Dark Fluid Concepts as Quasicity
L. Edgar Otto October 9, 2011
I was going to post today, more from a science than science speculation, a series of sayings Ratio, Labels, and Lampions but after some rather insightful and easily recalled dreams of last night these philosophic concerns, and the flight into the fancy of the sci-fi (one by the way is not the theme of Queen's Knight to Kings Bishop Three save in part of the mechanisms in the background.
I. Since the dawn of the second philosophy, so called science, the pendulum has swung between objections to the ghosts of departed quantities and the quantities of departed ghosts.
So too, our settling in theory for some answer or wish fulfilled that theory has found a way out. (of course out to and from where is still a vague issue. In any case the world seems polarized where when some things are understood, politically, there can be no meeting of minds or true compromises- evidently.)
II. There can be one unique, so uniform laws of prime numbers as a structure and ground for space, but there can be many spaces in this structure that interact. (This I suspect after writing it last night to reacquaint myself with calligraphy, this lampion may have been the origin of the dreams.)
By Dark Fluid I mean the general concepts, what I have termed the idea of opaque energy or matter in all its speculative forms. In the assertion that this is the same philosophic description of quasicity I understand that the issue is one of the problem of duality, modernity via Descartes in a sense and I offer a new grounding view. Of course dark fluid is technically the presumption of the relationship of dark energy and matter as if some sort of reductionism of ghosts or physicality.
I note that Lubos today asks what looks to me like a similar question on the F4 group for string theory with the usual Coxeter diagrams- as with many it seems they are becoming more open to new ways of viewing the background for fundamental physics and in ways that when put under scrutiny are not in disagreement as to foundations of physicality. But as Peter Rowlands states- it is not the groups but the physics that is the goal of the enquiry- otherwise physics is empty and only as good as we reflect on the implications of the groups.
So, I see first that to imagine a string needs a physical abstract dimension further in order to be able to "vibrate" is merely an assumption of physical or material reductionism. We can have faerie chess without vague theories of faerie fields or particles, waves and so on- but it has to be played intelligibly and logically. That is there seems to me an alternative to this need for such added dimensions- and it clearly, information-wise, could be encoded in the reduction of dimensions into things like the intelligible matrix relations of the diagonals as if lesser dimensions. The alternative to this is the equivalence of the quasic space which amounts to asking (and as a theory where the idea of broken symmetry is intrinsic to the relations of such space and not necessarily external) is the degree of contiguity between particles or spaces that varies where of course both extremes can be seen as part of the description of the general picture.
a:b::c:d :::: e:f::g:h :. ::. ::: in relation to how we emphasize some aspect of a covering group and its uniqueness as language or metalanguage- along the lines of Principia and Godel. Something along these lines descriptively involving some new ideas of ratios and the abstract mirrors including where we could adjust the logic of such dots and add the idea of a fluidity or flow when we balance logarithmic expansions and asymmetry. But this sort of thing, including the justification and computation of mixing states of particles in the mix may ground the current methods of the mathematics as applicable to the physics much like any ground we regard as prime space and unique and logical. But this and other such notations are as I said still vague descriptions to which if some of you have the general concept you could indeed make progress in the actual development of such new theories.
BTW the more I watch the sit com "The Big Bang" I find it hardly funny and may actually do damage to the role of theoretical physics... and how we should view those who work in the human enterprise of science. I am wondering in fact what is the appeal and what sort of mentality in general would relate to this show in the more limited climate of knowledge in the world today.
Let me add that with the new era of study of the sun we may expect in general a wider view of science of the stars and a more realistic understanding of things now merely political like global warming issues. But I am not sure our general politics can influence on a deep level in the final analysis how we awaken to the truths of science.
Now, (despite many interruptions in the coffee shop so as to think about and recover aspects of the science in the morning's dream- one I was quite surprised to be in that state of mind again)... I choose the sculpture from the Eau Claire Children's theater I came across this morning- it has colors by the children in the form of triangles and represents to me those ideas along the lines of twistor theory which start from considerations of such connections on the micro scale (and we know the flow of such things up or down work together to make sense of the cosmos)- yet it is involved intimately with chirality (handedness) at least on the surface of things. Thus in an abstract sense Penrose et al do indeed have intelligible methods and explanations that work as well as any other in the description of gravity. I am not trying to replace such theories as well as the others but enhance their foundations- between quantum gravity and special relativity is the Newtonian we all first learn.
So, it is hard not to separate the ideas of knots from the mix but that in the end is but another way to view things against a more general background.
A string without its added vibrational dimensions as a very poor relation to the basic idea of mass, of physicality- but it does not need one in a world where we can describe more fundamental but less reductionist entities if we understand the nature of such quasic space, that of condensing or compacting of surfaces, holographic-ally distinct or not. This new insight amounts to a further generalization of the ways things connect locally and globally in the real world of space and time and the seeming quasic abstract distances between them as a quasi-quasic principle with some reasonable developmental necessity- and of course where the transfinites supply the expanded spaces that can be seen just as well to permit string vibrations or suggest it before the dawning of a more general brane theory- I imagine the plotting of prime numbers (of course in binary if that can clearly mean anything distinct without the loss of some general philosophy code information- as a shifting of the quasic grid coordinates in a prime space- one where it is clear that in the number theory we do know that we can derive all the senses of viriality- the halving and doubling of some things. But what an abstract idea for real and imaginary things in our yet distinct manifolds (appealing to whatever religious analogs or not or whatever grounding in faith for it all as a shared stance to lattices) on which we find the physics to substantially react.
* * *
http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2011/10/world-as-hologram.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fvbhn+%28Dialogos+of+Eide%29
But clearly, if we can roll space up into spirals like wormholes so to form our Plato like concept of the cave- we can also paint on the walls then discuss what is on the inside or outside and what is the meaning of the language and symbols our touching with dreams and dust conveys.
* * *
http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/10/does-witten-prefer-knots-over-strings.html
Matti,
Of course it is said that linear knots only exist in three space- not the same thing as you said. Yet why could it not be from some view? In any case, if this is somehow the concept of memory, as if it is a physical thing like the idea of matter as knots in space. In the TGD model is there anything in the idea of memory as unique that can exist outside a specific organism or do these tubes vanish and the memory so vanishes?
Leo, your model does not seem deep enough for me as it seems to be must making linear knots borrowing this same question about strings- after all knots can be classified as having one sided topology and they can fall apart if pulled tightly into their kinks.
Matti thanks for you detailed reply to one of my earlier questions, the links you list do seem to me just to be an outline or record of your discoveries.
The Pe Sla
* * *
http://plus.maths.org/content/ This I clicked on in facebook and has some interesting social and popular articles of our concerns...
http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematics-and-nature-reality
I especially like this link as it begins to consider some of my color combinatorial issues as a method- and the deep look into our biology as a key to new physics:
http://plus.maths.org/content/biologys-next-microscope-mathematics-new-physics
Still, I wonder if we ever will inspire a generation as in the space and atomic age again...
* * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment