The Large Hadron Collider Rediscovers the Ether

The Large Hadron Collider Rediscovers the Ether L. Edgar Otto 17 April, 2012 (nee 01 April 2012)


After a century of limited and reduced physics building on the insights of Riemann the continuous and Lumeniferous Aether which was that between the ideas of matter and energy has been shown on remote scales to come full circle against the interpretations of Michelson and Morley experiment that raised the issue of special and eventually general relativity that the aether as with all absolutes including that of combined spacetime or any sterile chance measurement of superposition that it exists after all.


The universe is both complex and abstract and the analogy to the surface of our specially created earth can only go so far in this application of our current mathematics to explain the concepts of information and dimension and symmetry, invariance and conservation beyond a round earth local concept of what we are and all else that uniquely exists.


After all our compass of application cannot explain some foundational things short of promoting some concept of the axioms of which we commit to emotionally that these are then self evident for our age and the dismissing of anomalies. The paradoxes may be solved as postulates of which Euclid in the beginning could make the distinction to the axioms that from a wider view leads to complimentary ideas of styles of physics and ultimately contradictions of the ground of axioms. The limitation then that of how we develop our ideas as mathematics only as if an absolute truth or that assumed totally chaotic and random from what can be a tenable position for the relativist views.


Did the idea of higher space manifolds not start from surveying, the mapping of the spherical earth into the various flat maps. If we try to extend the idea of the negative as a ground as in quantum mechanics said filled we assume there is nothing intrinsically beneath it. As in the I Ching a single line is neutral or is yang, the passive and active, rest and moving force one thing at the foundation of a universe. We can extend this to ideas of imaginary numbers and from that apply the ideas of groups and mirrors, shadows of symmetry that even in Riemann's view approach the ground of flat space as we approach the infinitesimal, or given wide enough arcs the maximum expanding universe becomes flat if it is ever reached in reality or ideally in computation and there is nothing beyond. God is outside, infinite but bounded. In this respect the string theories really say nothing about the existence of God, that an error for the honesty and spirit of science.


Einstein held some postulates open, the deeper nature of spinning things, if the universe is ultimately static or cyclic or to where in the energy of it is the maximum expansion, and how to resolve the paradoxes, an integral binary question on first glance as to in the several distinct forces what sort of ultimately one foundation, force or substance, can recognize the platonic Euclidean order of things, the derivatives of stances to whom it is considers an asymmetry by acceleration. Yet it is clear that not only to some great circle can we say the handedness is reversed as so observed on the trip back by the theorems or in what sense that things can be doubled they can also mirror the idea of halfway.


In this special case we ask again the simple question of how many hours is a day upon the earth as if we have a global universal time even in a relative reference frame. It is not clear at all among the possible physics that the intrinsic curvature is an actual physical difference let alone the idea, and we have known the inside of atoms requires some sort of treatment of extending the quantum theory, that at the beginning of geometry when the religious and science views were one subject, that all motion was not the issue of circular. Of what does the axis of evil speak? An intrinsic line that should not be there or do we appeal to some processes our side our visible universe or beyond that? In the fine observation of light differences would such a deep analysis of the wobble of a muon or an electron tell us if other universes exists of which ours is a close analog of the surface and weather of the earth?


We can detect the earths rotation, a simple matter of a couple of hundred feet of chord and a hundred pound weight set carefully in observation. The time to complete a full circle in an existing one is 32 hours. In theory it would be a full day a the poles. But on the equator it would take infinite time or in effect the path of the pendulum does not shift.


We can say then that as far a the traditional influence of the Creator that in our schemes of numbers on the Eight day He rested. He must know group theory. But what is a day in the relativity and phases of this conserved angular momentum anyway- I mean it could symbolically be a thousand years if it means anything to say if all states of structures are given that they did not occur say last Thursday. Where is the now and is it just convention we make a quantum day jump at the dateline? The important thing is that the infinity is reached a the halfway point of the equator, half of infinity so to speak.


We can represent this by pi and even by this multiplying of twos imagine the doubling of rotations to a return identity element of minimum or maximum defined symmetry or minus pi in the interval. We imagine such sterile turns and twists or even mysterious jumps beyond the concept of what is the mediator or the ether ground that carries say electric waves? We have yet base things on the fata morgana or fairy fields alone that is supposed to ground our ideas of mass and gravity. We imagine exceptions in either the trinity or triality of the neutrinos or quarks as the units of some measure or fractional ones and both systems are intelligible in the count rather than deal with the absolutes of which it is clear, as any earthly carpenter knows, that a constant diameter does not mean the circle is regular from a center. Or that a link between a cross of moving fixed points with string can describe a circle. This rather than accept that absolutes can better represent the physics of smooth transition in respect to infinite perpendiculars than a reduced theory of spherical harmonics. If Riemann maps the sphere to the plane would not the flat and infinite equator in this logic of square circles not be only the observable part of the plane and not the exploded singularity of an opposite pole? Is the description of all numbers on such a sphere complete as to if there may be in actuality different spheres?


Of course the other variations of geometries have their place, it is hard to argue with mass to energy conversion, but as in the case of Polonium with near light speed (can we really limit things to some invariant of light and call that the all encompassing climb in radiation to one potential infinity?) We find at least a physical model that could be described as part of these more general processes- we can even speculate these are in the realm when we know what it is and feel it is all there is, the aether like new level of the anomaly apparently on the new physics horizon of dark matter and the like.


With such an argument in mind what can a pure string theory say about physics other than it knows there is all that is yet tells nothing of what actually is- explains differences as in the raw and now primitive quantum theory- some mechanism only- that it can describe some unit of measure or choice of patterns concerning things changing in meaning as we practically use them such as mass and gravity? What is it they imagine can unify physics that way but more abstraction to perhaps an endless hierarchy of theory that only works where we limit our axioms to a certain level, It is beautiful mathematics but is it logic and geometry even, let alone physical reality? What are they telling us we do not already know more than some core indoctrination of how to know anything?


If there seems credible evidence of Majorana particles and that would seem to fit things in a big picture even if in lesser parts of that picture we resort to accidental differences and variations on what part of things spin the other way or in actuality thus have to shift flavors and so on. We should be aware such reductionism may in fact limit our progress of knowing by the sciences, some mirror that suggests the other side with its beautiful music to the consensus is but noise. This is no way for a full and balanced brane to hear and appreciate the colors of the music, or of the music of the spheres.


If we can distinguish the planets by the stars by their flickering then at some limit to our ideas of more energy and what we imagine our microscopes of looking into the past and predicting the future in which some idea like the Higgs, as if a neutral sterile majorana particle we only see the twinkle in our eyes- then perhaps the next incarnation of the old ether idea is with us for all practical understanding and physical projects of our day.


We have perhaps found the conceptual level of what chance there is our path in such abstract mathematics can cover some unity and useful completion of our physics in the main. To sustain a standard theory or its near variations and yet to be at the beginnings of understanding that there is more still open to us as thinking and feeling beings as science helps us not to lose our way or get looped into pointless unreal fears of the unknown. Our God then both the nameless one of the Greeks and the Personal one, not an empty game and not a monotheistic monomaina, but the best of both worlds.


In these abstract divisions and integrations, nothings, infinities and unities, to the extent it is between a postulate and an axiom, a ether of logic where- an this itself is a postulate- we solve some of the paradoxes of Tarski in the doubling of volume for example by the five divisions and in our colliders know in detail how to subdivide the sphere, the flatland then the sequence of duality from one of the five levels to another in cycle- and thus find the fuzzy twinkle of our spent or irradiating particles Platonic again, so too to find the near analogies in our technology to such processes, have we not a more unified theory as real and equally abstract. Can our minds not be free from conceptual prisons or do we not trust that we ultimately are reasonable creatures who in our own right and way can at least physically create our world and perhaps even find new ones?


Were all this not the case all or any of us could truly state what is the facts of things and who by some limited reason is not an idol but as objective as the universe seems to be and thus in reality or image God like as to whom it is ultimately and absolutely can be judged to have some true dream. It is a problem really of reduction to a stored formula or generator or wisdom to say yes that is it, the periodic table explained! But what of the atoms themselves in the mere count and similarity of things makes them so different, even so much alive? That is the greater foundational problem as invisible to us most of the time as the sea of air we breathe and swim in.


* * * * * *