Bubble Wrap Physics ( Form and Process Physicality)

Bubble Wrap Physics ( Form and Process Physicality)

The idea on my last posting has rather brought me to a halt of sorts- that or for now I have finished with this era of and directions. Perhaps, it is an idea that in the knowing of it as a real or final answer, problem solved now move on to another frontier. Then again we may have felt that about the quark theories and the discovery of omega minus particle - so much for explaining the binding force as the frontier of desired goals- perhaps the complexity of organic structures still have virgin realms of the uncharted regions and points of inaccessibility to explore.

I mean it all appears so abstract in a way. Good, the bloggers today say there is no data confirming wimps and other notions of dark matter- other than some rather interesting exotic ideas as a possibility I felt this last swan song of reductionist view unlikely anyway, at the cost of falling into a complete world of abstractions where our compasses may not read just right or we may not yet have one.

If we can combine these representations of geometric structures, polygons and polytopes and so on, what after all are we combining? Points? Strings? A moving duality of other dimensions? Iota particles and ray complexes- certainly not any more abstract as the zig and zags of Penrose who says we may as well call them particles? But with two lowly representations of cubes in hyperspace so interconnected across dimensions- be they one sheet of structure or compactified in a way as if matter is that contained within bubble wrap- what do we do when we realize there are so many such representations of all the world of expanded and flattened polytopes? Here even as a simple and abstract theory we reach a great complexity requiring surveyors of the frontier, its mountains and riverse and the laying down of plat grids.

But cannot a lattice of metal, two such flat cubes observe the Casimir phenomena of which, by points or quantum explanation, we might relate this to the scale of the universe in general? We might in theory tap its energies? We might apply it to the molecules of life and the stickiness of nanotechnology?

One possibility is that this is like candle making in that it is not enough to train the artist (that he may from that foundation reach the point to bring to the project his own arts) but we need a list of the processes involved. This is the world of verbs in a language where, like in Basic English no verbs are needed. It is a linguistic matter of safety in the workplace too.

We coat this, or burnish this, or cut this; heat or cool the mass, exclude some region doing it first that itself is its own mould. I developed a whole group of signs for such process language to which we also keep in mind the common sense of the design as well the art and science around it. It seems to me that in these matters of theory design, beyond the sterile use of form, our continuous world is one of process, the verbs. Most equations do not realize that this is the quality deep down of the symbols of their formula- that which can be empty or descriptive to one view is dynamic to a finite based other. One persons exotic higher dimensional dreams is anothers two dimensional man or vice versa.

So, as I said, I felt today that I had reached some limit of my ability and creativity and in reaching it, after a long effort, I had discovered a nothing at all when you get down to it. But this itself seems a process of our discovering things. I thought one way beyond this was to think of the processes and the mathematics of it implied by some theorist, the summing of ideas over seeing the world at least thru the usual language of nature as differentiation. But what has occurred to me initially was after all some notions and symbols which themselves are ultimately but a rather finite and descriptive language. In short it is a physics outside the scope of our current enquiry, it goes beyond topology and physics to the metaphysics of the background concept I have long called Omnium. But as all great and grand human speculation, even stumbling, we find new trails along the way and at times gain more from that that our modest original goals.

I am less familiar with the continuous approach and its language but I can glean some ideas- especially where there is a debate in the dialog of the competent with fundamental differences of views. (even this as a possible independent undertaking of research would require new languages, new ways to expand what can amount to our vast edifice of expounding on what to some is unintelligible and will prove or seem really a language talking about nothing, the dance itself and not the dance moves.

Principle: Over the Omnium (which is to say over some unity of quasi-infinite time before the question if the universe began) the idea of a negative vacuum so to be filled is more a quasic process, that is, there is not reason the structures and processes of such space fills the vacuum on every level and in the same amount and way. We simply simplify the equations before we can expand upon the notions. But this ultimately is also part of the process or continuity.

Does the universe expand or does the velocity of light slow down against this background? In a sense both view are tenable against our vague notion of dark or matter and energy in the calyptic opaque. In any case we can expect as these representational forms interact that some for of measure results as well as the actual observation of "particles" and the geometry as the laws and that these laws are intelligible from such differences as say, a hyperbolic disc compared with a disc that is not one in the representation.

