Quasinos Beyond the Casinos

Quasinos Beyond the Casinos**
[** By the terms quason and quasonino( quasino ) I am not necessarily suggesting particles but the principles I call this as an analogy to particle physics. Such modern speculations as well as certain religious notions help in the understanding of these abstract things as a model. It is gratifying to have such wide and deep understandings even when vague and intuitive. The poet in me likes the wordplay and restraint in their creation as some sort of minimum of the new or reduction to what is necessary. I may not find the right nuances of words nor how they are specially defined and used by others- but I can also see the beauty as well as the frustrations of communications of the vision of others such as TGD and string theories to which I can feel the excitement of their own perception as concrete that they have found and want to share in their own journeys of enquiry and realization of the unity, the intelligibility we see into surprisingly new frontiers for the body of human learning.]

*1 A quason is an abstract geometric structure of all physical possibilities of its freedoms and symmetries in a given dimension, its nodes can be filled or not. Its integral points can be considered a class of points. (in particular a quason is the symmetry of close packing of spheres in 8 dimensional space- applied also to atomic structure both as layers and magic numbers in the 120 4D element description.)

*2 A quasino, also quasimetaphysically filled or not, can be a zero dimensional or n-variable dimensional "singularity> and can be a addition of 1 as such to the number of nodes of a quason or its subcell dimension.

*3 In a literal or concrete 3 and greater space structure as filled and positive node Pascal simplex level, the concrete filled center singularity n! may appear only at some number of shell like layers- equal to the number of the dimension.

*4 That, in a given dimensional analog simplex, the center can be implied, not filled higher structures may appear centered, shells or shadows of higher dimension (Coxeter calls shadow polytopes )- thus these concretely "flange" or "nature sees" higher space that way

*5 Some structures as Quasons on certain levels in space or time may break general quasic symmetry by the ejection or including, compression, filling, expanding, of the classes of quasino quasiphysical singularities. Of which the n+1 points of the structure in the simplex of the n dimension and the center of the pascal analog simplex work at the limits of the structure in a relation of singularity (perhaps akin to the idea of dark matter)

*6 An electron may be composed of 8 "iotas" without a quasino center.

*7 The two dimensionality is expressed as one dimensionality when things are reduced to Pascal simplexes- if these represent particle physics representations then in 1 2 1 and 1 3 3 1 we first can imagine certain properties of stings (which is center and which are anti-particles and how many?)

*8 Binary information systems come before as more fundamental than the properties of quantum systems. These may be of inertial infinite velocity or entanglement (in Rowlands sense)- and these can be more fundamental than reductionist geometry in its twists and braids and scales in a global sense. An iota in a sense is neither discrete nor continuous at simplicity or infinite complexity.

[to be continued with as many footnotes and another page of first principles]:

Footnotes and some Lampions of realized significant first principles:

F1 - {(3 + 1) v (2 + 1)} ^ 2 = four informational possibilities of the formalism.

F2 - one choice of viewing truths of a class of classes is indeed a Type theory model (Russel) thus principles as sometimes relative fluid truths but intelligible.

F3 - we need to shore up our ideas, like with Ramanujan on the relations between pi, phi and e as they dance around more intuitive arithmetic and algebras.

F4 - an explanation, alternative, for asymptotic freedom and jet quenching involving a concept of opaque matter and energy in these ideas of a more unified quasic physics- that is not just a geometric or material view.

F5 - creative processes are thus intelligible with these possibilities of dark matter or energy notions as involving Pascal enumerations as well the material systems- each by themselves are not in a sense useful as life force information in the world between the monotonous fixed and absolutely chaotically random. (just as said of the fractal reading of DNA...)

F6 - We imagine then the skeleton say of only the edge dimensions of some simplex which like a particle or field may decay into lesser dimensional quasons plus an addition of 1 singularity... this is number intelligible that is, 84 edge nodes + 4 3-space point nodes and one singularity centered in 4 space = integer 89 (but this is really a stretch of my imagination and may be arbitrary but if not so will open a vast new area to explore in number theory- note, I have not related it in the conventional way to primes other than the recondite sense of space and numbers that Fermat seems to have felt and mentioned. (in such decay we have to ask, quasically from the omnium view- just where and when such an exact event occurs existentially.

F7 - On the edge simplex as a pascal triangular analog (alpha2 simplex of Coxeter) unlike in the orthogon and antiorthogons (ie gamma and betas, squares) we count the subcells of say a triangle as 1 face, 3 edges, 3 points, and 1 * or vacuum null- these make it possible to join edges of such one space triangles and higher simplexes possible. There in general are analogs intelligible to this in higher simplexes.

F7b - we can of course work out such linear triangles over orthogonal spaces or arrangements of numbers of nodes- a cube for example has 24 + 8 for its skeleton.

F8 - Again quasic space metaphysics is more fundamental than quantum randomness as creative chaos.

F9 - footnote here unclear in manuscript- something relating to quasic mathematical matter and creative reductionist knots of Brom. rings. see F2, for geometric subcells capable of similar properties of these linear triangles in smashed lower dimensions (also see forthcoming lampion on this adding of 1 or subtracting of 1 in relation to such events and space dimensions.

* * *

Quasinos 2 :

*1 [Lampion 01-06-11] From a quason (diffuse class of singularities) to describe the particle substructure, we add one to its integral and natural dimension number (diffuse class of substance or measure) and

*2 From said quason to describe the "field" it is in, we subtract 1 from that measure.

*3 Prime and intelligible numbers extend over these natural dimension quasons by factorials and thus relate to patterns in the growing rows (levels) of stacked pascal simplex numbers. (actual simplex for these Pascal structures and for the names of such geometric structures as the 5-cell or pentatope, is somewhat confusing)

*4 Within a concrete quason the sense of negative numbers and ordered (causal) asymmetries and complex numbers (not intimately tied to other number) may alternate by sign and by positive only general groundings of space levels in question- this more primary than a concept of absolute value which does not necessarily recognize sign- as some particles may not, or alternatively not recognize absolute value as a concept of the natural parity and handedness.

