A Deeper Grounding for Chirality

A Deeper Grounding for Chirality

Another stray thought of yesterday, that is in the general space or most general space as to we trying to find a unique (or set of unique) solutions- is this deep difference in the idea of longitudinal and latitudinal wave fronts especially as it involves the speed of light. It occurs to me, beneath and beyond all the turns and twists and ides of representations in polar coordinates and so on (as if we can keep pseudo-vectors or pseudo-sphere each in their dominate places in the mixed overview) has anyone thought to relate this to chiral forms in that way that nature tries to express energy in the preferred form of a helix? Surely, there is something fundamental here that may actually found the chirality ideas to a deeper level and show some running approach to the threshold of metaphors beyond standard particle structure. (not to say we cannot intelligibly extend chirality into other new physics realms and symmetries and dimensions) But the idea of space filling as that which chirality makes distinguishable some cases, a filling of one thing, a muon, into its non-existence (Rowlands) or the cherished role the chirality plays in the classification of and relation to other particles and perhaps its uncertainties, generational mixing and so forth).

Lubos has an interesting article today (by the way Lubos would you have read Einsteins article as it did not cite others?) On the Higgs of course. Well, in the longitudinal and latitudinal differences we do have the usual issue of where Pi fits in, including it as a probability derived value- as in the longevity tables of people and particles). I wonder then, in the space and span of the wave-fronts, in the abstract grounding or interpretation of particles with spin as helical and directed, that we reach a paradox in the physical longitudinal (or duality in the other direction) as to if the wave itself exceeds or equals the velocity of light.

Philosophically, if in a sense a photon also relates to this all that is not physical world (and where does the radiation go in kinematics or how does the photon interact with gravity in its many ways as if it has mass) the Godel recurrence of time sustains the flow of the wave front thru time that seems running as timelessness and on some level what is acceleration is indeed an invisible metaphor.

* * *

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/06/does-lhc-see-trivial-higgs-at-750-gev.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

* * *

From the Sci Mags Today:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623145430.htm


http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/06/friday-illusion-move-your-head-to-brighten-an-image.html

Of course the experiments on classical or not entanglement- knowing about some things we intelligibly cannot see on say a quantum globe- is in a sense that threshold of metaphor as a more general background for some physics phenomena.

And why were we surprised about the composition of how the solar system formed when there are long time theories of things like Hoyle's creation fields where one might expect similarities on the make up of some planets and their moons - again from the creative aspect of the various structures of "atoms" these things intelligibly correspond and are controversial where they can be differently interpreted as aberrations as if some variation on what we impose as a visible continuum idea or not even when the background is uniformly Euclidean and infinite as a comprehensive metaphor threshold in the running creating. One article without access on new scientist suggests amazement by some cosmologists as to the almost perfect structure of some galaxies.

Another illusion perhaps literal, not to mention the vague edge (holographic limits) as the presumed cause, that of distance and brightening of some regions (including color) but not in the Cartesian grid- two things I have notices about light, thru such a grid and yet in effect the brightening literally of a certain region of light through blinds or double glass or air and so on. One can vary the brightness as if to vary the literal focus or distance from some light region- of course in the variation there can be errors of perception or of figure ground differences- and there can be after all some phenomena where the error is indeed an illusion that is a misinterpretation as a conclusion of what is seen by the mind.

Again, the literal position and being of mass assigned various realms of grids and so on acts as if focusing of a lens in the depth and span of depths of field. Can it be that the size of an object depends on brightness as an illusion in the telescope or the halo of particles and their scale maybe the physical reality?

* * *

* * *