Quasi-faithful Wild-card Super-symmetry L. Edgar Otto Jan. 05, 2012
First Lubos has a great post today with some personal history of his mental development and reasons to defend the abstraction of quantum and string theory (of which the sensitive reviewer will see the same arguments can be applied with ambiguous results- for how simple can the math go or the physics then go no more as Einstein casually remarked it has a bottom to not be simplified further) Now, Lubos makes this distinction in his post here :
" * extensive progress: using the same rules and concepts but adding much more data, something that requires more brute power to evaluate
* intensive progress: one has to learn completely new concepts and meta-concepts, new relationships between them, new mathematical structures to describe the same perceptions; the connection between observations and the theory is getting more indirect and more dependent on maths"
I post today to complete some thoughts from yesterday and to go back to see why my intuitions at a younger age were justified- but it does take a more intensively progressive mathematics which looks at the foundations of foundations. The wild card idea says further that: "f:R3→{0,1}
In other words, at each point of the world, there either "is" something, or there is nothing." This does not include the idea of wild card in the general quasic expanded and reduced matrices now described which while they cannot be simplified to a nothingness necessarily they are nevertheless real in the background and should not be ignored as if metaphysical.
But as the Hung and Ha, the FU guardians of the gates I hold the conceptual and theoretical problem, especially in things like chiral distinctions or some such distinctions needed for a dynamic particle physics world (each dog-lion holds a sphere in his right and left hand) so I give the two views of space- a natural one of matrices and the quasic one of logical arrangement (determinants? freeze patterns?) as if a background view for general mathematics which for those without such a view when seeing it works imagines the author of such views to have the magical or secret methods or reasoning of the likes of say Ramanujan so to define the wild-card of the near known or felt as "genius".
* * *
I posted this just now on Pitkanen's discussion on superluminal neutrinos and the so called (would you believe in such mathematical wisdom some such mistakes are possible? That says a lot for how we ultimately simplify the world to math and to the quality of our conceptual and symbol systems developed so far:
Matti and all,
You may have noticed that in this discussion of superluminal neutrinos I used the special word teleomnic or tachyonic-like to describe such apparent phenomena.
The general theories, the supersymmetry of myself and Kea still stands, and always did.
The PeSla
* * *
Hammed there in a comment has some near quasic like and group like insights to share on this topic. But I post this as an example of work such as Kea's as intensive progress in its methods of research and theory. One might note she focused on the 24 units as a core of some configuration and that we can also focus on what is left outside such a core in a field as if the idea of a gauge or so on... we all gravitate toward this same general theory.
She further points out tachyons were part of the early string theory but abandoned.
And no Matti, I do not think you make clear the casual idea that if the tachyonic neutrinos were found that we could detect "gravity waves." As an extensive progression show us the brute force it so derived?
* * * * *
A stray thought number calculation that just crossed my mind from looking at the graph a couple of posts back and checking it out on the calculator.
10 x 10 contains 24 color quasic permutation color matrix for 76 gray wild-cards left.
76 is 4 x 19...
(256 x 19)- 4096 = 2 x 384
* * *
* * * * *
I guess supergravity means the same as tachyonic? It cannot be in any other way? Then gravitational waves? Also then time is varying.
ReplyDeleteUlla,
ReplyDeleteI am not quite sure of the context of the question (after all we are still exploring) I think I could reply that it is hyperbolic but not in the simple sense of that non-euclidean geometry, more like Matti's realm of wormholes and such. Gravity is an inertial idea like say mass but I imagine a mirror of field physicality we could call "Unemergent" which is to say how big is the largest group (infinity). But you have the conceptual ability to grasp such intuitive things to say for example "supergravity is that for dark matter" But how far do we need to generalize as well as reduce things? Or can we? There is no congruency of integers of 1 unit and the minimum is five as in the Emir flag in my next post... All begins as concrete with the idea of four dimensions- but there is more.
Anyway, yesterday there was new data from the Planaria which when cut in half make two of the flat worms both with memory (RNA base?) of the lay of a maze to gain food. It turns out there are no centrosomes so what is its role in the context the uniqueness of a systems replication over some permutation fields? Are such worms more or less a tissue of perpetual cloning?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120105174220.htm
These structures certainly relate to the context of the whole as in a physics system. What is the equivalent math or particle in our physical space?
I, we all, cannot find the right words or reasons, or ignore some deep ones. With better words things could make a little more sense- the relation of special point systems and particles or the context of them as if they can be interpreted as tachyons even faster than light. Or Matti's and Kea's deeper insight into what are the foundations of systems in higher spaces... symmetry and even strings that are attached in the murky bottom of dimensions as if monopoles or points and a great curve number possible in planes spaces- but that is a sort of flow or particle of "magnetism" of which as with the quantum formalism Matti uses and of which I am not sure we see the depths for the covering or the common sense view is mistaken for what some think of as a cultural view as the right one disdaining the real world or the platonic one- in this dynamic of the whole and part.
Wow, you set me off again- hope you can read this, but I would be very interested on your take on the flat worms- they can recall a maze by eating other flat worms too. In my real world it is the poetry and spiritual that seems to be of deep and good council for people undergoing crisis and not the mathematics. We all need some sort of metaphors- a lady who lost her best friend put her ashes in the river with roses and a candle and wanted a sign- then the otter came of moving on but not forgetfulness, I recited my incident with the otter and her cub by the river by the metaphor of Orenda, memories or the fact of others like guardian angels. All so archetypal and the same dream, and a little deeper perhaps than the physical need to heal and hug- but one thing for sure our bonds have gone much further than mere gravity and time.
The PeSla