The Metaphorical Observer

The Metaphorical Observer (New Principles of Physics Notions) L. Edgar Otto June 27, 2011

This morning on the local news there was mention of Ken Ng and his new light field camera.

http://blogs.forbes.com/tomiogeron/2011/06/21/shoot-first-focus-later-with-lytros-new-camera-tech/

I do not know what the nature of this marriage of digital and photography works and I wonder if there is a blurring here of the hardware and software in the sense of patents and copyrights as a legal matter. This is not exactly the things in the back of my mind about new ideas for cameras or ways to see better the particle data and so on- it is a reassuring different path down a direction that makes it even a better metaphor for some of these new principles of physics as viewing light and space. Ken Ng has given us a most welcome invention and the notions do touch on the foundations of the thresholds of metaphor where we so interpret physics. This local news segment with examples comes just after I had decided to post this title from last night- another seeming synchronicity!

* * *

My last thought after this jumble of notes through the night which I had not written down concerned the direction of things in space, 3D. The thought of the church steeping I passing on the way to the coffee shop- that if we had such steeples throughout space on planets- my old thinking was that they would point toward each other in a way that shows no direction can be said toward a higher Heaven. But religious ideas aside I know question this, they point through each other in a rather perpendicularity to all things manner- even in a flat infinite world where the idea of an Olbers paradox is not to be observed for whatever general reason (as Rowlands own observation).

But a lot of our modeling of say four space is the analog of the finite but boundless and even expanding sphere- that is our ship on the oceans seem to have an analog in the next highest dimension of spaceships thru the stars.

But for now let me just list some observations from my notes not in any particular order.


Observation 1 - It is not that the nature of space as three dimensional in the natural sense determines the viriality but just as well it the space- for we need a little deeper grounding viriality itself in terms of arithmetical properties along the singularity prime lines at least.

Observation 2 - In general a distinct fractal or holographic space either cubed does not sum up to another cube. In fact by considerations of the epsilon-delta honeycomb frame if taken from the q-brane or quasic space plane (Indeed, can physics exceed such quasicity?) cannot add a third difference cube that is an integral value. While some numbers approach this if large enough- Fermat's theory less true if done with such on a calculator where values seem to approach one for example, so this may amount to a simple proof in a sense by infinite descent- at least in the spirit of the notion of how it applies to space and dimensions. But can there be digital or finite exceptions much as the super-singularity primes find coincidental numbers? Can we show or prove this in principle?

Observation 3 - Considering, in the raw of a new concept for me so hopefully in the process of trying to understand it better I too find some useful alternative path of observation, those limited primes that make the 196883 set- I not two things, that the number as if three space is the product of the last three primes 47x59x71 but more than that if this is reduced into the q-brane in viriality terms note that 47 + 71 is twice 59.

Observation 4 - For what it is worth the sixth root of 960 is close to pi and this number came up in considering the three dimensional case of both the HF and FX grids together if the side is 80 units.

Observation 5 - but from the round earth round universe dimensional analogy we in a rather holographic conceptual manner image types of matrices in two-space with the analog in three-space where the plane is the analog of the diagonal. So we know in space at least we can show we cannot stack blocks on this plane in the sense that we can so subdivide a natural two plane. Computations do result in matrices just off the diagonal in wider square regions.

Observation 6 - In the link yesterday that even in a classical setting we can show non-locality as a principle. Yet this spooky action at a distance if we were creatures more familiar with quantum world descriptions with no evidence whatsoever of the hard to understand classical world beneath us- we would nevertheless come up with a classical reason for the concept of non-locality (as a form of locality for between two q-branes there is only a point singularity intersection for in any q-brane all the dimensions are represented and may not exceed the quasicity of dimensions and their representations.

Observation 7 - What I have suggested then is an actual idea of distance as a matter of depth of field and brightness field focus. That is in the touching of what seems distant objects the measure of space varies as if "the looking thru a pipe" and moreover these pipes for light or sound have a certain frequency which seems shell like if viewed head one. We are in a sense literally closer in positions if we magnify the brightness. The reverse is true in that on a bright sunny day from deep in a well we may see the stars.

Observation 8 - Our preoccupation with 6 space is rather like a threesome or lovers triangle when we mix or not the ideas of 2 or 3 space.

Observation 9 - The light cone even if unbalanced in extent takes up 1/4 the area of a square representation.

Observation 10 - In continuous space just as the inside or outside of discrete objects leads to ambiguity literally, we have this phenomena insofar as we consider what is hyperbolic or elliptic in the representations- that is these distinct geometries and their sense of invariants can be mirrored or reverse the sense of each other as a quasi context for an invariant in which ever space manifold.

Observation 11 - (Written with difficulty in the "focusing" of a few further ideas saved until next morning) : In the details of a theory it is hard to dispute the intelligibility of numbers. Yet from an overview the interpretation in context by exceeding strict information- maximums and meaning-minmums (thus quasi-conjugate the meaning information as a new principle of generality), the numbers in concert do not appear uniquely relevant as a measure of a system of connected structures. Thus in dynamic systems the compass of a number is quasi-intelligible although contained. I style this Number Field Focus-distance, in a sense opposite the dissipation of decoherence and that measure as if of isolated systems. Including crystallization of subjective theory systems. Still, reduced entropy may lead to unique and evolving intelligibility in a focused time and space as quasi-singularity differences between regions.

* * *