Reality Check with QED Nilpotent Methods L. Edgar Otto January 27, 2012 please adjust the date on the illustrations. What if Rowlands physics is all there is? The idea of the standard theory as the Higgs could be forever out of reach of our conceptions and experiments. As Einstein said, we should make a theory simpler but only so far - I imagine by this, the strength of an axiom only, that our idea of God is such a great synthetic achievement. Are foundations deeper than the powerful nilpotent method indefinite synthetic stories? I note that Eliot is quoted in the blogs, as he often is, on our journey that comes home again to see were we started in new light... our sense perhaps from a physical closure, a given fact we may feel in our being in this universe.
Tonight, I come back after some raw and casual thoughts and playing with numbers. I find things there, and coming back to myself and seeing my methods in a new light, I thought it would be worth the raw posting. For one thing, in my fairly recent understanding of quantum theory beyond what one may find in the magazines or in the popular radios or casual talks with undergrad students makes me think that in one sense my quasic ideas can be reduced and explained by Rowlands nilpotent methods. A good theory presentation considers what are the objections as well the implications or predictions.
Even the Fundamental Theory of the great Sir Arthur Eddington seems it can be seen in this reduction- the idea essentially of reducing things to 5 (gamma matrices) from the 8 elements of the complex algebra- thus symmetry breaking. For he derives the fine structure constant of 136 or so from the number in the diagonal and the half of the rest in a 16 by 16 triangle. After all, atoms outside the nucleus at least and with analogs of QED there, would say 136 electrons or elements are possible. Of course my long time blush on it revolves around 120. Eddington would count the electrons (or protons) as an average of those possible and he uses 2^136 in the very large but exact calculation. Why not if there is all there is?
I did spend some considerable time when I first was given the Soma game making variations and trying to make he puzzle easy from one unified formula. In the small pamplet that came with it the inventor, Piet Hein, was said to have jotted down the idea while attending a quantum mechanics lecture. Who knows but the puzzle itself in its own way begin teaching me deeper quantum ideas as a part of it as structure in an intelligible reality. Of course my independent development and methods had gone on for decades before this- keep the character of their methods.
Now, spiral ideas would certainly have their place as one of the wonders of this only given reality of this world... and to some extent these contain magic for some or can be a key to say galaxy evolution. In any case have we yet explained the simple magic numbers of the electron shells and sub-shells, (and the nuclear analogs)? There would be 8 such shells in my 120 system which is the Z number- and now to consider duplications especially on the sub-shells where spinning electrons can flip and determine the magnetic properties of atoms.
This of course is an 8 dimensional case where 240 is the number of spheres that can close pack around a central 8D sphere. Thus there is a sort of maximum symmetry which I have called with binary methods a "quason". It is simple compared to what takes many hours and many people to compute the complexity and depth of the Monster group. Is that symmetry all there is?
In texts on Abstract Algebra I have occasionally come across statements that we should not underestimate the counting of things in such theories in which sometimes there are remarks like "If the symmetry of this table does not send shivers up your spine you do not understand the theorem." To this I would add the value of labeling or naming things, labeling so that what cannot be measured by an accessible number can be if the same sort of objects can be distinguished. But is this method any more than a different way to apply the group theory to the limit or frontier of our mathematical properties. How could it be this easy if it has taken so long and we still do not have a unified physics, only a sort of labeling of descriptive names for concepts all suspect by someone or other- and not always excluding each others view? What a law and a formula is in the first place has this element of labeling.
I begin to have shivers up my spine in the seeing of numbers- of course the digits have properties we may do well to reduce a bit to our usual formulas, conciseness in our number systems that may at least tell us something analytically. The how if not the why. The way I use the decimal numbers seem to become to me less and less trivial and they have interesting symmetrical and geometrical properties for 11 x 11 is 2 x 2 and either way that can equal four and this continues along with the way we may read and relate to the binomial expansion, for example. Pascal's triangle analogs everywhere. It is not like probing something in the dark as much as feeling my way in a soft world where it is a problem not to find something to stumble on and as limitless as that world is errors, with the right view of the logic, can be corrected or set up to work.
Just saying so... It never hurts to be intellectual enough and honestly scientifically objective enough to consider the ideas and those of others in our reality checks. Of course risking the board as well as the game can be the human condition. But it seems that somehow in our ever more complicated journies into the great symmetries of four space and beyond the whole comes back again but with deeper meaning- for Rowlands the mystery of the triality dimension. In new light, of course. But my intuitions would not be useful or of interest if I could not come back creatively and see my role, my work, and myself in new light- but I still think for now it surely is not the same place again in time or space. But this is the usual debate as well all take of on this journey, not lost really but not needing a ride for we are already there.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment