Bosonic Counting Art and Dark Stars as
the Subconscious of Century Old Relativity
L. Edgar Otto September 7, 2013
I get the impression Lubos (in his critique of Sabine and others in his last blogspot posting) presents a contradictory and narrow view a little confused when considered in totality. If it is important to keep the social ideas away from the scientific ideas (not to mention the subconscious or hidden symmetries that should deal with alternative versions of flatland even the string models cannot make sense of in the extremes) one cannot prove this interpretation of Einstein by Freudian primitive models. In particular the wider vision and issues of which these first models suggest and the authors suspected as not carved in stone where it concerns the logic or postulates and problems there when we combine general uniform laws and ideas of what ghosts are involved in differentiation such as where acceleration kicks in... surely this raises the concept of dark energy, matter etc... issues as well a the nature of spinning objects rather than their shrinking and so on.
Surely, a pure science and not vague but necessary speculation, string theory including the way it treats higher manifolds and dimensions itself is analogous to a special relativity where beyond the looking glass we could take the hint it deeply needs a better generalization.
But I was only going to give an artful example of counting by the stars in the vexillogic (minimal art of flags and how an artist is constrained in his conceptual improvisation by intelligible arithmetic and geometry.
* * * *
Here a sampling to consider the arithmetic totals of possibilities in the count.
When we consider pentominos squared we can distinguish deeper inverse or mirror symmetries that make the grid and the bounded space as if a general material self fine tuning content of natural phenomena, thus 48 three fourspace structures. Note the diagonals, flat, read 13 or vertical and horizontal 14 for a general depth of field of structural space of 27 cohered objects 3D and so on...
* * *posting on Pitkanen's TGD diary blogspot today: Cannot post as I cannot open recaptcha image...
Recall the elements of 76 Bicentinium 126 or so proved to be a false conclusion. The hype was in all the news and journals. (I mentioned on the radio I could not believe this... maybe if I held it in my hand.) The retractions were put in the back pages. Turns out the tracks were just echos in the mica.
Still, your instinct to try to find a sensor of some sort is right on and I have suggested from the beginning some better physical methods.
But if you mean organic you mean also the sensitivity of our brains or consciousness on a different level of physics... This of course raises the eyebrows of the established regime with some justification for caution... Tesla, Eddington, often totally ignored or with some physicists of established successes their mystical laps overlooked and not mentioned.
Lubos mentions Einstein had sound exposure to electronics and Maxwell's theories were complete (I keep thinking he reads our blogs even without a dialog). But those in the know see lack of explanations in Maxwell's symmetries (holes and electrons and the direction of current flow, or the speed of flow in a medium, eddy currents, monopoles and so on...) I find it interesting that our humble correspondent talks about wormholes in planes and mouths and black holes like anyone who imagines a higher physics or claims some sort of string theory should eventually conclude. A true theory does not exist unless he and his the discoverer apparently, so if he does not believe something deeper or more general concretely I quite imagine such organic holes are shielded from registering in his mind and vision. Where does the information go into the internet- lost or mangled? Your bright galaxy of ideas puts forth much more than the core of such galaxies was expected...in a sense whole and not lost.
* * *
Sunday Morning (early)...thanks to a link by Stephen on viXra. org blog and from the beginning a century ago by the theoreticians... I feel assured the quasic view and some of its intuitive principles are grounded also in hard arithmetic... so I offer a first blush illustration suggestive of the n-adic and fractal like functions described in that link... Of course the initial values in quasic ordering in this picture needs better clarity as to the apparent differences from a pattern of a balanced matrice sum... so ordering may be seen in new ways. But the critical thing is the one half, that is from a quasic view half of the indeffinite infinity in two powers. The general idea is we square such functions for a plane or brane space ?(x)^n or ^2N which asks an informational question as far as what is conserved over some region - let us be assured the half real value applies as in the Riemann hypothesis depending on how we see or notate complex number systems... the power of -1^n indicates oscillation in general with unclear beginnings and endings in the quantum like wildcard of 0's or 1's over some deeper and more general idea of absolute values. No wonder the idea of fractions in the number line came rather late compared to their place in the hierarchy of numbers.
In Eddington's Quantum Relativity of 1929 in the Fundamental Theory the monomarks or Euclidean address coordinates correspond to the idea of mass or gravity and mirrors in four space. 2^136 is a factor in the constant or finite on the average number of electrons or protons at this quasic state of the universe. The 16 or 32 fractions represent 4 and 5D aspects with half values in the quasic order of 16, 64, 256....objects.
* * * *
comment to Sabine on Pinker later this morning on facebook as linked to her fine essay:
Sabine, nice article... I noticed you mentioned Pinker before, a popular writer of course- but I find some of his insights ahead of current physics as more fundamental. That we can orient things visually (with due regard to some evolutionary reason) in three space (I think in more dimensions) or that in the periphery of vision the boundaries are unclear and indefinite such as reminds me of the raw idea of horizons an black hole questions. Well, do we go back to some blank slate, do we debate if there is a limit and boundary to whatever the mind is? Where does the soft and hard science begin... in its history or trends of prediction? In a sense some of the soft is central and the hard outside... We might represent a model digitally like the recent one that seems to map the WMAP data or we might not, you cautiously understand...but beyond soft neurology and psychology such models may be but one of a wide set of cases.
Also:
Dante, thanks as it makes clearer the point I was trying to make... in the model of the WMAP we can imagine (quantum theory according to Penrose can be describes just a well by consciousness as the hard math of it)... that from the core to the cortex this model may match the pattern of our brains and how we store things as if the universe is like or less than one big human brain... once past this we have to ask- and there is some variation in dreaming, memory, truths and lies top down or bottom up, is one brain the only one possible and uniquely special- the old problem of whole and parts again, and hidden psychology.
* * * *
TGD comments September 10, 2013 :
Matti,
this is a most excellent post and clears up where we differ from each other and the various complicated models in development and discovery.
I have asked you questions that you may not find necessary from your position, and this shows why. I for example began with some sort of lattice idea which (also as information, two bit at least, is more fundamental than our limiting quantum terminology and notation to which you remedy in the assumption of positive power dimension being the ground linear like level in its simplicity.
Essentially we point to the same directions where things meet. What is a quarter value of Planck's if not the minimum lattice that the forth power (set negative) is the general measure of (organic) metabolism?
From one view, we can dispense with the Higgs field itself as an assumption as well a different view may dispense with the dark phenomena assumption. You seem to see the GUT idea as also not fundamental from a scaleless view.
What then does that leave in this approach (fractal like) or absolute (binary and check bits (holograph like) but some still primary (nature privileging them via p-adics) but the elusive meaning or properties of uniqueness as prime numbers? My first thought is that among the symmetry ideas that we ask how they are broken this may be the question of the arithmetic and extended conformal way we factor composite numbers.
Binary cut offs may be dimensionless and open in influence, certainly dynamic, yet an absolute level of substance - not the evolution program as the most general state as approximation or any such statistical methods as the only available and logical way to access the nature of physics.
I added some illustrations that held what seemed disordered patterns that became more relevant simple numbers (fractions and the first few powers of primes and the all important even number exception, 2.
I know all this can be put into the standard number theory formuli but hands on counting and not reducting (or when it feels like generalizing) will not lose the context of information, nor hide it
from view - certainly in how we connect to the consciousness aspects of all this, the nuts and bolts of it.
As it stands to todays physics the minus one is at work here just as with Eddington his intelligible but finite system was derided as the old plus one when he said 137 and not 136 on that approximation of his vision of quantum relativity.
While pure TGD applies in its concepts in the new physics and does so outside other explanations in the physics is not necessarily the only model for such new systems - at least for now as the ideas may meet or be proven not able to do so.
With quasics also we need super-spinor concepts, but even then these as well as chirality may not be foundational or deep enough so as to relate all particles to the muon generation. If my universe is quasifinite and explicitly so then there is not problem with a view that in the non necessity logic it can be quasi-metastable.
I am in a sense derived from Fermat and you from Mersenne (things we rediscoved if not originated beyond them. They were correspondents and most likely part of the general wisdom of that age just as we have so many independent new theoreticians here.
* * *
An abstract space alternative to the dynamics of gauge and compaction theory where the geometric is related like numbers to the nature of physicality:
facebook status sept. 10th comment:
Such a model would go a long way toward generations force or mass differences as measured (and even beyond that too) as we refine the dimensional levels of ghost particles and analogs to photons such as gravity. Thus dark matter ideas like the graviton idea are temporary models that will be simplified by more comprehensive solutions. The "fat gravon" idea just misses the total picture as with ideas of other mass and energy breaking symmetry standard particles of which this sort of cellular structure can be interpreted as fitting many such phenomena. By calypton I mean hidden (or half hidden) matching of four of nine color pattern cube faces (based on the Hessian polytope)... but these are part of the interacting surrounding of other virtual dark polytope sets. A fat gravon seems to be restrained in the information leak like now realized for black holes that do not consume everything around them by simple physics momenta models.
Of course this quasic model , regardless of the number of dyads or monobranes has been around for years in the form of my 4D chessgame... Biological applications (such as energy from an algae cell) are not far behind as a concrete science.
No comments:
Post a Comment