L. Edgar Otto 12 May, 2012
As I wrote earlier I imagined Einstein walking along the Zurich Zee pushing this baby's carriage and watching the lampposts grow bigger in the distance as they came toward him and shrank again as they receded. From time to time I have considered such thought pictures trying to visualize space and higher dimensions. I am not sure just how deep these early pre adult thoughts are compared to the actual mathematics or geometry where we think of these things with the calculus, at least with analytic geometry. On the other hand at this fundamental and popular level I can also now imagine these are the actual pictures and that such mathematics is not really deeper than that in the scientist's minds.
A picture like this as a theory can be challenged if we think a little more about them. One of my favorites is the trying to imagine where the balls would go falling into hole if we played four dimensional golf. An interesting one that explained the galaxies receding from each other but looking like they all are flying away from the earth it the painting of colored discs or pennies glued to an expanding balloon.
Then there is the ever present volcano science project analogy that is but part of a supposed bigger picture where a ball rolls up it or as if pushed away by a like charge rolls down. or shoots past the rim of the top going very fast, or at just the right speed fall in to a "potential well" and behold the neutron splits the atom and its innocence takes on gender in its virgin sacrifice.
We can try to imagine a flatland, like Abbot's book. where a sphere "from the third (meaning fourth) dimension enters at a point, expands as a circle to its equator then shrinks to vanishing again. Yet with some idea of algebra we can ask the same thing of a cone that comes to a point once from its infinite past descent into its infinite future. I suppose cylinders would pretty much stay the same circle- and from such visualizations we can go on and ask about cork screws and the like. Most of such space seems to be just what we can see at some general place or position in (idealized) time or the bulk of it cannot be seen at once.
We could not know in fact that everything in the world was staying the same, or expanding, or contracting- at this level can we ultimately determine it in that state of things- or even these can be all happening at once, or cycling, or so on. There is no good reason to try to explain it all by an appeal to our sub parts in the entropy or our sense of spin- nor to deny some connection say between space and matter, or the spin of things could be there. Perhaps we should not take the position that we understand the mechanism but not what the reality of the things are that expresses or is influenced by this. Is such a vague idea not like our idea of of vague quantum clouds in a wider probability or even that consider outside somehow as an influence like dark matter ideas? Is this not some limit reached of such a general level of space, both in the final things that vibrate and twist space into things like compactified strings in the small or in the greater scheme of things or our expanding ideas of branes and other imagined generalities- especially these days the idea of super symmetry? How would we know if at the ultimate perceptual level (and thus what we regard as the amount of energy necessary if any amount can be for a decisive experiment - beyond of course a probability one to rely on) so show such a particle on the boundary of this vague bulk of greater space, especially if that is the same medium of super symmetry?
If in the smashing of atoms we have in effect a microscope that we can imagine looks back into time as our colliders then at what point does the finite but boundless sphere enter our infinite yet asymptotically contained maximum space and symmetry? At what point does a string become a particle emitted or a wave for that matter, especially if the idea of simultaneity is an indefinite and slippery one? Would not the idea of a Higgs or something a little smaller like the string (perhaps a few levels down the so called Planck unity, should we insist on some sort of materiality or physicality at the bottom of things here, be impossible after all to see as we once thought of germs and atoms?
Would it not be the question close to if we can or cannot see beyond the so called Big Bang? Some have the sense of this calling it the God particle but I am not sure it is for that reason only and not that in this world of materiality is acts as if a creative force that fashions the Eve from some rib that nature in her moral yet snaky sneakiness fills guilt so covers their nakedness before off to give birth and labor in the garden until one day with enough abundance and work we ask of all particles where is Adam's navel after all ? or we can cop out and contemplate our own. I think of this because of the late Heinz Pagels in his books like the Cosmic Code and these spiritual questions that was the complimentary field of his wife hearing her on Public Radio, the college band.
Well, it is a very casual thing but I had one of the early adolescent thoughts today... Why did I assume Einstein would reach the lamppost it became his same size? If when he reached the lamppost cold it not in a sense grow bigger than he as if we are also bigger or shrinking in respect to it, that is we are looking inside of something (yes perhaps the structure in the volume of a black hole that has such a within or volume as a thought occurred to me or connected by many thoughts waiting to find some symbol or pattern or picture) If he could in actually cross such a cylinder barrier. It would be a zooming that for all practical purposes would seem to him he was viewing things through a microscope.
But how far can this go, is it not like the center of things of what I call Kea's Theorem that there is a complex singularity core in such a black hole like object by virtue of the algebra and topology? Is this not my extra point (the jokers in the wild cards) as a singularity or singularity-complex? Is it not the nucleus as if some sort of knot with symmetry inside a black hole along the lines of Leo Vuyk concepts? Kea suggests this could be the idea of dark matter effects and by triality (in the neutrino mixing) a leap and not just the implication in the matrices to identify it as black holes.
For Pitkanen and Ulla this is not clear for both work at the level of what we can see or effects from it to explore the outside as to look beyond the tree as if a bug in it to see the expanding Einstein. But in both Pitkanen and Ulla we have the sense that in a sort of perpendicularity to it all there are dark matter effects and vectors pointing with intention along the way, all very hyperbolic in my eyes and dealing with integers as absolute of which they appear, the consideration only of the wormhole mouths and let quantum interpretations eat the rest for in this saddle world we do not debate directly in direction of some false idea of what a navel or particle would be in all its numbers and symmetries, but there are dark atoms and since there is a variable scale that apply to them as well as space this is one of many conceptual stances that fit into the bigger picture.
Now I am not happy with more recent visualizations like the hat that explains false vacuum pressure (and sorry guys the zero point idea - although we can go deeper in the concept of zero if not in the negative and complex spaces of which like negative distance we can say that relative only to some positive a zero - or to make the jumps in models as if branes or cycles of Riemann were slices of bread). Such visualizations seem to inflate and are only as good as our cosmology. I do not like the bugs that try to crawl around intricate forms of compactification as if their feet touched some sort of continuous space and beneath that generalization of strings with hidden volume there is in effect nothing inside, just a sort of absolute level of zero. Then again I feel compactification while possible pretty much the wrong direction and surely not the only one in a wider space.
But I like the topology where things are flat yet very much like a torus or other such shapes that distinguish knots at least as strings in three dimensions where the little bug eats all of the inside of an apple ( how tempting the gifts of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, how some of us still crave the tree of life) this this larval and struggling adolescent comes to the peel and goes back in to eat as much of the apple again, then the peel. This model also in general can apply to such symmetry identities at the ground of string theory, you know, quaternions and the like and yes beyond, perhaps beyond the usual properties of symmetry and algebra as we have developed them.
It seems to me then that the smallest thing could have a limit as an actual and absolute zero or one that is ultimately on all levels of even the generalization of symmetry, of infinity and zero in the real dynamics, that it also is never reached, there are loxidromes that somewhere do not seem to change and poles stand in this paradox as if some reference in a single singularity as the real, or a naked anything without bare charge but a secondary consideration.
In this respect nature seems to be quite adroit and ambidextrous with its single hand. Some chance choice of sign or its gender or the neutrality of a single line of Chi.
Thus we can ask just as well about the greater extent of this cosmos to which we look thru the invisbility everywhere present with our telescopes, in this simple closed continuum boundles and finite, cyclic or steady state as the usual models go quite naturally reduced to some graphs in planes, that is such an expansion ever reached and can we so look beyond it even if there at creation it was as wide and as general as it can be?
Perhaps a better model if we take our cues from nature and her life processes would be to think that our goal is to meet someone face to face, to take my telescope and look at the back of my head in the ideal equator across all of the great sphere of space but when we come close to her, some mare maid not quite with the right angle of light to follow beneath the water even if in this world there is a negative incidence of reflection, we are but standing back to back. Or the metaphor of the hawk who seeing with but one eye has to spiral to catch its prey in flight having the use of but one eye- and yes Yeats poetic question can it fly out of sight?
At what point, what time, what event does the great sphere enter our limited space and indefinite and likely a flat earth aether after all where stars while they can be born in our time can also light up all at once? If I while in the world somewhere can see it all, what of the furthest star, perhaps an old friend or loved one- no matter how small are they still there? Or do they vanish somehow from my wide universe?
I should probably mention ideas involving time travel too - history not always written from the present by the living but this post is long and so much of that is the substance of popular science fiction.
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment