The God Field and Particle Concept

The God Field and Particle Concept
L. Edgar Otto 16 March, 2012

Loosely, vectors are the generalization of number. As such they have qualities of direction and distance.

From the Omnium view these are original and fundamental principles that describe the structure of reality that can be viewed as creative as well as a physical situation, the difference between the idea of continuum and of the metacontinuum. But the views somewhere in the asymmetric direction of Omnic flow and the abstract distance that is an influence on physical phenomena default to a general intelligibility of cosmic default descriptions.

The vector like strings of information, provided these are iota or omnic minimum particles of distance and direction, the idea moreover that in these at least dialectical and plane relations can be applied to either the subjective or objective view in the sense we imagine the field the creator and guarantor of mass, or the physicality of the vectors as the creator of the field. While over the Omnium the idea of a center is more a relaxed concept beyond the defaults of what is the subjective and the objective.

As an appeal to metaphysics for wont of something else and that what we think ultimately as God reduced to the physics of Energy for example, God as the universe as energy. From this frontier intuition, the quasifinite universe within certain concepts of mathematical properties and the idea of limits.

(Zeno is too rigid if interpreted as a constancy of distance once these are set in the dimensionless parameters of a physical environs- not to mention as powerful as it is the concept of limits, God-like as the foundation of physics in the firmament that one understands it before understanding the reality, the intelligibility of the physics, subjectively grounding the mathematics as any metalanguage to a language, is inadequate to resolve the physics, or even the mathematics of the remote extremes of depth and span involving singularities.)

Either method or viewpoint of reduction on the quantum level at least are not only interchangeable and equivalent in their power of description, which is the depth or which the span can be interchanged over the mathematics of space structure. In the idea of the pure mental as alive and the pure material as dead, the logical question of the quantum cat alive or dead at the same circumstances remains a meaningful one of which all cases are logical tenable.

One new possibility, and not that far from the needed new technology, would be the Omnic printing of particles- in short what we have traditionally described as a propert of God in the act of the creation of worlds. But this is not a mere act of applying dimensions and symmetry, directions, nor is it a matter of evolving chance configurations of patterns only. It is possible, at least in the local seeding of vector information to create the field also or at least have a physical interaction with it in the environs.

But by the principle of defaulting loops where the loop have all places and no particular places to go- that part of the universe that does not know what mathematical ground it is in nor how it sees the progress of actions, or of dimensions and so on... existence and non-existence meet at a virtual spacious singularity center, which within a range can be in effect a real object or law of nature.

The idea of such a center in the depth of space and time is as if we have two directions at least of which we tend to style these as generations in the existential metaphor as applied to the basic particles. Thus we have the triplication of the electron, neutrinos, quarks and so on. The problem with determining their masses from our formulas is a problem of the nature of the structrures in the world and the formulas themselves... the intelligible context of our mathematics. If we do not have a more relaxed and general range of our comprehension and intuitions, will reduce to these basic streonomic forms far from the conception of such centers.

Such is the so called Koide formula. It is declared strange and mysterious. It is controversial as to how we accept its conclusions alive or dead to one view or the other. It is simple the idea of threeness as opposed to the idea of some distance over which we describe numbers as mainly transcendental. To some level of accuracy pi is indeed three to remote heights and to the smallest depths of the number line. It also can be generated as a concept from probability considerations alone. So we have some access as far at it goes to the properties by such probability considerations. We also note the idea of pi as applied to the discrete angles of which we measure the effects and metric of the geometries.

What this amounts to is the subtle distinguishing, even applied as partial differentials to the idea of entropy or as a more unified containment of general integration. That is we sum some squares that relate to the particle generations or we sum them in totality. We can even plot the so called relative masses involving their position in the plot of the generations. It is argued then that some values are exact or that they are coincidental. Such formulas can be too trivial for us to distinguish if they have content or not of significance.

Even more fundamental than this possible artifact of the general nature of specific numbers as unique over the reality of the laws of the omnium, such as phi that can trivially arise anywhere from the simple algebra- or the endless debate as to if something like ESP can be experimentally proved or disproved, is that existence and nonexistence meet in the virtual center , in this case Rowlands and his metaphysics of muons. For the idea of singularity, as a complex or spacious idea is independent of scale and certainly independent of the mere idea of a string or point or even the ordinality and cardinality of zero if not it can be argued there is a need to go beyond this class and other concepts- for from at least the quasic view operations in general of addition and multiplication are the same thing of which we can make rules to distinguish what is the variable and what the fixed range of the more discrete numerical structure.

Some say such hidden properties once fixed may change without effect on the dimensionless constants as they are not observed directly or that as such they have exact integer values, after all there is a phenomena of integers for some quantum numbers as exact values. But we should not conclude that the general nature of a wider and spacious universe where existence and nonexistence in principle fits all scales ( It is not quite general enough to say with Rowlands the muon makes its own vacuum that comes into existence as the rest of the universe as not muon- yet this is a useful explanation to explain and utilize for the development of the nilpotent Dirac algebra.)

We have good reason to imagine a center that is distinct from the appearance of second generation partners and this in principle can be found in theory if not some point of origin after and before and interaction and that intrinsic uncertainty that seems to persist for a lifespan. Or it can be the place that is left when all else has been ruled out to which we can declare that is where the God like particles would be on some level of the standard harmonics. Can theory alone justify the declaration that such a particle and its god like influences are shown to exist, in theory or by experiment?

In any case the mixing of the mathematics and the particles and the reasons behind it certainly suggests that our smaller methods of research of things at high energy can make fundamental and original contribution to the physics itself a the central but shifting mode rather than the assumption we push things with expensive machines to remote values that assumes a finite origin of the universe let alone that this is the microscope or telescope that will only learn, and prove by specific decay modes some ideas, and not learn from the vaster higher energy states of astronomical objects.

In our still mythical parts of our impression of the physics we intuitively raise the issue of some radical change, unexpected of the basic relations or constants in nature of which it is argued that the universe could not exist as we know it based on such values or the sun will blow up or not or we make a black hole that eats up the solar system. These depend on part by the nature of this idea of mixing.

In a crude sense, if the universe is so kneaded and baked, in the great default mixer we can ask if stars are born or they do blow up- and we can unravel the vast energy in matter for a small firecracker or so compared with the sun. But if the universe blew up who would be here to see it- and as a question on the totality would that have any meaning more than the idea that the universe as well as all things in it can be said to not exist in one generation or another- that is that we are grounded in illusions in a realm that is as real as dreams as our illusions interact with each other.

In the social world we need new physics to understand when our environment changes, as in the case of global warming. To reduce this to wishes of politics on that virtual real level or declare some truth or fear of it, in any case is not as scientific as we may claim the facts to be. This is not to say we could in principle not make a better world, but the sharing of some of the frontier technology merely wastes the resources of those who would worship and follow it instead of a new and general birth of what we at least can do in matters of health and the application as benefits for science. The gods of former physics like the priesthood of Pythagoras need the secrecy to insure their incarnation of the state and culture and superiority of its thinkers are ahead in the false worship of the weapons game. Ultimately, the next war will have new ethical questions beyond the scope of the average life with expectations in this world.


* * * * *

For Matti and Ulla from another blogger I follow here.

As over the fireplace of the Scotsman and his Otter - for all you guys
"It is no Will-o'-the-wisp that I follow here..."

* * * *