of such (perpendicular) shadows and dust.

* * *

The original version of Steinhaus Cube I just now found here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubeDissection.html 3x5 and 3x4 pieces... interestingly he uses three of the p u q articulated cubes (not articulated).

I keep forgetting to google things- I did recall that sweet book this cube was in called Mathematical Snapshots.