Or from the concept of the depth and span at least in higher spaces that too is not simply a two way duality, especially of points and lines in some polyhedron as things are shown to change from some initial point, to oscillate generations- and that the sum is unity more or less being it from the so called big bang or the center of the sun- energy, that poetic concept really again, as the action-frequency of light, as the mass and light squared, as the maximum expansion (but not simply the volumes as known)of the universe- and back again to the bubbles as pebbles, that is some idea of a minimum distance and duration region or particle- and yet when the totality of representations surround a region is it not in a sense irreducible or its contractions and expansions across the depths and span and dimension, and of quasic space itself over the unity of Omnic time, the Casimr forces have no where to go unless in some do first process such structures, assumed to cohere indefinitely together, acummmulate or relatively do so, some energy trapped within its depths.

* * *

The illustration above I put there for the art of it as I had nothing else- in fact I thought I would have hardly anything today to say at all... and yet for whatever artistic reason I did it and saved it I today see the 4 x 4 (in the 4 x 5) pattern hidden among the 25. But as we have to get beyond the duality's of the point, ray and string level of which these still have a place, we have to get beyond the topology background world and explore the omnium as background, that is if I myself want to make progress and continue my interest of such frontiers.

I did imagine also what happens when two iota particles collide or why that should be a process possibility at all- and it seems we reach a level of some very complex things of which even here too the scale or unity applies between the nothingness and the potential infinities. A lepton with jets could make perfectly good sense if we have a more general view to understand what we may be saying. As strings or point string rays, it is not clear the universe has to be so un-relaxed that these must either loop back or reach out to the vanishing of no end in the infinite- nor even find a mirror on some level to close the ends of strings and so on. But this is within the notions of such abstract processes and the intelligibility of various forms.

* * *

The Great Speculation:

Omnion- a term to distinguish for now the point or complex undelying idea of singularities as a sea or background of being to think about iota processes.
[of course the iota itself was conceived as a sort of micro scale omnic principle]

*1 Two omnions may share the same much wider coordinates in a reality, such an omnic class of things may share some infinity of them, none of them, or be a unity.

*2 An omnion may not on the average exist over its non-existence such as we expect with the uncertainty of a quantum particle. Yet there is an uncertainty of its existence that can be an equal balance or chance.

*3 In that these are particles of physicality, the overall question is if they have a certainty of such general coordinates, where would they go anyway but to be the grounding relative to all abstract structures?

*4 Can they exceed the totality of such a coordinate field and if they so do can they carry the information of the field with them?

*5 A complex or structure (topological) of such omnions may not in itself remain a stable accounting save in the general evolving omnic context despite its precipitation over some changes as no where else so to go, including ideas of time and its direction.

*6 Can an omnion come into existence independently and locally of the totality on such a fundamental foundational level?

*7 Once coming to existence can they remain indefinitely stable across all existence?

*8 Will they, in any context summed over all the varieties of vacua, find a source of new energy or are they balanced- or in a sense the notion of such forms and processes remain a balance of both beyond what we consider open or closed systems likewise?

*9 When these concepts are balanced locally does the oscillation differences inherent in structures (such as raw relations between the components and coordinates of dual polyhedra with only a mediator implied) be more than a relative source of energy greater than that uncertain or balanced in the omnic background as if absolute?

* * *

Kea has some interesting links today (I just read after posting) that ring a bell and tend so say some things I have posted on... What is it if not supersymmetry as such? Well, my notion of quasicity for one thing. But this helps me see what others are trying to see with this idea of gravity from a more general viewpoint and some with a questioning of our processes as mathematics and what limitations or not we imagine in the dimensions of things. Yet what is gravity, if we still want to call it that, but that which does focus uniformly down to the grounding of matter and so on even if it is bubbles of some of the gauge theories? Where else can it go over such ideas of vastly still more general coordinate concepts? And what is the problem of relating things to ultra violet notions anyway but a statement of omnic continuous but intermittent measure in the general counting or shell considerations of complexes of such singularity structures?

* * *

The I Ching (I Liq Chuan)art: For the link on the last few posts regarding the geometry descriptions similar to these speculations: White Tyger pic up soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FzU8dlY85g

* * *