http://snarxivblog.blogspot.com/ Today I add this blogger (linked to Kea today) and his question in the comments to her is relevant to the general basic issues I am to discuss today from my papers of last night.
Discrete Strings - ( Roll and Spin Invariants) L. Edgar Otto 06-19-11
These are rather basic views more on the human scale level, or basic questions on how to view some familiar things then try to apply them more abstractly to what is physics.
*As I have stated in a disagreement with Dirac's first work (and in the question I am surprised to find asked on Kea's blog today) there are longitudinal processes propagated in nature. (of course his was simpler than today's quantum considerations of which he stated we did not know enough then).
*But consider a very simple model if we can make it a metaphor to higher and more modern abstract physics ideas: Roll, that is imagine a ball floating in the waves crashing into a beach. What is the trajectory of such a ball? It turns out it is more or less in place but does move in a wider circle longitudinal to the wave. It is like the abstract idea of spin only as if a ball is rolling with its equator touching the plane like a wheel.
*Should we make much of such trivial experiments or in general of such ideas of space and the math behind it? This certainly does not mean space or the mathematics is simple or trivial. The ball in the wave has a sort of orbit. We imagine then that it can have several orbits which if such are not seen or are opaque- as a point in the vibration it does make a loop and responds to a vibration unseen.
*In this model we imagine a single brane of which the point or string is fixed and the brane is that which demands or exhibits the freedom. We can think also of these n-branes as a single string, a rigid string, a sort of sympletic invariant. This is a matter of perception and taste and as simple as it is it is the source of general conflict in how we insist on this or that foundational theory.
*As with Kea repeating her comment on fairy fields today I agree that the Higg's idea is not necessarily the Machian idea of it involved in the description of gravity in terms of loop or the 25 generator of the standard theory Dirac algebra.
*In a sense in these things that involve what seems to be (third thermodynamic law) a pixel or region not reached and continuous in orbit phase, we imagine unity as if it is an analog to the distinction between zero and null, a descending to or the absolute place of an (infinitesimal) vacuum or nothingness. But certainly the general idea of such fields has its place and even if the realm of numbers and their relations stay relatively constant this means they changing do not upset their intrinsically commensurable (as if the C cleft in music, quasi intelligibly Archimedean with respect to some coherent space, flat or not, assumed continuous or not.
*In fact we know that the wave from travels faster than light (but not that which can send a signal- that is if we imagine the micro world and descend to it we have a sort of inverse relativity to consider as if the atom or particle is a mirror of our extent, shape, and expansion of space in the universe. That is if there are such longitudinal tidal force we need to consider their relativistic properties in their abstract roll.
*In a sense we can think of an omnic or iota particle as composed of or as being invariant as a point, or as a string as well as both- and ultimately we have to think that although real the idea of directionality or irreversibility of either view and of the higher (transfinite and transcendental) planes as in a sense symmetrical and reversible. The omnic description as non-necessity is quasi-reversible but in no case does this upset the physicality as science nor the dynamics of what amounts to equations as function generators.
* * *
I may add here that Rowlands notes the possible connection deeper than the mere coincidence of numbers of the five string theories and the Diracian pentads where they quaterions may change roles with the vector spaces- in the simple description above, with a sort of inversion of view into the very small or some beginning and with a wider view of the principles of what may be simply connected, what ultimately is real or virtual or what grounds our ideas of the fermion-boson distinction, that the ratio of the Fibonacci invariants expresses these general properties of dimensions and numbers, these in a sense the origin of fractional values for mass and why there is such a difference in the hierarchy of values, moreover, of what general ground our universe is of some intelligible level of not observed but shifting differences of values. It is not that this micro relativity concept even without the idea of dipoles leads to some more pure discrete numbers to approach thru the halo of observed values, an higher symmetry as an analog to bare charge (and how we view and on what level the actual or classical diameters in some higher space of say a proton). A particle in a sense can have a mass memory (Weyl) or as the continuous sense of time broken into physical matrices of those dynamic theories the moving energy in a wider sense can exhibit the idea of a memory of state too. But all can be reduced again to the random view to a higher uncertainty of statistical methods. But none of this should lead to a pessimistic view of our ability to understand the world and not in some still more general sense be able to engage it and transcended it without the loss of what we imagine as our human attributes.
It is certainly not clear as to what foundational theories we now can say are no longer needed or are pushed away as if they do not apply. It is certainly worthwhile to go beyond the foam and quantum formalism if we can in the new physics of what was not the expected theories for the description of biological processes including those of sentience.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment