Starbursts

Starbursts

L. Edgar Otto    December 05, 2012

[I am in the library to publish this and the next article.  Logging on I notice Lubos has an interesting post raising questions quite besides his attitude toward emotional stances with the modest and quasifinitely correct opinion on the independence of string backgrounds of which these two posts cover the issue in new ways to which Lubos would not have far to search as he tried for the information but here-  perhaps he would benefit and help out in the exploration, perhaps it is only worth the consideration if the wisdom can be claimed as that only valid by particular people or kinds of people in the theoretical community.]

Penrose remarks the stars are the source entropy and the black holes the entropy eaters.  Recent observations suggest the physical burst of star formation cover a vast  range over the time since the supposed finite origin of such creative and destructive phenomena that seems to balance across the totality (the Omnium).

Yet from equally imagined or concrete views we may ask if part of the foundational ground of the universe, as these hint of hidden processes we might imagine related to dark matter concepts that as that observed of the present influence of such matter at the present state we have a universe not just of steady state creation but of an acceleration of such a state.

From the core philosophy we may also imagine over the omnium a view of such bursts of these comparatively brighter galaxy's that the statistical ground or totality may be predominant.  Through this view we could find in the distribution over the firmament in space and time a bell curve or statistical bulge that itself may tend to centering when shifting where from some view the universe model in question does conform to an integration over the unity defined over the area of the curve.

This of course can be a sort of perturbation as a many sheeted dynamics along the lines of Pitkanen's vision.  Where the model differs from this more continuous view of group interactions of the possible finite models, namely the dodecahedral symmetry among the infinite ones we can have this tend toward a classical reductionism where the world can be generalized in its physics as a quasifinite compromise.  The arithmetical, integers with their properties of primes, may themselves be squared values of the squared values for a wider encompassing of embedded structures that defines the action of the totality.  This is to be seen also as the perceived resistance and intelligibly, the restraint on exponential accelerations of accelerations (which do in fact have an influence on the total model over the types of spaces and the types of time. looping back or not as if a more general tachyonic concept can be part or even all of the case.

Perturbation, as well as complex space amplification in its certainly predictive power (say of further planets) only in the more general context can be seen as a causative rather than a coincidental case, all parallel ideas of geometry considered.  This is the subtle difference in the postulates or the axioms of which in the brightness of creative eras in science at different times science reaches another golden age of thought like the star burst production.

Let us note the intimate identity of arithmetic and geometry at the foundations with the freedom to manifest directly or indirectly the manifold varieties of dimensions at the foundations.  Again and not necessarily in the philosophic context.  Early string theory at least knew it had to consult and grapple with topologists, and much in general continuous topology, knot theory for example, is still on the frontiers of consideration by the greats in the field of our day.

In ideas of information and the relation of entropy, one working paradigm by Shannon, we do not understand things from the concidental truths gained by limited alternative views save that meaning and information form a conjugate unity assumed a numerically necessary view.

In that respect we might not include in a theory or understanding what is analogous to a fraction, that the notation or process of inversion is a distinct form of space that may or may not exist in a context or be there only relatively so we imagine dampens to a ground of zero or a vanishing and simplification of what is absolute and positive physical law.  But this presumes a certain type of geometry of which the other is but a holding place as its shadow. Yet in general nature given a choice of either models does not necessarily prefer or privilege which is the hidden space or which is the reality, which is overt influence or the influence as if the only source of what seems hidden to the point beyond the idea that empty space can ground material things or that what we regard as matter is a subtle illusion.

I have imagined the pixel like units of the quasic brane, for all lesser forms such as the various count or group interactions of string theory as promiscuous between each other and replete with meaning themselves, even be imagined as independent entities.  When we raise things to a power such as a cube we can mean to cube things in a natural dimension as if this in the philosophic emptiness is a natural three space cube.  Number theory then can represent things more generally than the nature of integers as primes themselves as if these are prime like in their generalizations.

In particular, although it seems trivial or an artifact of counting quite coincidental (some of which raises controversy as to if any geometrical structure is dynamic as some formula suggests its pattern- the golden section a case in point) that two to the cube can be the square root of two to the fourth power.  Or that quasic mirror fraction itself to the sixth power equal to eight, that is two cubed.  I seems to me an interesting artifact that  similar digits of a number such as 11 may or may not connect greater concepts such as that of partitions or that of the unfolding of orthogons as the intelligible counting of such spaces by fixed class integers in their conception.  If we add the digits of this base and change the bases we find the two cubed the same as 11 cubed or 1 3 3 1 in the binomial expansion as if a direct and coincidental conversion to the decimal system.

Now in the count of such structures, the "holes" or empty spaces or half empty spaces can be understood. For example if we have the 6 tetracubes we arrange in a Soma cube we have excluded the 2x2 cube structurally as well as the 1 x 4 that exceeds the maximum of three cubes... likewise we imagine exceeding a flat representation of six squares (pixels) of an hexonimo beyond 11 x 1 units of some natural dimensioned expanded orthogon.  As partitions among the many we observe where these as formulas may be reduced further as in the 2 x 2 case thus excluded in some sets of representations.

[This paragraph a description of my messy paint calculation so far continuing the last illustration to show the simple patterns that led to some of the newer ideas in this post]:

        We see, as we add or shift at least one unit pixel the inclusion of the binomial patterns that the partitions of excess may cover say the 40 close packing (5D) number as if that many pixels (or half of that as biologically significant, we exclude or include a diagonals... the resulting color matches are then 9 x 11 minus 9 or ninety,

(45 being any two of 15 bicolors together as an interval, interestingly this is the minimum to memorize in multiplication tables as we teach children to add, we also first expose them to the geometry hidden in numbers)

add the diagonal to half of that and we get 54, adjust the one shift in an open or closed circuit or sting on the minimum quantization of a classical electron as if a dodecahedron we can imagine the main diagonal as being doubled one color shift of the excluded color at both ends of the partition or unfolding spectrum or the looping like possibilities of  the number of matching's as binary division calculation of the combinations - not as in the existential case requiring a natural count of octominoes.  For the business end of the calculations exclude the extremes of unity as if these can be null from a shifted matrix deleting the rows of over-extension, or half null.

This suggest to me another generalization of the Otto-Conway formalism but in a different direction on the same level, and yes this does hint or suggest to some people the explanation of our ideas of what are or imagine are monopoles.

It seems to me a remarkable coincidence or artifact where we most likely see our geometry as mysterious, sacred beginning with Pythagoras perhaps, that five cubes may be embedded in a dodecahedron.  Let us not abandon or dismiss such numerology or mysticism too soon before we analyze it.  As if a child seeing the moon for the first time and knowing it an object of three space it is natural for him ask why the moon is round long before the issue is taken up by more advanced calculus for example.  We start off in our intimate sense of space as foundational in dimensional views.  How in our reasoning, given no other explanation for some physical process do we dismiss an only one offered, yet how in this world of ambiguous perceptions do we show some definite answer as an intellectual and intelligible question the only one?

If we try to extend the tetronomo beyond three, we can imagine in a linear manner two of the entities are somehow superimposed, the same with the microwave vibrations of methane which we expected, and did so with validity in the logic, as sixteen not the 15 so observed,  This idea may be extended to issues such as the chirality of cholesterol that we find one of the 256 recognized by our bodies, as well the handedness of some proteins innately and not just the universal inheritance from the first accidental direction chosen.

Einstein said he believes the moon is still there when he does not see it, but does he know it is in motion? I mean what of his four space grid is left of the ten that is vanishing but the presumption, or the coincidence, it is elusive gravity?

In our debates as experiments of thought (and one thing about these exercises in philosophy special and general relativity, as well our quantum implications are now familiar and much easier to understand) may still pit these two primary physics against each other-  but in the analysis of the slit experiments for example we have not talked really about such contexts of exclusion or the measure beyond the proof of Bell's theorem and useful, reasonable included meaning in the information between randomness and that vanished in the same repeated order. 

For where nature has chosen both the hidden or the overt and obvious, her array as if the dolls in dolls accessed by the last hinged box of some polyhedron or its equator of the half shells, of these empty null things on the extreme how can such an argument by thought make pronouncements or even talking about what is foundationally nothing?

I add the thought we should always be careful in what sort of dimensions represented we discuss and more so the laws of topology between them.  In the core idea of quasifinite numbers if we divide the natural prime-like extension of 8 things into the 4 plus 4, naturally or numbers complex, we could conceivably have each set a contributing value of zero, two, one or minus one... Or any other partition and symmetric but possibly trivial and coincidental mirroring of numbers and shadows say by Rowlands italicized or lower case i j k and i j k of quaternions.  Perhaps the macros of quantum operations generating formulas, or even the transcendentals some why each containing bright and seething possibilities of which my work a little too messy in the illustration and the effort to consider, reduce or combine great perhaps more than for any one soul creating vast universes that may leave our hearts with numbers and their intrinsic entropy a taste for light as well as what is in them and this world intelligibly.  Numbers strike me as living things and more so thinking things, things that may trade off the sanity and wisdom for stumbles and errors.

* * * * *