Dirac Reads more Clearly Now in Retrospect

Dirac Reads more Clearly Now (to Me) in Retrospect L. Edgar Otto 31 December, 2011

Well, I got up at 5am and wrote these posts. At that time Samoa began to welcome in the New Year. (Damn, I thought I had it worked out in my head on the way here to the coffee shop, but now not so sure again... anyway for awhile I thought it 36 hrs again, but perhaps because of surreal multiplication normal numbers can have the value of one and a half again may have influenced my reasoning.) Anyway I also heard on the BBC on the radio a reminder in detail that light is given off by the separation of two surfaces such as sticky tape pulled apart but if there is a fourth post it is not written down on paper but I do so now. The main thing (that is the problems of what happens and why things are charged if in a sense we take them out of superposition, the separation of branes or equivalent spheres as charged entities and the nature of charge itself- addressed by Dirac early on- there does not seem to be an explanation, not a quantum one.

* * *

This sort of thing already set to ink in the before I heard the show. I posted this comment to Pitkanen this morning in trying to translate what his vision is from a my wider understanding of analysis and numbers:

Matti,
that is a very wise point. But in practice there are some things that appear to exist that are not understood even in terms of the quantum formulas.

How is it we can separate to sticky tapes and it gives off light and x-rays? Or why when we separate surfaces do the planes exchange charge one all positive and one all negative?

Part of it is the effect of this Van der Waals very week force which we know can be put into different models such as the point models- as you say with magnetism (I think is a metaphor for your deeper vision) and Maxwell's formulas- these forces can be thought of as points or Casmir forces or other such things- so what is your explanation of the idea of monopoles?

But I have no doubt all of this applies very closely to organic processes to the beauty and extent I read between the lines of your vision. I have not made the leap into some sort of disembodied field (magnetic body) mathematically indescribable, but I have not tried to reduce things to materialism or its slippery slope. I do not dismiss the possible connection.

I have had a few things to say lately in comparing our visions which I may post today or at the beginning of the new year- if you are interested. I think your question of how things on the level between the "wormholes" become somehow finite has a reasonable answer in my posts.

the Pe Sla


* * *
Unexplained Light

I feel my quasic view as described in the illustrations today go far to explain the light effects- as well some other theories of planes, such as the complex which the researchers of these weak Van der Waal's forces for St. Elmo's fire, and lightning, and breaking certain candies in the dark (wintergreen?) and the opening of envelops between the sticky flaps... and more to the point, the menicus of mercury in a tube shaken against the sealed glass filled with some neon, the very same gas by the discoverer of the Nobel elements- gives light orange and green- a separation of charge that remarkably occurs in pico seconds.

Can there be such effects that in space emit gamma bursts? In any case the background of the physics seems to relate on the micro and macro scale of the Dark Energy and the cosmic constant expansion. (I relate this also thru Peter Rowlands treatment of such quantum spaces and the explanation of Casmir like forces to TGD and philosophic issues of free will- as in the next authoress on the radio, the People's pharmacy, discussed a new book on how to deal with stress and new years resolutions by reducing the variability of our expectations of our future selves- it is clear that our behavior is influenced by a society that promotes stress and cycles of indulgence - witness the near riots in the large discount stores over the commercial holidays). I do not include ball lightning in this analysis so far as it is a pure quasic and creative phenomenon for frequencies and such. But how is it that infinitesimal complex light up from a modulus of density fits all scales that intelligibly corresponds to cosmic expansion so as to add to the evolving values and changes of a more general Omnium of spaces. Certainly, the brane idea has better grounding should we apply the concept to any more general space or to a foam of partially filled levels of space in the mix of chiral and neutrino time effects.

This phenomenon, without explanation of its light, I regard as evidence for the validity of the quasic theory and many near similar theories we all work toward.

* * *

FOOTNOTE: The illustration has significance as I look back at some of those from over last year... It mainly refers to commentary on Kea's insights and intuitions on algebraic structures. It seems strange to me that some views and problems have occupied many mathematicians for so long. I liked her recent comment on the nature of experiment and positivism also here. Original and Fundamental ideas, as with Dirac and Others depends a lot on that level with considerations of philosophy. Did not Einstein and Popper disagree over this issue in private letters to some degree? I imagine there will be a boom of economy and technology in the next few years... Optimistic yet I am grounded in the reduction of variations for a deep grasp of a steady state against too stressful variations such that we get an honest sense of those people, and those breakthroughs in science we imagine we become. But the interaction with this new dialog even at a distance does not cease to surprise me that I have something to say when I come to a brick wall or make some mistakes (the posted zeros of the surreal numbers due to sloppily drawing under the dim light of the television left out two of the ones in the count- but the spirit of it is there and with those a much more coherent theory)- that said, and not always aware of my exhaustion in the moment- I have no idea what topic I may take up for the start of the new year- things always seem to be a finishing as much as the calm eye of a hurricane before some new beginning. I feel more confident that I have begun to understand a lot of the formulas too in books such as Diracs classical one- but I also see him and others as just normal people writing for which the rest of us inherit as etched in stone what to him was a creative idea- half the battle in cognition if we have a worthy theory as an opponent- is the growing perception of these very creative first ideas which pass us in our thoughts as stray ideas if we can hold them and weigh the inputs that creative people take time to labor over and write down catching a moving target on the wing, sometimes. If I had the way I would bring us all together with our pens and boards and all- then again in a sense, I mean would we really move so far away from home when it is hard to go back and forth between isolation in the country to the cities in an economy where when a great state falls apart and no longer can defend itself against criminal elements it becomes a mafia state and return to false impulses and wants, especially after the loss of battle. Those in power fight very hard to keep it. We are in a contact of sorts at a distance each some part or potential of scalar beyond meaningful measure.

* * * * * * *

I saw on the news a lady has a book out describing Nixon as gay, alcoholic, prone to rash calls like nuke this or that country or the capitol, sham marriage with wife beaten up once into the hospital and seen a half hour a day and his lifelong friend seen holding hands with him, Beebee Rebozo had a bedroom in the white house and no role in the government spending more time with Nixon than his wife. So who runs the government or ran it? I recall Nixon was raised as a Quaker... makes sense that between him and Hoover don't ask and don't tell is a matter of silence until the spirit moves you. Now sometime last year Carter said it was time we had a gay president- well, If our first gay one is history I can imagine my more liberal friends asking why did it have to be Richard Nixon.

* * * *

Well, as pretty much a long practiced poet at least I know I did a good job of applying it to science- look at this interesting new scientist link, here.