*5 The inverses of such numbers, relatively, can be so intelligibly arrayed, stacked.

*6 Beyond point and string "iota" unity, aleph0 as point and aleph1 as line, with this as flanged or geometric ground alephs-N beyond 1 may so stack and center (and where does the continuous here meet the discrete?

*7 Organic processes can reverse, or tack against the entropy.

*8 It is not clear, once Zeno established, if there is a possibility of "disembodied" soul - or - if in the contained singularities a soul can transcend quasic intelligibility. If it can do so we ask how so and if always so in the universal and particular case. Is experience uniquely recorded somewhere as if viewed from within and from beyond the quasic virtual abstract or concrete quasic structures. In general, as with this point of philosophy, I ask if space as quasic space and less than some higher conception and concern as OMNIUM, is strong enough an idea to encompass a theory of everything? Do we understand enough of our own words and symbols and thoughts that any system may claim this?

* * * *

Every once in awhile I see something that strikes me as humorous. In the brick wall of credentials (for those open to inputs of varied thoughts before their paths get too fossilized- Pitaken had a great statement of this creative yet essential for science state of mind in the enquirers recently in comments) or to quote Kea - a PhD on a brick wall is still a brick wall...) With nothing else on I saw the program Dr. Oz where they discuss various medical issues- a great show really especially for my hypochondriac neighbors. Some people are paid a lot for such research as- coffee raises the sperm count- passing out copies of that newscientist article I got the whole coffee shop in stitches- or for some mysterious reason it helps prevent breast cancer. The influence of things we consume seems to change so much it probably would not help if the average consumer had a Phd in organic chemistry and could do more than then be able to read the labels.

Dr. Oz, an offshoot of the Oprah Winfrey show, called a lady from the audience to point out on a chart of female anatomy just where the G spot was- and she got a bulls-eye. He then said there were two more spots discovered recently. One at the Vaginal opening that is small but easy to find called U and one under the uterus hard to reach but covering a larger area called A. Now I am thinking, if we have the G and U and A can we expect the T ? Or is that something classical and obvious like the C with its butterfly of nerves--- maybe all four together may explain a mysterious geometry read four at a time, that is if such things exist at all in the greater sense of replication over time and the oceanic feeling of woman. :-)

* * * * * * * *

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106164621.htm

Well, the mystery of the falling birds still dominates the wee hours of the night am radio stations... At last this solar mystery is solved. One thought on the birds was some sort of "magnetic" effects like sonar causing beached whales- that it was either a natural phenomenon or most likely something humans were doing like say with weather changes by waves in the atmosphere.

But why do such concepts persist in our imaginations? Perhaps like the sun or in periods when the sun is "active" some direct influence does affect the earth and living things- but most likely not as simple as say magnetism. I mean that is the last thing likely in physics to explain how black holes eat momentum, yes?

So, some sort of floating disorienting fields or Ley Lines and so on may indeed be some sort of Bermuda Triangle to which migrating animals may get lost in or at least disoriented. Natural or man-made, there is still room for speculation to which we cannot solve with decisive data until these imagined rational models meet somewhere in the geometry of space and time as if fallen mirrored energy shooting one way or the other to influence or warm surfaces and atmospheres. But if anything like this is real is most likely cannot be a theory of disembodied physics. On the other hand there could be a realm of direct connections which as a solid model now seem most metaphysical in the purgative sense if they can be seen at all or even asserted without being a ludicrous idea even more so than spooky action at a distance. What sort of world could it be if our concrete sense of things has to go even beyond our notions of dark matter or energy?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/01/mass-dying-of-animals-plotted.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19925-mystery-flares-betray-hidden-force-within-crab-nebula.html

These two articles seem linked to me, albeit remotely. How do we know when we can link things, even blind and objectively, that there may be not only a situation where we can make any sort of mathematical theory (a Mensa lady recently said that she was coming to believe this)- but a situation where we cannot distinguish what would be a concrete or a fanciful link?

Really, microbes or some sort of organic like formal space structure from space, as light energy or some sort of falling potential, does not have to be so alien as for example the seeding of earth with life from something like Hoyle's Andromeda Strain- I wonder if good scientists are after all in the end good as science fiction writers?

* * *

* * *

Toward Unified Creative and Reductionist Genetics

Toward Unified Creative and Reductionist Genetics

Today, as the work is slow in looking at the Pascal analog structures (and further looking at Peter Rowlands take on the gene code as a brave new view on how organisms may relate to a more pure description by quantum ideas such as Dirac's algebra.) I have thought about what Kea said in a previous comment:

"Remember that the numbers on the nodes count noncommutative paths, so we are going to build up classical spaces from new ideas about geometry."

And from a link from Ulla that again seems synchronous with my semi-formal contemplations today I replied:

But this enquiry is going slow yet I have to take back that nothing stood out in the 5D case of Pascal analogs- for it concerns such ideas of what are integer numbers.

So, at the moment there seems two worlds to reconcile in our general intuitions on number and geometric structures so assumed to become concrete unto some classical scale or scales. These I see roughly and the 60s debate between the old ideas of Gammov's Big Bang cosmology and Hoyle's Steady State. From a more modern view, and one that resurrects old view where the former is not considered a certain doctrine any longer we may have trouble grounding things as science if we cannot be at home in either view- this unification is not merely one of quantum and relativistic ideas but a new level of paradox and dialectics.

Like string theory, perhaps, the so called coming twistor revolution (as much as I see Penrose and all as subtle and right on) will prove but a stepping stone, part of the foundations but not a primary branch of physics.

Before the explicit mapping of the codons to their amino acid readings George Gammow suggested a combinatorial model for the explanation of the 20 protien products. This of course can be thought of as four bases by three on a three dimensional tetrahedron where the number of each base determines the Pascal analog nodes or order. There are 4 of the same base GGG UUU AAA CCC 4 of three different bases GCT and 3 GGC 3 GCC from the six edges of the tetrahedron 1 3 3 1.

This strikes me as a reductionist view unto some idea of solid points in a structure. Yet, the algebra behind such a reductionist view has subtle effects on the way we can see and organize space dimensions, and path motions, and general coherence of other structural models we sense in a unified way or separately. One persons concrete world can be an others fantasy- yet both can be bizaare just as this differnce I also see as the way Dirac does space and the way Eddington does space- yet this difference is apparent when we involve types of vectors in not just the 64 but in a wider space of 256 abstract codons (of which I understand but did not read how that the codons can be read say four at a time.)

I did receive a reply from Rowlands in our brief email correspondence where he says he will be busy until later this month for I had told him I keep looking into his book and thought he might want to respond to ideas in it I comment on in my blog. I did not see this reply until yesterday. But early on I did question the role of 20 and not 24 of the 64- his reply then was that 24 was in there somewhere. I think Rowlands has part of both cases of how we see such genetic space. Yet, his application from a Diracian view or rather standard theory particle physics view (and now what if the standard theory is less well grounded- that too a steppingstone). Rowlands does count the combination's rather like Gammow only he applies groups of them to certain quaternion like functions to derive the 20. He also attempts to derive the stop codons in a way that suggests a more Eddington like theory of which the general chart can show this pattern with the center codon significant. I see this application or suggestion of one rather arbitrary but that could be because my or our understanding is not complete enough.

On such grounds I hold that a purely quantum description of the biological organism is not sufficient to cover things like how far it extends from some small scale and on what scale it applies- nor is a pure geometric theory of quasics by itself good enough to make the conceptions well grounded. We may assert things like braids and yet have to take them on a sort of faith that they connect to more fundamental physics.

I take back what I said about Pascal analogs not that interesting in 5 space. Although I did not complete the hypersymplex numbers I found many interesting things along the way- some at this point rather intuitive.

For one thing the Pyramidal numbers, 1 5 12 ... for pentagons seem to be just a collection of triangles and sub units- that is the chart of such numbers are additions of triangles 1 3 6 10 ... but what of the other diagonals of the pentagon, a pentagram instead of three triangles?

I find it interesting that the pyramidal numbers of such make an interesting physical structure such as a pentagonal pyramid rooftop where there are three lengths in the structure that build it op to any level depth... the inverse, unity, and the golden section.

I also keep encountering the number 89, the all important 11th Fibonacci number that its inverse also describes the sequence .0112358...
[ http://www.fibonacci.name/1-89.html ] Perhaps this is important to establish the class of classes of such numbers described as integers and fundamental to groups for separate yet diverse combination's in arithmetic. This particular link shows the subtle differences when we work with the notions of number bases- interestingly given nine digits of pi we can get the next nine by binary bases but I think I recall that it not done by base ten. Also the primes in relation to these triangles strike me as a clue to some deeper mathematics to look at. Sorry for the error- that happens when one googles our head- unless like those Marilou Henna today on television they recall every day- she said it was no problem that is information overload for things were like a DVD in the flow and movie sections- and that some days still stand out more clear than others. This makes me wonder just how much we retain and if the sense of what we do not that is there somehow has a subtle effect on what we perceive in any developmental organization of our experience- one thing for sure not all of this can be stored in simple molecular or nerve networks as powerful as the brain is by our current measures of its structures and functions.]

This world of Pascal analogs (I thought about mapping them to my quasic grid as one can so map the subcells of orthogons) if it applies to our models of physics currently and how we see or reduce group theory even if that has limitations (after all we are still earthbound building conceptual pyramids and not yet reached the skyscrapers and cathedrals of bridges and structural arts beyond the flying buttresses or even beyond the 92 possible elements of Fuller and is magical geodetic domes and tensegity structures. (but what do we expect from one with vague vision who felt his way with structures- after all Singh defines geometry as both touch and sight.) I rather feel today that we have only scratched the surface of what we need as even greater analogs that we go beyond such low dimensions- to even describe what is really going on in particle physics. This difference, a more exact transfer of information between the dimensions than something like holographic theory or even fractal theory by itself may show fundamental structures of particles as number and space of course positive and asymmetric at least relative to its own preferences as perhaps I think on this low level of dimensional view some find in some projected ideas and experiments with new energies of particles view.

Perhaps we can ground the ideas further of the reading of genes as geometry, especially the n-adic membranes and braids (and even the correspondences if needed of the Euclidean and Hyperbolic space associations in the formalism) if we realize these from one view may represent, abstractly, the possibilities in the concrete count of the Fibonacci numbers found in such analogs.

Some of the pure string theory is not out of the picture, nor spaces of say six compactified dimensions- provided we ground better our ideas of the partition numbers. I suggest this, these classes of structural numbers which also may have higher dimensional notations, for further research of such subtle natures of classes as number- but it for now is outside of my direction of interests.

* * *

Wow, just got this link from Ulla - before I posted all this and I think before she read it- uncanny synchronicity again but life can be constant surprise even if it is explained mystery or not:

http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/July2004/pdf/July2004p44-49.pdf

* * *

I decided to google to see if some of the diagrams were already up for some of the analogs of Pascal's triangle. There seems to be no end to what is to be found with such triangles- it is an odd thing really working so independently and the formulas and terminology are beautiful- I found so many of my own concerns and issues, and mysteries... For the longest time I thought I was the only one who thought highly of n-dimensional geometry and early on saw perhaps a fortunate view different in how we can also see space. If there were limitations on how I could see it- I assumed that nature herself if she could see would have such natural limitations.

I have not tried to promote this blog so I am surprised who might read it- and I am surprised that my little diagrams are all over the internet either directly or in this case with others work and those who quoted the images. How can we tell in the sea of the blogosphere what has significance? How can such great structures of reasoning and notation not come rapidly close to some final answers posed?

Anyway, surfing the search I came across this among many other sites- like the wiki that usually asks for more posts on certain subjects. We are still looking for the unity hidden in diverse regions of mathematics and I hope I can add a little to the idea of the unity of it all:


http://milan.milanovic.org/math/english/atom/atom.html

http://milan.milanovic.org/math/english/alpha/alpha.html

and from this last link I offer this for similar concerns and consideration relevant to the general thrust of this post- note, as with many of my generation of people interested in such things in the sciences I too was inspired by Gammow's 1,2,3, infinity. I add that I agree that normal three space is a rather complicated thing so understand those who emphasize this in the fundamentals. I quote this posting from the last link:



* * *

I would like to add the interrelated and relevant links today as my long habit of reading the science news mags:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110105071008.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927942.300-make-way-for-mathematical-matter.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927942.400-cluster-model-shows-how-first-cells-could-have-divided.html

In many ways it is an exciting time for science and there is so much to be done. Now if we can connect these branches of science closer together!



* * *

As frequent lately having not much to say I manage to say a lot- so here are some useful links with without comment:

http://www.omicsonline.com/ArchiveJCSB/2009/February/03/JCSB2.101.php

Is promising research, trying to see things on the atomic level.
But clearly we can find significant geometry in the pair bases themselves which ultimately embody foundational geometric principles- as with all such discrete to continuous considerations- here the idea the early code was an analog code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_pyramid

62832/20000 = pi ancient article

Guess I will have to draw out the higher simplex case after all....

Jack-in-the-Box Angels

Jack-in-the-Box Angels

I have some lighter thoughts today. The question as to what happened to the red wing black birds in Arkansas at night near the fireworks came up on facebook and the wee hour radio in the middle of the night, startled and fell by the thousands. So I thought I would make a fanciful analysis as not toxins were found in them.

But I am using it as a metaphor for some primitive notions on geometry. In particular a look into the results and reasons for such chaos (which by the way does seem to relate to remarks made between this blog and others in a more serious vein.)

To start with, and now I can see the reasons better, such a view as a post on the sciencechatforum com was one of my few posts deleted- in fact the founder called what I said "whacky" and banished me to posting only on the philosphychat area. I suppose to say or for them to hear that turtles and birds can see higher dimensions is after all far fetched.

Color adds a dimension to things, so it is said. In fact Conway has a book that the Scientific American book club quoted him saying it makes it easier to see some mathematical structures. Alas, I can not afford some of his rare expensive books so I am not sure how he means this. I suspect color coding numbers can help show some properties better, in false or spectral sequence.

But I want to say it adds a linear dimension literally- not just one of property or measure- for it also could add what we now imagine are hidden natural dimensions.

Now, to start with, in the hidden global properties of numbers associated in patterns, if we base it on color- there is no uniform color space known. We can also make, but it is superfluous, gray groups as in the possibilities of crystal patterns- yet, a more pure information (n-adic?) theory asserts there are no gray groups. Still, perhaps the digital age may pass to one more analog friendly.

Birds have four color receptors. Some turtles five. If we are to take these four as primary as the corners of a tetrahedron we certainly can describe a color space which shows the dimensions of space itself- birds at home in it as they are in flight.

As Kea pointed out these quantum numbers can have non-commutative properties. In this sense we have the origin from one view of mass by spinning momenta. Around some aggregate of things, in this case living organisms, there is enough freedom that the whole system may go chaotic when the parts get disoriented and lose their way. I am not sure the bird can crash into each other but unlike we ground dwellers they do have much farther to fall. Yes, this case was unusual in that it happened at night near fireworks- I have awakened a hundred crows walking by them at night and I suppose it takes awhile for even these smart creatures to wake up. Anyway, there does not seem to be a mystery anymore on how creatures communicate say with the synchronized fireflies or schools of fish- there is recent evidence that the members share general laws of patterning and geometry individually.

The parrots are rather smart too, and colorful, but they really forage on the ground. There strong beaks not only can break the nuts but with their tongues they can find the weakest part of the nut before they saw and break it. I think it sometimes takes such a taste and touch to see the dimensions of things so as to reduce them to some flatness to which we can sense the breaking of symmetries in an intelligible fashion. But who is to say if the raven or the parrots come out of the head like Athena from Zeus of what is universal in our common dreams of space?

From my look again into the analogs of Pascal's triangle (last night I looked at the powers of 5 case but found nothing startling enough to post here formally). Yet, in relation to an earlier post- the idea of that area between what one would call a singularity as the center of some object or the surface as if a classical radius of the electron (see Rowlands) and the idea that at such a center of these Pascal analogs we have centers or not depending on the apparent abstract dimension. I emphasize again that where there is such a center as if a point singularity of so many variables that it seems to follow the pattern of factorial numbers. Thus at some level in some dimensions we will find n! of the variables. Considering there is no set notation for things like n!! and that these are important for rotations and so on of the orthogons- someone should work this out as it seems to me useful.

So even at the point singularity we in a sense can have a description of n! variables. That makes me wonder at what after all may be hidden in the extremes as a metaphor, especially of such things as "where does the (quantum) information go into black holes?" As to a commenter on a previous post more along the religious philosophic lines of creativity- he suggests this idea exceeds the thoughts of Hawking- which I imagine does get confused on the nature of what a Deity may or may not be as the controversy so continues.

Are we surprised knowing when the music stops that out pops the jack-in-the-box? Have we not a tendency to the hidden, a mystical sense really of entering some structure, our wings perhaps the dimensions of angels, to some other place and higher perspective? Have we not thought that passage thru a quasar or black hole creative region not lead to some other place if not mangled back to this one or to what is really some illusion, classical or not, to nowhere? Coxeter does assert that there is nothing mystical about the fourth dimension and I agree- yet there may be more to the big picture of our reality and its geometry.

So, as if some sort of connection to the surface of some thing and its eating momenta into volume- the center shifting and free to move, to be restricted by some sense of connectedness or laws, even the default of what there is when all is there- that is if something moves equally to everywhere is it not in as sense at rest? Rest perhaps respect to the dimension only it seems immersed within?

Chaos and uncertainty remain part of the bigger picture and not always can the black birds rest on the grid of electricity and wires. It is certain perhaps that between the surface of such abstract spaces as the analogs to Pascal suggest- and these almost too perfect an arithmetic- that the layers of things can go periodic and chaotic. That while we may outside this sort of space region deny the ultimate universal or even the causal existential- that even the stars can explode in layers and the shells of nuclei an atoms keep a finger count as the parts go out of phase or sync. We have only to realize and sort out what are the various levels of how we want to approach or view the ideas of dimensionality, linear or otherwise. Certainly the idea of vertical compound polyhedra and their duals can be each a start as to how we arrange the pictures of our equations. Or better, the dualities of Kepler's stellated five fold structures intuitively in a common albeit overly rigid yet mystical first falsifiable scientific system- even more so the four dimensional analogs to the icosahedra- Conway's great and grand global dualities and perhaps an analog to some other higher dimensional mystical solar system model.

* * *

Oh, on a more formal if recreational note- the Hessian polytopes involving threes by Coxeter... I used the graph to map six cubes such that any four of them would match on the top face and four half faces, the nine patterns on the six individual cube faces. I call these calyptic cubes and had a passing thought this too may apply to what Kea may see in these near cube models.

On Kea's Observation

On Kea's Observation

We have to imgine the algebras of representation embedded into natural and intuitive foundations of dimensionality.

The difference in this numbers may involve adjustments to geodesic structures which globally involve 10 and the "frequency" in Fullers geometrical ideas. That or a great such hyperdimensionality of field principles between the transcendental and the integers.

As we see in the illustration, Imagine an analog to Pascal's triangle in four space (here stretched out (Pas4 to five levels) as if we are going deep into the four space like it is an onion- or we can go level by level to the last level with our two space triangles. The sums of such levels have numbers which occur time again as I have seen in discussion of the particle physics.

Now this fourth level has 256 nodes or units with the coeffients numbers. Clearly the lowest layer of that level has 81 parts as part of a spherical top, in this case a tetrahedron. Thus it is one fourth the area of a sphere, roughly, that is one fourth of 4pi or it = pi! roughly.

In a more general speculation we can think of the spherical top as 4x81 in a sense pi=81 abstractly as it seemed to equal 256 in previous postings. In which case it is 60 nodes short of 256 - again the ten foldedness coincidently to such algebras.

Or 512 desgrees - 324 is the number 128 and 64 x 3 is 192.

Now, 256 - 175 = 81 so that number (35 basis says Rowlands is 175...)

Of course the virial duality is involved if for example we want to make sense in the physics where it is used where 1/8xpi comes up (ie 2 x 4pi/64)

* * *

It is not a hard matter to extend these analogs and draw them as layers of four space into five space. These are suggestive of many interesting properties as to how sequences of numbers from the structures may relate a little differntly in higher spaces.

The Kea observation for example has global intuitions on the surface and volume ideas of information between dimensions as if something of the holographic principle is happening here.

* * *

What have we really done in the exploration beyond Coxeter, perhaps, when there are five Euclidean honeycombs each of which is successively dual- I mean is this a numerological wish or a lack of general understanding when we say Ahhh 5, like the five string theories or the five membranes in perhaps something like U(5) as a final theory (suggests Rowlands).

* * *

I begin to see the "brading" as but a notation that really tries to describe symmetry breaking as one can braid counting with the Fibonacci numbers.

* * *

http://pseudomonad.blogspot.com/2010/12/theory-update-28.html

Arcadian Pseudofunctor

I am not sure my comment pointing out this post made it to that sight with this slow public computer and I hope she is entertained or even inspired as well by it. I was bored and walked back to the coffee shop in very cold weather to post it right away!

happy new year to all of you too.

Unentangling Strings and Knots

Unentangling Strings and Knots

Almost nothing at all last night- but when I go out on the porch and watch the soft snow, sometimes an idea comes to me- usually like a gentle breeze to catch before I forget it may hold the secrets profound.

I recalled how, when the thin wires of our wire recorder were tangled, or for any series of knots and wires for that matter, my father showed me how to untangle them by loosely pulling at the mass rather than tightening and threading between the loop and ends of wires. This did not strike me as strange but maybe common knowledge- perhaps the knowledge of a working man who wants to solve things but knows there is little time for getting lost in a maze- or does not want to pull an Alexandra and solve it politically with a sword.

The string like (in the sense a loop of three things but which one is relativistic and which is the center of say quarks in an older model- none of the string models really match the remote maths of my iota point-lines and their scale analogs.) porons of double straws in the partial bounding and freedom should we connect them leads to some interesting links and weaves as connected structures. But to find say a tetrahedron or other structures where how many straws may come to some point, one has to work it loosely- in a hands on sense this can be meditative and relaxing-not all of physics has to be so oppressive in its formality of gravity. In a sense it makes no ultimate sense to define some string like structure as a point or a line or even a loop. If there is an ultimate gravitational particle (did I say no gluons or no gravitons- see Rowlands- of which I notices upon the recommended googling that Kea is aware of him so maybe that explains the similar equation forms). It of course would be a point of nothing everywhere and thus a good candidate for a gravitational force (particle or not) or as Rowlands shows a full 25 instead of 24 + 1 that is 9 and not 8 for the gluon count?

If we go into the depths of a theory long enough we find the holes or the unexplored places of speculations and unknowns. One understands a book better when most of it begins to read as composed of these sort of words and formulas. This is the case with further reading last night. Not to say the idea in general is not unique or even the best of ideas- but it is not just the real parts of Dirac and E8 and all that has a level of tanglement as isomorphic in forms.

Also, a lingering thought or mood on the quasimetaphysical. From one sense I found we could see the world as we so see it as children. We do not have to look so deeply into foundations, especially the metaphysical ones. We can take the world as it is without a reduction to some sort of idea of spirit or some sort of idea of materialism. This in a sense is a measure we could call the reality of things. If God is real, on this wise he would be part of the reality of things. There is no need for such ideas as renormalization- for there is an ultimate scale or notion of scale (God whose center is everywhere in the old metaphysics) nor of some sort of filled negative vacuum state. That is a partial theory to the suspected state of things at the foundation of physics where all values would be scalar and positive and unit spin and so on (if I understand Rowlands right, but I do understand how this works with laws of motion and distance in my quasication of space. Our relativistic and quantum views start out as partial theories to a wider view of what is real despite what we may think about it and each other.

One thought occurred to me- that in the shifts and negations and complex spins and twists of logic- Phd's who cannot see and call others slow or not relevant or worse, and the diagnosed crazies who tell me I am the sanest person they know ( how to these extremes know such things?) It may be that the slow cannot distinguish what is faster than themselves on some reality level as averaged out and common- so they would see the smarter person and even his actions and speech as slow. On the other hand, my roommate who has medication has a sense of humor, gets my jokes, and understands and says what he does not understand of most any physics or moral issue we discuss- and I make great criticism and interpretations of his art also so in a sense, emotionally attached to those who are slow and would see me as slow I resolve to make it so they no longer have me in their head. In particular I close the blinds since new year so the lady that watches me and - well, I am a gentleman, will no longer speak to me thru the window but not on the street- I mean I walking by her with a gift in my pocket (well, she said no to it- not accept even an xmas gift.) I have to admit something does not connect there. I think in general my resolution is to stay away from people who cannot handle their drink or drugs. Anyway, I got a lot more done lately but I miss the stars and snow and sounds and breezed and shift of light and so on in a bare room- what is light really, but that others may see it- hopefully as a beacon in the darkness?

* * *

It has been a long time since I played with Pascal Triangle analogs- and I had no idea such simple things could be so close to deep physics foundations- surely, I thought, there was more to all of it and a steep learning curve ahead. Maybe if there is nothing else to do I should continue this blog as some sort of reference to such explorations. I should not have assumed that someone drawing out say the four dimensional analog would be an obvious and easy thing to do- but if indeed these simple ones in three space apply (and that only a layer in the simple) to say something like neutrinos- what must these higher analogs describe?



Of course, way up there in the ceiling of unentanglement we begin to see that the paradoxes of parity and chirality resolve to some sort of positive quasic like reality space. Thus life is more general than mere concepts of local entropy and its directions and connections.

* * *

facebook status:

L. Edgar Otto The world is as it is despite what we may think on how it works. There is a certain reality far from ideas of vague spirits or vacuum and dust. We can understand this reality as we did as children. One day science will find this view again for at least what we can know about ourselves and the world, interesting with less earth shaking drama.

* * *

This poetic mood of the sense of the real, a conservation of the structure of reality of sorts, suggests that we have to have a higher sense of how particle like things work and force like things, for we really cannot make the ultimate distinction between field and particle or say what sort of thing a particle is if it is bound with asymptotic freedom or is free from the tangles with others and can change such states somewhere, perhaps at beginnings. I am describing a rather contiguous and connected region, a more general concept than asymptotic freedom as an ultimate principle- something real and concrete yet beyond ideas of a pure cloud of uncertainty disembodied from any angle computation or from an absolute solidity. But, saying the feeling as best I can for now, the idea needs further consideration.

Perhaps this unentanglement idea is useful to consider what happens say in a star or planet between its ultimate description as a surface or a singularity as a point.

Modern Phenomenological Numerology

Modern Phenomenological Numerology ( Perhaps numberology should be coined for this variation on the concept- apparently the term does not exist on google.)

Again, not much on my mind but a few stray thoughts. But I thought a little about Kea's observation on the number related to pi/81. Reading Rowlands, I may add rather slowly as it seems to be a picture I can not only grasp at once but the more I stare into it I find a wider span and depth. Anyway, some of Kea's matrices begin to look familiar to me involving those like in the book on things like M-theory.

As I said yesterday sometimes we look into the coincidences of numbers and try to find some reasons in the vagueness. I called it an up to date or modern numerology to which I add phenomenological in a vague sense of how Rowlands uses the term in particular to these issues of point charge mass values. I must say the informal and messy incursion into this sort of numerology I should intellectually regard more as part of the creative process than some wishful fudging of errors in values. In such an interpretation of thinking about such things it does resemble issues of intuition, but this is hard to do with things seemingly as rigid as numbers.

Intellectually the intuitionist view can be a sort of discrete view of God made the Integers, and all that- but we may see a slightly higher level of this notion where God made the algebra and all that- not necessarily a world of differentiation- and who knows maybe some analog beyond that- we are a young species in science and philosophy enquiring and creating.

Clearly, considerations aside from complex or even negative numbers, the analogs to Pascal's triangle are rich in suggestions of fundamental ideas. Now it seems there is a sort of vague idea of mixing of the values of such particles, at least in the first few such as the lamba that can come out exact provided we assume that the proton is a sphere.

But I am not sure in the general rotations and twists of things in the widest of mutual and averaged angles- a sort of quantum theory cloud notion and mass mechanism, that there cannot be a pure cloud space independent of all lesser models.
In terms of arithmetic, we can have a Triangle (3+1)^n which numerically at least is equivalent (but not necessarily isomorphic in breakdowns of model spaces) to (2+2)^n but the later does generate by successive multiplication by 4 of the quasic grid numbers. We of course may break this down further using integer and algebraic values in the derivation of the Pythagorean theorem. (which I tried to investigate but was making too many simple errors to continue at that time, due perhaps to dry winter, and poor light and thus eyesight). Note, keep in mind Rowlands concept of symmetry breaking ++-- that is things reduced from 4 to 2 dimensions by (2+1)^n in the 3+1 symbolism.

To start with- describing the point charge proposed number of a "Higgs" particle Rowlands describes this as a reverse process of mass creation. But then again the idea of asymmetric rotations, momenta and so on, bespeaks of "broken symmetry". Let us note then the number 2592. Clearly it is a product of 32 and 81. 2^5 and 3^4 !
This number is divisible by 81. Now is there a geometric model for this seeming combination of fourth and fifth powers (perhaps as dimensions)?

Now in Rowlands, some of these early values come out 1/128 which is suspected as exact and of course is 1/2^7 for such mixing or not mixing in a way that gives values that are far from those of experiment.

Now, I tried my hand at a little modern numerology:

As I noted in the comment to Kea that 256/81 was a crude approximation to pi. I noted also that 81 was the number of subcells of the hypercube of 4 space. I note now that 256 would be the points of a 2^n eight dimensional n-cube. Somehow we can imagine these sets dividing into each other or mapping into each other, but it rather a 4D into 8D situation, perhaps quaterion algebra into octonian... (and by this we suspend the equivalent models of spaces Klein and complex in the view). By division into 2^8 we can imagine the 81 of the hypercube subcells being 3 x 27 of which the center 3x3x3 cube has elements a dimension higher than the other two.

Now, let us define pi as 256 degrees (actual I will call these desgrees from dime and disme spellings, s at end is multiple x and at beginning super-x).

But from the 3+1 formalism we can have 3x128 quadrants of a full circle of 512 desgrees and these equal 384. This number, 2^4 x 4! is significant for the rotations and so on of the 4D hypercube.

The right angle, by arithmetic alone, is 128 and 2pi is 512.

Part of me would like to image a circle as 384 desgrees where the right angle is 96 as a teacher once said this would have been a better number. In any case the 384 is part of the 6 x 64 lines of the I Ching. Of course the numology here reduces things to 60 x 6 with 4 seasons or 24 lines. Note: 9 x 16 = 144 ... here we find the symmetries of 12 again as perhaps in the Dirac algebra.

Rowlands notions of vireality of 2 and 1/2 values also involve that of 1.5 and .5 on certain zeta function points of the number line when viewed in this way.



A Few More Stray thoughts:

h/512

4/3 256 r^3

([m^2 - n^2]^2 + [2mn]^2 )^n , m=2, n=1 analogs to Pascal's triangle...

(2+2)^n in pure 4space formalism:

= 1, 2 2, 4 8 4, 8 48 48 8, ... = 1, 4, 16, 64 ...

* * *

(1 + 2+ 3 + 4)^n

(2 + 3 + 5)^n

* * *

From the quasic states or levels view the division 256/81 amounts to 8D/4D division. Which is also in line with ideas of n-adic information theory, integrally of course.

* * * *

Quasimetaphysical Thoughts MMXI

MMXI Happy 2011 everyone... not much but some stray thoughts and perhaps an adjustment to new comprehension and ways to see the world anew. I am not sure if all this amounts to matter as knots of space or knots in space-but either way the mystery seems to me now more of what is physical in our assumptions as to what is physics and real. A find distinction then between the concerns as quasiphysical and quasimetaphysical. I am amazed we can know so much about nature with such abstract models to apply and touch it- what we regard as real.

Life may be defined as that which binds or is bound within itself hidden parts and is aware of it; in this sense each of us is equal to a universe.

Enigma 1 - Basically, the idea of something material as primary that includes some form of vacuum- the sole metaphysical principle Peter Rowlands [PR] stated as such in his book, the muon and all that is not muon as vacuum together form such a particle. But could we not regard this as only a state of matter?

Enigma 2 - [PR] discusses a sort of symmetry breaking wherein 4 space is reduced into 2 space by considerations of the a Klein's bottle. The point is that it exists only in four space but in three space it intersects itself (and a glass one will in that sense hold water). Again, these that topological ideas apply to concrete physics is something I have not considered although I realize some of my methods as simple as the subject were rather difficult to solve let alone see as concrete thus I am amazed but now see the core strength of how some folks believe in depth to some of the various abstract theories.

The Klein's bottle is made of two Moebious strips (of two space). [PR] states that the intersection is the description of a muon as stated above. I had thought such a thing about possible holes observed in the cosmic background but not as more than an abstract model. (back later...)

* * *

Wow, I just noticed some interesting new posts by Kea and some comments to one of my diagrams! So I posted this comment:


Kea,

I am quite honored you quoted my diagrams. Sorry, I just try to google my brain and forget there is so much is now on the internet.

In fact I knew the problem was difficult but I did not think my math recreations applied to these sorts of theories.

From my view this amounts to writing matrices in at three space notation. My labels help keep things strait. What of the other possibilities of the Vn's of which there are 15? and in the Conway matrix there are two others that form such a cube? Now I have to wonder how much of the codes apply.

On some level the assumption that generations have increasing mass is after all an assumption that at first approximation does seem like a linear method.

I wrote to Gardner about the cubes and it was discussed all over the bulletin boards long before I had a computer (as he replied that we could all share in the fun) and Conway's was published in Scientific American shortly thereafter. But I do not want to take any credit for anything someone else has achieved, sorry if somehow I stepped on your toes.

I found another solution of one form instead of three for one of Conway's puzzles he said was very "elegant". And Coxeter, my mentor, said Conway thought in 24 dimensions (he only 8). I see you can think in high dimensions judging from your next posts.

I am really nobody at all. Now I have a keen interest in seeing what you have done :-)

Thank You, The PeSla

http://pseudomonad.blogspot.com/2010/12/theory-update-28.html where you can find a very kind reply to this comment.

* * *

As I was saying, stray ideas, I find Rowlands comment that we can have a string theory without strings interesting! I am not sure I like the idea of Dirac of a filled negative space and this symmetrically extended to the quarks as if we have some sort of classical theory on sterioids. In any case the intersection in a Kleins bottle he called a "singularity" but really, it is more as if the classical radius or something like it is a singularity as defined and not ultimately a point.

Nevertheless, Rowlands treatment of space and (what amounts to the idea of so many particles as measured by a number of point electron charges) that as far as scaling goes the h, G, and c of things show these physics values are not fundamental seems to me right on. But should we agree it is all 3+1 (reduced to 2+1, thus 4 into two space)? He explains the signs, +++- but there ++--, and Penrose shows it ++++, something I imagine if we regard the quarks as one higher particle pair ud... then yes the diagonals are important. But there seems other principles of space that helps shore up this direction and measure, discrete or not, of matter. A world without gluons or Higgs particles as significant, of light as the center of things a little less so. I do suspect we can think of a purely 4D world topologically and beyond that. (I begin to think as pairs there are really only five generations from a general natural group idea- but some restrictions on math and group properties do not apply on any less of a generalized theory of space as a limitation.

I suppose this for now amounts to some sort of corpuscular view which as physics may indeed imply the primacy of light, and bar h, and G. Are the leptons really unbound quarks (Rowlands?) Can we now say vaguely some part of the world makes sense of the relatively continuous and absolutely discontinuous?

* * *

I not that my use of the world creation and creativity (let alone used and in Creationism or Hoyle's creation field, needs to be finely distinguished. The quasimetaphysical would not require more than a vague undefined vacuum for a sense of concrete creation of objective things in the world from this sideways life force-like view.

* * *

Now the chemical links from science daily I posted on two articles I thought about that these could naturally link - of course it is but theory to which experiments or what we know of the properties to show what structures are possible or not.

If we can add metal to one or more bond of a NH4 molecule and we can define alloys as in the other article as one metal surrounded by 20 others like Au, could we not add something to the bonds, a third metal? To say guild Ag, with Au, then to add Pt? Perhaps this may explain why such a mixture of the right proportion would lead to violet! In any case the symmetry and geometry involved is relevant to our topological discussions here in a world of mere 3 and 4 space matter.

* * *
I almost wrote a song but it was a little too close in the music to another one.
* * *

I found a neat new thing (put on the illustration above) of three interlocked double straws. It has rather interesting symmetry in that from the plane it has a direction of what is over and what is under in one spin direction, but in the z axis it maintains one direction even if you flip the "triangle" over. Of course the whole structure can be mirrored- but what a delightful ignoring of three space.

This differs from the Borromean rings in that if you remove one the other two stay together. But what this means is that if we shift them to the center we get a jack of sorts that is really the basis for diamonds rather than just perpendicular orthogons. It is a diamond or hexagonal like space. Now is it not amazing that we cannot see such small crystals but can determine they would have such structures topologically from say connecting toothpicks on the human scale of things?


* * *

I find one thing I do not quite understand in Rowlands- 10 20 35 and so on as a vector base that leads to 20- 120, 35- 175 in the quarks. I note these are analogs of Pascal's triangle in 3 space but cannot quite see how to put them into the quasic view of things, yet.

* * *

Kea's remark earlier I find very interesting for my idea of space is also an embedding of all the alephs on a skeleton of say lines and other linear things. Thus we have to deal with the transcendental on which we define connected regions as in how Coxeter treats rotations and reflections. Even in the clear extension or analogs to Pascal's triangle from the dimensional view from some given dimension I get the feeling we can find holes there, or centers not covered by the integers- but who is to say given such "spaces" hidden within our calculations and commensurable measures that they are full or not even with such possibilities. I added a comment but hope it does not bother him, I like how he thinks:

Kea

I found it interesting the Egyptians, I think, approximated pi by 256/81. 2^4/3^3 which fit their needs.

You probably know all this. Of course the sum of the subcells of a hypercube = 81 as the fourth level of the expansion (2+1)^n is of course 3^4. The Orthogons (and anti-orthogons).

But such things still are in the realm of some sort of modern numerology for me. In general if we think of points all connected to each other it is a simplex space- but I find it interesting you in later posts treat 81 as 81 dimensions. It was not easy to eventually see the chessboard as 6 dimensional, that is = 64.

Once reviewing a thesis for just a look at repeated lines and spelling and so on for a string theory professor (wow, I learned a lot doing it but did not know much of the theory). He eventually got me aside to show him all this algebra of the Pascal analogs. Alas, he did not get tenure here.

Such algebra is indeed as important as any of our ideas from the geometry viewpoint.

ThePeSla

* * *

You know, I just cannot get over the naive idea that perhaps in some of these analogs there are indeed analogs to say the icosahedron (fifth degree equations or not) in higher dimensions. We really do not know why we may run out of mathematical properties- that is not the deep reasons. Note: I love that idea Kea quoted that involved 5 branes- we are all beginning to see something more of what space and physics is, I imagine.