Nothing, Dreaming

Nothing Today, Dreaming, Rest.

Last night I looked at combining in higher dimensional complexes and count of iota particles but it seemed rather trivial as it just described what we know already of stacking objects.

The above illustration will be repeated when I have little or nothing to say save maybe no comment. My email for any dialog is LoversOfWisdom@yahoo.com

* * *

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601161129.htm

These two articles today are most relevant to my recent concerns at hand but of course should be viewed from a little beyond the quantum foundations of things. Then again heat and synchronicity can seem a very strange thing beyond the explained coincidences in a wide world- why at this moment to relevant articles appear (as if we can intermix the landscapes and even entangle beyond some range of perception as if before the fact or timing of things?) And why do such articles appear in clusters sometimes with little relevance at all?

Sometimes, even as in the other link today on bacteria mimicking protein structure to adapt as invaders, structures themselves in the raw fact of them material and not abstract only achieve certain functions- is it not clear that a crystal of germanium with an over all nearly exponential slope on either side with current trough it case one end to heat and the the larger flat end to freeze- how too do we ever explain the vortexes of the Hirsh tube that so separates the hot and cold in pipes used for example by firemen but only a third as efficient as other air conditioning? If we ever air condition the world (and global warming if it is a fact would be a real result of this) is there some way to transfer or moderate the heat after all?

It is still good that the universe, with a little novelty at least, surprises us. And that to some extent we could in theory see who may have developed these remarkable regions of our brains and who not- my chemist friend will be thrilled to see there was a link yesterday on how we recognize faces as he has that problem.

* * *

http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/ has today a general comment from her novel position.

But dark energy existing or not, or even dark matter, all these things I have held tentative under my term opaque matter or the idea of dark matter- and whatever may be its creative aspects and fluid formulations- that the description of light slowing down instead of the universe accelerating is to me equivalent as an idea.

That of course logically leaves an invariant of c as a possibility- perhaps either of these interpretations are there but are opaque including the comprehensive reach either side of Einstein's positions. In fact one way to see it is that since light is roughly a velocity- what time change is the dynamics capable of exhibiting here?
Thus we could as well observe, without much more interference over time or space of vast expanses, that a ray would actually gain mass- as in cosmic ray singularity complexes that is the observable. These are very fundamental if not philosophic issues for the present. The mirror result of her idea of black holes is indeed worth the study and a tenable way to interpret things also.

Now from my thought experiment on cosmic design post of yesterday- an example of trying to make sense of our thinking as physicality in these areas- that and the link on heat above- and the consideration of surface differences where they involve at least a difference in linear and transcendental measures, there may be some sort of limit of dimensional effects (and the ground for what happens at nine dimensions in Euclidean space) in which there is a diminishing of what can be stored in such a singularity complex as to energy. In which case it is conceivable a level of things could exist in the description of these orthogonal objects (that is gravity also works at right angles in nature and moving things do become disordered and paradoxically radiate) a certain depth threshold where adding the energy may actually accelerate to where it becomes less- that is seems to cool things. But of course these are considerations at the heart of things in the three or four laws of thermodynamics as to what is an absolute zero or zero point energy idea or not.

* * *

I am not sure if I can slow down the blog from some stray ideas arising nor if it is as in the continuing a series of poems or not somehow morally right to do for any artist that may or may not owe things to the world or herself. Art for art's sake and Science for science's sake should be a given as radical as that sounds in general for those sane people who do take an interest in these higher human activities.

So the stray thought last night is that between these multiverse ideas where there is a sort of distance between the parallels (despite the fact that zeros and one's are vastly more dynamic in the coloration's than many yet can imagine) that in a sense as if by default to what can be clearly observed in reality- and I do not mean the simple possible not question of at what level do quantum things become classical or some higher things have relativity fall out from the picture, or even quantum things from that, - that in a sense this dsXv (distance, multiverse) is an intelligible measure and mystery if not in all such wider concepts of scale differences we find commensurable connections, I find it hard to believe that we just impose this unity of physics and its intelligible commensurable's on the world or our own perceptions.

Also, between the gods of theory here, as with all entangled things even before they encountered each other and have more to say from the think tank of dialog- again some weird mystery of time, that it is ultimately unclear just who came up first with what- but where it is clear it is important to respect the originator- even if it seems many find some idea at the same ripe time. Can we really then peer review each others work and judge it as sound or not, significant or not? Perhaps, if in a wider almost mystical sense awaiting solid science, we are part of a council of intuitive peers as if the old gods of Greece preoccupied with the affairs of man.

The truth of the universe seems to me beyond our petty beliefs and conflicts, even beyond our programming for altruistic cooperation where socially things transcend beyond our local experience. This could be wrong, as well those philosophical thought experiments and questions where I do imagine in a wider resolution, as if of the mapping of the world and ourselves- that by reason and imagination alone in a dark room intimate with its shadows on the walls or the self and not certain of the encoding s or their worth and viability in surface and depths, connects and disconnects, that one working assumption is by thought and blind I could recreate the structure of this universe.

* * *

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1

from one of my general bloggers this link (I agree with a commenter this could use some work, but the spoof of it is entertaining- you see, if we can only read sound bites and a picture is worth a thousand words then why should we expect a reader not to read that many of them?) But then there is a funding crisis for science there I hear?

* * *

I found an interesting book, a fairly recent discard from the uni, on Internet Law and so on.

* * *

Lubos seems to have an interesting take on quantum collapsing today insofar as one can relate things to the eigenvalues- but the gist of it shows promise if we could just get beyond such a rigid view of space or the possible ultimate grounding of it in chaos from one vague view. After all, although we insure some matching values with the diagonal these are not as wave equations self limiting to physical states as in the Heisenberg matrix view. So part of this seems to me the unification is needed at least philosophically of these two approaches to quantum theory which is shown really equivalent in some sense- this we need a little transcendence here or more generalization. On the other hand, again, what grounds these sort of states and where they are embedded of informational coordinates in entangled multiverses? Still, it strikes me Lubos is trying to direct things toward true attempts as science in keeping the fundamentals in mind. We can see then a sensitivity as a pointing toward the deeper theory as not a vague realization of a new question but what seems a matter of sharing wisdom as information and history here is after all in view of the environs of some of the nagging questions as say the multi-verse and the vast landscape, a fresh statement we should acknowledge as evidence of originality. Of course it is hard to surpass our heroes of the past, even if one day as in my music I go way beyond them but in eyes and the first hearing of them and of that music I will never feel I can ever equal them. You Cleavland, wherever you are since you vanished from the Village in the folk and folk-rock days. :-)

* * *