Scrabble Matrices (digamma sub 4)

Scrabble Matrix (or to use Coxeter's notation the gamma sub n to the dimension of the orthogons, sub 4 the hypercube.)

To expand on this a bit, take care of what can in physical space focus into double or single jets, we observe a certain notion between the dimensions as having physical consequences in our choice of systems. How many times have we heard the amateur, if not at first asked it ourselves like the Argonauts of old, where is the wall of the finite universe, or where do we fall off the edge of the world?

Intuitively we imagine three space and that outside it or adjacent to it to have a flatland or higher space of two or four dimensions of the dimensional concept intermixed- if these are ever accepted to exist and not all held as three space.

(A word on a paper mentioned on Kea's post yesterday:) The elliptic curves in the paper Motives and Strings by Jan Steinstra. X^4 + Y^4 + Z^2 = 0, I understand without knowing that much about the math expanded from it that it was used in the long proof of Fermat's theorem. So many new terms to learn! "weighted projective plains and so on... Chow what? But in the margin he used saying no two cubes can sum to another cube if we just multiply out (m^2+n^2)^2= (m^2 - m^2)^2 + (2mn)^2 and interpret Fermat's (perhaps vague recondite intuition of the quasic plane) use of the word cube as not only a geometric rather than algebraic object, but a cube as a geometric object along the sense of these new physics topologies- that the answer would be obvious. Clearly this idea has a most useful place when expanded further into things like lattices and so on involving of course factorials, doubled even.

Note, apparently we can just scramble part of such matrices to follow some path or function in order to explore directions physically significant in the 4n world. My scrabble matrix (name of the top of my head) suggests a good grounding for this method.

* * *

Defining Life in the New Physics:

Life is that which is in the world
expresses its external structure and
hidden structures (in both higher and lower dimensional space)
that its extent as an n-dimensional organism contains.

That is, each generation asks, if they ask for themselves
and not just accept answers from others.
this ultimate question that can reach
a level comprehensible to their times

Thus, this too may be an error as ultimate answers go
like the old general systems analysis idea
given entropy in an ever decaying earth, modeled by time or
thermodynamics, that life is defined as anti-entropy

The structural difference is a measure of the impetus
and evolutions intensity of life of that materialized or hidden.
What is a shadow of hidden structures can measure
or store unique structural experience and memory
But these may porjected out to higher space state systems
leap thru dimensions, yet also the grounding of interacting
dimensions over the unity of the Omnium.

* * *

Of course, within a quasic binary region (say a set of four labels making a square) we can scramble them- a sort of mixing or averaging the values or weights, as well as finding the scrabbles with of the metaphoric innuendos and solutions of equations to find. In a deep sense the classical cipher and quantum encoding may not guarantee ways to protect and isolate interpretations of signals. The new physics may indeed over some messages not decoded in principle beyond the quantum idea might do so in new ways as we learn more about the abstract physics and topologies.

Does the information into creative dark spaces come back mangled? Is it balanced in the transition or is there something akin to entropy on a higher level lost where in the down to earth non-local transmissions no Captain Kirk comes back exactly the same?

* * *

A short comment to Kea's post yesterday: I post for the sentiments sake:

Kea,

I recall a decade or so ago that string theory looked like a dead end while it was the only game in town. This was unfortunate for those who had based careers on it, just like friend had to change directions from the "bootstrap hypothesis". But the stringer got a reprieve. I feel, despite all the hints of your wonderful links and all the papers, that the physics community do not realize it is now not the only game in town. But Einstein said it best, nothing impedes such theoretical progress as the lack of funding for the struggle for daily living (paraphrase from his biography).

Let us hope such equations written on the sand are seen by someone before the tide comes again, and stand proud that you have seen it, to be human proud of such achievement even if you stand alone in the end.

The Pe Sla


* * * [btw her last post had some interesting slides I just view as the other computer had parental controls!]

now today on the sciencechatforum there is a discussion on black holes with a youtube video.

http://www.philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&p=178216#p178216

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3qSr5HmGkI&feature=player_embedded

I am convinced that long after a better theory comes along that there will be a whole industry or area of research on the various black hole physics and their different levels of "creativity" and so on.

But what are we to see in the evidence of this picture. It finds a star making a circuit around such a object in the galactic center. Yet, what I think I almost see is that before the picture zooms in there are two distinct areas of the rotation of these stars as if they more or less also form a center or nucleus. I mention this because after years of reading astronomy picture of the day I constantly find myself thinking of alternative to just reductionist interpretations. What sort of structure would this interpretation of the video be evidence of- but then the cube in cube idea of the hypercube is on my mind- and how nature tends to hide it in some of the counting computations while she manages to tie things together in a little higher topology. Of course we can think of analogs to a higher momentum as in the slides, and there are different and what seem incompatible systems even when as in the quasic matrix we might exchange labels of different complimentary covariance and so on where in the flangelation or centering beyond this idea of just a singularity or a complex of things as a center we do find a sort of unity as invariance in a structure everywhere unscrambled.

I think part of the problem is again the use of exponential in notations (logs actually so the Li idea is intriguing to me) where the work from a continuous standpoint to find the more discrete is not the same starting point from the discrete and finite in search of patterns in the infinite. Lie and Klein shared the work of exploring by these methods and in some ways Klein's is the harder path.

But I am always a little startled when I think of some notion far out there to find them unearthed by others. One thing I noticed in the various equations and all these papers is when 90 or 45 come up, which it does a lot in trying to match the color cubes at least in three space.

* * *