Zenith and Nadir, the Depths of Physics
In 61, when there were only protons, neutrons, and electrons in the world- a few stray particles perhaps not part of a general picture but not a zoo either, I dreamed a robed figure like an ancient Greek or prophet pointed to the sky and said "Zenith" where there were three colored objects that made a proton- and then pointed down and said "Nadir" where there were three with complimentary colors. How confusing it is sometimes when our dreams become the reality.
I have very little to say, theory wise, today. It could have been a terse update:
*1 An omnion of so many fixed iotas generally preserves (conserves) the number of them in all representations.
*2 Two omn's may exist in an abstract quasic motion relation to any dimensional level of the information as binary coordinates.
*3 In relation to the continuum of negative and positively directed ordinals, omn's may exhibit "tone", that is degrees of quasic space motions, (ie, shades of gray).
*4 What may be limited in the span as to the binary coordinates of space and group structure may be unlimited from the viewpoint of material (in depth opposed to the gravitational ideas) and this can make something like the idea of a continuum.
*5 Number theory is also, in this omnic consideration of fundamental parts of some whole, be put into matrices (like the one of yesterday with the 5 ESP symbols of Dr Rhine of Duke) which has a certain balance or magic squareness in that say 4 x 5 = 5 x 4 for 20 of the 25 objects of shifts of position and color in the span. This is the representational model akin to the idea of 5 objects in 5 objects and so on- for we can have five tetrahedra embedded in a 5cell polytope or five of them in a three space tetrahedron... and so on for all representational structures.
*6 Ordinal numbers open ended relative to the absolute ground as if a positive universe may combine and combine complimentary binary notations an colors in the various directions at either end, ideal or concrete, of their infinity direction. These moreover can make complexes, starting with triangles of them for fixed topologies.
* * *
I might say this is a lot to say, if I were more sure of the clarity of the ideas involved as to the grounding thru the simplicity of it also. I might not have posted at all today but my friend sent me at least the picture of the tiger stuffed toy and that I also saw- with this ongoing bedeviling of synchronicity in the dialog as if in response to some statement maybe never read some of you deliberately for whatever reason alert me to some explorations in the literature- or perhaps that one may think I ride the tyger tails of other researchers here to have a journalistic topic.
In any case, today Kea has two interesting links http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0407
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2238 - one a little less relevant but does seem to take the polytope geometry as a little more concrete an idea and thus how we might relate things to the topology of structures and matrix procedures and so on. The other from my view, and with some specific statements or numbers, seems to me decidedly Omnic in its general direction- which of course is for me the next level after we have explored all of the topology and number background. I wonder if others, and the authors, are aware or imagine such distinction.
One longing I get this morning is that, even when living researchers are not generally known, certainly the ideas have a sort of evolutionary history- so it may be that there are so many deep yet unsung theoreticians who could contribute to the progress of the whole enterprise, accelerate it. While is it a great feeling to find others with similar interests even in the geometry of recreations, I find it a little sad that the vast majority of those we do not know dwell in some virtual space opaque to our efforts and our duplication of such efforts. Some sight that promotes general science should collect these on various levels if it can be done so that we have a map, a neural net at least, in which to navigate our learning of the theoretical areas as well of the standard evolving of notations and language.
* * *
Of which I just found this interesting post, with of course the memory of challenges from anthropologists opposed to any sort of general binding of notions, speculative or more scientific- of course we do not want a situation where languages fossilize the methods and the culture- especially to undermine the ideals of science:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414065107.htm
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment