Ulla's Theorem

Ulla's Theorem

I think I finally read between the lines on what Ulla means in relation to carbon. But I recall a MENSA lady who said once that we can come up with any mathematical system that would seem to explain everything. So, this post should be read as very speculative philosophy of sorts, even a work of science fiction. For I write creatively and without consulting the lady I name this general idea and theorem for (after all who would name new theories after themselves, it would get too messy- and other than PeSla's cube and Odo-1024 4D chess I christen discoveries with my name rarely.

But this is a creative post. In two of the most fundamental senses of science in awakening since the Greeks, that we look, what Ulla will call "perpendicularity" at what may be hidden so as to be revealed. Thus, at ground my philosophy of mathematics walks a tightrope between all is to be discovered and all is there only if it is invented. My last post in my own eyes bordered on the very formal and technical- if that can be considered creative in the sense that an artist may give something of his own style to the work and directions taken.

So, in the middle of all our confusing terminology- very basic notions and words in which their use has subtly changed or become surpassed- quantum for example or even the use of powerful tools like Frouier analysis or the best varieity of our descriptions of general space, Hilbert, Phase, configuration and so on. This is not to say these do not have their uses beyond the historical record. But a universe like our notions does not have to replicate ultimately even as experiments in discovery to evolve anymore than our exponential learning climb to specialized discipilines. We creatively assume there is some sort of converging logic to it all and yet the possibility of new degrees of the freedom of imagination.

So, with these two aspects of creativity and hope there is some sanity and order to experience and find in the universe of enquiry, what the heck devil-may-care I say the particle I invented or discovered (after all I can only deal with my perceptions here in the random encounters of this blogosphere be they right or wrong or in this case a short story of sorts). Let us say there is a sort of new particle that moreover can be explained by the new physics (after all Ulla has followed the Arcadian view for a long time now and is fairly well conversant in TGD- these inspire her as she kindly said my posts do to- well, she inspired this and if she wants I could remove anything at her bidding.) She has a way of homing in on some very profound questions if we can understand her- on some side of a mirror would a particle be anti-matter? or our notions of dark matter? and so on.

Newscientist.com today had a small article on a simple explanation for the pioneer anomality- the difference in how the satelites radiated heat. It ends by saying that this does not account for all of the explanation that other exotic hypothesis like variation in light velocity or modified gravity or black holes and so on. But then when we converge to an intelligible theory we can expect that it can be views through many lens, to explain the creation of the planets by just the accumulation of primordial dust works- quantum formulism works- but only as good as the discovered theory is close to what we have found, a sort of sensible truth tested in all the ways we can including what we think about it.

But as some here and a string friend years ago stating the problems at the end of his thesis, two of which were speculation on the sporadic groups E8 and the need to find what sort of symmetry is involved in thermodynamics- these issues have come up and certainly thermodynamics has been recently considered to expand the general mix of things in the new physics. We also find we become aware of some general questions of which they do not quite supply the answer in the asking, but is progress. Chirality has not really been integrated over the idea of generations, especially if we use the string terminology of partitions and flavor.

So, the EHJ particle, in the center of a more topological and arithmetical system of particles, the so called Z-prime I assert is the same thing. And while I am at it let us at least temporarily adopt a fifth force in its being or relation to physical being, shearessence [I revise this word posted to ones closer in English rather than the Persian idea of 5 and lions and sheare forces too vague- I will stay with the cat theme and call it Lionessence] perhaps. This force is perhaps just one of a series of them where we slice the orthogons in a series of differences of cubes, the Fano plane and other such issues (as Baez pointed out) are also issues of projective planes. If this goes further we have to deal with ideas I will call supermagic squares.

This difference in cubes, by the way, we can take as positive values of the golden section- after all 1-k= k^2 where k is the inverse ph and sign, including imaginary numbers could be just something to make our algebra more short winded and easier. We expect in this so called bosonic formulation that 27 -19 = 8 and that 8 part of a larger cross section of the orthogon.

What Ulla was trying to show, and I feel in terms of the new physics, was the concern for Carbon as unique for the formation of biological processes- she is asking a good question as to where the energy of it all arises.

Ulla's Theorem: The carbon ring oscillates (which grounds the idea of such quantum levels of explanation) in a way it relates to the new physics by the ideas of topological spaces and braids. Structurally it is the carrier of such processes we seek to explain as force that also interacts with its field of structures.

You see, I asked myself a simple question from the old 4 x 6 = 24. Can I take a 24 faced regular polyhedron and color it coherently with six as well as four colors? This question also is the faces of the tesseract divided into for parts for 96 1x1x2^1/2 triangles. Since this object is four dimensional it shuould not be a surprise that we chave 12 that translate as lines or axes, and 12 that make three rings around it from a given cube center of the hypercube. The simple vision of the benzene ring comes up from an idea of doubly neutral current oscillation.

We note that the center of these six is at least a cube of unity (take note of this you number theorists when you read in general no two cubes add to a third cube and read it literally as cube and not n^3 - for a literal cube is not as simple as we think).

There is a sort of transitive law of how the oscillations flow as if the zeroth thermodynamic law on a higher but not this deeper notation of dice. E becomes J becomes H or E becomes H becomes J...

In the above illustration I show how I derived this from the six color matching cubes that have to pass thru EHJ in a center. The details can vary a little but I always wondered at the similiar results when I made sets of bicolored 6 color cubes. The significant one in the illustration seems to be as if I tried to match the 4 colors of the six on a cube such that 6 between them describle the faces of the lowly tetrahedron.

Perhaps as sci-fi this is not as dramatic as the Big Bang, but we do not that once certain processes occur it is very hard to stop them no matter what our theory of the time says about it.

* * *

On Particle Mirrors

On Particle Mirrors


For those who may have followed my colored cube methods I will post the derivation of these patterns in the illustration above. But I have come not to think of it anymore as a recreational math problem but one that apparently scientists relate to particles and forces. I challenge the hobbyist then to find the color matching of the 30cubes from all three space directions (and the right down left diagonal one if it can fit in or show it cannot.

This of course comes from considerations of 6 x 4 = 24, that is thoughts of yesterday's post on the 24 cell 4D polytope. But it can be reduced in the seeming equivalent model of just a sphere with 24 parts, in that symmetry. On result of these partial matrices in which the elements may not align or balance as vectors in all the axial directions with the same number count like it does in the 24 general case (after all I asked if given such 24 might we pair them in patterns different from the four in a particular row) is that we can compare two ways to resolve what seems impossible at lower dimensional structures into an overview. One way concerns the 16 or the 2x8 or cube arrangement of 8 of the 30; the other way concerns the octagon arrangement--- in that case 14 is the significant number. These are in a way sort of dual structures as if a dual of a tessellation.

The whole of 27 breaks down into the points counted of 4 octagons + 1 triangle. As there are 30 I presume the right down left diagonal cube superimposes the six which looks like the Soma Cube. But in normal space representations- and of course all the ideas of mass or gravity seem to be related to the virial principle of Rowlands as inverse squares and such- we can of course see recurrent patterns of shapes of theme in 3 space that involve only the 24 cubes of the 30.

* * *

After just checking other blogs here:

Of course- would not such a particle represented by the three small red squares in the diagram be a structural thing or perhaps a particle at the unity cubed center? Would it not be invariant and a reference for the values of the other variations but not the source of those measures? :-D

Fermion already is used a particle name, in my notation the right down diagonal is the particle EHJ which in the 3x3 color label matrices is oposite to the LHC ! The elementary higgs jaguar is really the elementary sweet nothing highs with jaundice. But everyone wants a piece of the action of this tinkerbellon with names as vast as the rain of fairy dust...

* * *

Well. Lubos is on board too... But if you think about it the "Zprime" (I agree the fifth force ideas that arise are short lived but if the standard theory cannot unify the four others then what difference would another make?) But I must disagree with his conclusions, this would tend to support our blogs of a more topological approach to all of this. Not to say that those involved and feel sure enough to make a refusal or prediction of some idea do not have the great ability to think on these things- I find John Baez and Pitkanens ideas on the octets a very useful way to differentiate the evolving of fields and particles- here in the Pesla cube binary context of things. Are there particles of the same color in in a way are these a statement of relative or contiguous forces (color in my sense)? The superspace is after all related to the notions of multidimensional string theory as our ideas of higher dimensional forces and so on merge into a new physics general theory (and I suggest we look closer into the Ramanujan background of things before we fix on only part of physics and topology as the background.

Learning is not so much about new words or notations, teaching a matter of linguistics that concretely stand as long as we know only or have faith in the show, it is about the translation of our notions... Those that we intelligibly share.

It may be also that the reading vs the visualization habits we inherit determine in general our tendencies to a world view- part of a unified theory will be to integrate these specialized properties of notions in all of us- a steep learning curve for most indeed.

And we are only still sniffing around the symmetries in three space...

So, do we imagine a level of 24ions? Hmmmm.... But the 4D case easily now follows.



* * *
http://www.philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=177367#p177367
Re: "Suspicious bump" at Fermilab CDF
by Lincoln on April 6th, 2011, 2:00 pm 0


This is lincoln not holding his breath and turning blue.

Both CMS and DZero see nothing. CDF is notorious for making lot of noise about something that turned out to be totally uninteresting. Yes, we should double check. But I think it would be a more profitable use of my time to take a nap.

* * *


A note to Ulla for her link http://arxiv.org/abs/q-alg/9609018 sent today (thank you Ulla)

The John Baez paper was interesting (the language is a little hard to follow without post graduate courses but I get the gist of it- still see no stars as such). It appears he is trying to state a problem as to what has to be done rather than just a few hints at what actually is happening in some cases. I like he sees the higher complexity (as well as the simplicity and trying to prove it so in general) of what happens at least up to fourspace. But phase space and Hilbert space, and configuration space, all the most general for now- are not areas to which I see we can dwell and find a final answer. Still, he sees cases where in this complexity there can be topologies in the same sort of description that may have radically different groundings if we are to interpret them as fields or particles- yet it is a reworking of old issues like Weyl, but one worth a new look. His problems in braiding do state where there is a symmetry but we know the crossings are not explicit from existing formulas. While, in the normal sense of dimensions there are no star honeycombs one can ask in the sense these are things that my radiate from some central point or not such as bijets and vectors, rays and so on, that from some general view in the higher freedoms now suspected, can there be what amounts to a greater coherence or communication between these things on that level when we reach those inter-dimensional complexities.

The difficulty in reading I find an average score- not like some totally in a symbolism beyond me, and not like those of which I find transparently over simplified. In any case the notions are the right of all- so I really do not understand too much need for secrecy- not if the idea is to explore and share knowledge. But I will respect it.

I am sure whatever we get from this author will prove most worthwhile.

The PeSla

* * *

Quasiplex ( Whisper Matrices)

Quasiplex (Jaguars in the Whisper Matrices)

I ran out of words without disambiguation for the topological structures I am going to describe here (or perhaps not in detail as it has been covered and the arithmetic and geometry can be found most anywhere.) This morning I settled more on the term quasiplex rather than something like superspace or hypermatrix and so on.

So I did what someone did to find the word quark- I reached for a random book and opened the page and found this:

"S-s-s-sh! whispered Ken.

All the sounds ceased. The jungle seemed to sleep in deep silence. Ken's eyes were glued to the light path of sand-bank where it merged in the dark of the runway, then Ken heard a sound- what, he could not have told. But made his heart beat fast.

Then came a few pattering thuds, soft as velvet; and a shadow, paler than the dark background, moved out of the runway.

With that a huge jaguar loped into the open. He did not look around. He took a long, easy bound down to the water and began to lap."

Ken Ward in the Jungle Zane Grey 1912



* * *

Now, these elements of the quasiplex to distinguish them a little from all the variations on methods and terminology I shall designate in the large cat family. Let others decide what of these are physical particles of forces so as to interpret the model for what is dynamically happening in say the reading of the gene code.

After all, Tyger, tyger burning bright... immortal hand or eye... fearful symmetry and all that... Tigers with rather sting like stripes or Jaguars with spots, and more so with spots inside the spots... But some of the earliest goddesses wore such cloaks which were dotted with the stars.

* * *

Now, we could consider more than four objects in depth, in any case such spaces relate as much to that excluded by count as to what cats they so cradle.

* * *

Of course it is obvious that the symmetries of such particles and rays rather fit well with say the structures of a ball of 24 sections in the groupings of 4 or 6. It is the same map, quasic plane or ball, finite or infinite.

* * *

I wonder if there are 12 particles to consider as in Kea's quark and lepton braids if there could be in the sense of these graphs three more for the 15 of some sort? That is the HEJ in the illustration (again the signs of things have to be taken into account by one algebra or the other) The ideal solution of matching and orienting the color cubes in a Conway (and familiar space) matrix I now see why it was such a difficult problem.

* * *

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.6058v1.pdf well, only one of the computers in the coffeeshop could not read the PDF so I just saw it (From a link on Gibbs page thru Kea's page. I am not sure what I expected but despite the differnet symbolism the values here and the notions fit rather well with my quasic notation.

And of course http://blog.vixra.org/2011/02/28/the-24-cell-and-4-qubits/ itself is highly relevant to the quasiplex scheme of such an array of hyperstructures- note that these interrelate across so many dimensions- 24 is rather versatile.

and thanks also for this link to John Baez: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/numbers/24.pdf "it amounts to 6 x 4 = 24..." not that is insightful arithmetic!

That said, I have always favored 32, a rather 5th dimensional case, at least I think it is biologically important.

* * *

A Technical Point: The quasic grid is one of logic in that we consider the 24 valid syllogisms--- So the question arises, as a higher such grid as if an exact analog if one could see it and it exists (apparently harder to intuit than the Leech Lattice! Of which I just read) as to which are valid in some way on the next level of the quasiplex. We may ask what is the meaning or equivalent of the Conway-Otto matrix when we expand to the next level of core 256 quasic regions? Here we do indeed discuss various alternatives for computing the numbers involved- what sums to a number for example, 10+6 = 16 and so on. Would there be a square in the 16 x 16 case of ten by ten with a higher dimensional array around it of two rows? What when we make a three space representation of this 10^3 ?

Of course there is a sign problem without a more general view of how these numbers multiply and interconnect or say twist if we try to apply it to nuclear spaces on this level of things.

Now we could continue in multiples of 4 to five levels but with only four distinct objects that gives us the possibility of x4 choices in the same quasic square region.
This could indeed be a useful idea for some local choices say in cell differentiation.

* * *



Carbon this link from Ulla is interesting but more like chemistry outside my areas of interest- I have a hard time with the term but not the spirit of the concept of "negentropy" which sounds to me like the initial ideas from a bygone era of general systems theory which I did find most impressive at the time. http://radobozovhealth.com/?p=175 but there are some important creative approaches and directions here. After all, in the beautiful four way symmetry of hemoglobin and iron in the symmetry of CO and oxygen what determines the difference (strength of bonds? Some sort of topology overriding the quantum ideas in it all?)

What good btw is basing things on p-adic if these sorts of computations are not exactly reversible as to what equations may be found? That is as a general theory? Something more seems needed as we who have adapted to toxicity of oxygen look beyond our current circumstances of nature's laws.

Michael Rios in U-duality has a most excellent article on http://uduality.blogspot.com/2011/04/qm-over-split-composition-algebras.html

I am sure these are part of a more general picture of how we put various matrices together in this quasiplex space of which I visualize it a little more general than just the string like theories.

I put this illustration up also because the Kandium star can have a central depth as another variation on what twists and turns we may encounter to generalize space further. This rather free of scale space, regardless of the weights of particles which do seem to have binary measures mainly, does not in my eyes seem to have any great problems of vast differences in the scale of forces.

The forces from the steeps encounter the set face and wisdom of Confucius while the I Ching is standardized consulted with his dog eared text- until the first choices and wisdom of the gods are legend only or lost known only to them we discover again.

Does a journey end in but the first few steps? That journey in retrospect seems so long as if a long distance yet to go. Can we meet our self again? Do all roads vanish when each well known path carries with it the burden of a thousand memories and should we not allow the wise little ones not their time of first love and learning? Do I want the next needed answer I can almost see or smell, or do I want to walk that endless walk where I childlike behold all things new?

* * *

What is so special with carbon?

What is so special with carbon?


http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2846514233477399562&postID=8749937674288937092&page=1&token=1301934723723

Ulla said...
The interesting question from my point of view is 'why is life based on carbon'? What is so special with carbon?

I had some general thoughts last night with Ulla's question in a comment to Riofrio on what was so special about carbon as a base for life. This is a deep question and I can understand why many might think it an emergent and mystical subjective thing. I will post here soon today some thoughts on this related to the symmetry of our topology series and try to make some objective conclusions. I am not sure we can pin down exactly what we mean by life- we may say by that definition that the silicon based earth is conscious and alive as some sort of degree without restrictions- life as a sort of raw motion and warmth- but that is still philosophy.

I feel Ulla's question rather deep so look a little deeper as to what is her concerns. I will reply with casual speculations on the more braiding theory of things- but as in this set of comments today I imagine the appeal to quantum (field?) terms as Kea observed has to be supplemented into wider areas- Although, here at the frontier and reading Ulla's recent blog I am a little closer to those who try to make it all based on something like mind or consciousness as a viable alternative but metaphysical possibility- like galatomic's theory from the old philosophychatforum days. Again, what we try to describe as a quantum leap which is rare, may not necessarily be a leap by reason of quantum space as the grounding.

I also see Ulla's comment to my last post as suggesting that in general the structures of life as DNA may not have a rigid form (as observed) but ultimately a chance configuration from only a random and quantum basis- a more standard model. But is life as we know it and mind as it is co-inevitable in this sense merely the debate on what minor bacteria inhabit the surface of things in their little interactive toroidal representations? Perhaps, as in the post Whiskers we see that space is full of carbon tubes and Iron whiskers- in a sense to make steel we have to engineer in our theories the equivalent of the Bessemer process!

* * *

I posted this comment today after reading what I feel are Lubos's awakening interpretations and understanding of the see frontier effects from our recent experimental data:

Lubos, I see you too are thinking about the asymmetry and the hidden changes of sign and handedness (todays post on MEG for example).

I do not see how either of you will win the bet on the LHC finding supersymmetry, squarks or what, when perfectly good alternatives to the standard theory based on topology does discuss particles in a similiar manner and considers possibly stringy multidimensions. Such superspaces may not be supersymmetry in the sense some of you are now exploring.

But thanks for the info and interest. I think we do indeed have to go beyond the usual ideas like just phase spaces or the "old language of various quantum theories- not to say these are wrong."

The PeSla

This posted as a comment on Jester's page concerning the same general experimental results:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2846514233477399562&postID=8749937674288937092&page=1&token=1301934723723

* * *

Carbon's Special Role in a Universe of Light and Dark Fluid

It is appealing but a little soon to relate these ideas to the light and opaque matter. The superman symmetries may not clearly turn the coal into diamonds and the soot into a powerful principle of a more local non-locality of fiber like bundles of closed and open mouthed wormholes. We only can speculate on the nature on the other side of ultimate mirrors.

For those whom might encounter my surviving poetry, the mythology of Quabics was a term I used to understand the parts and the wholes of things, matter in particular when we count the quarks arithmetically (and as an independent idea the anti-quarks that came in a dream). I feel this the contribution of later Christian metaphysics, the idea of the Trinity or better yet the Quaternity of Jung- but such things should be understood in a sort of evolutionary order- as well carbon itself as some unit of matter seen over the immense time where it comes in and out of living things. I owe this view to a very old lady in chemistry class- different world views and the debates of the time in geometry made for low grades- save, this lady who spurned milk, gave me an A on the carbon paper.

In a way what I write will come from a rather outdated and trivial view as an introduction to the deeper meaning such things imply- but did we not overrate the grounding of say Boyai's geometry developed from simple obvious and trivial logic- as that species of humans related to Hungarians are jokingly said to be evidence of aliens among us for all their inventions like this or Rubik's cubes?


The Trinity or Quaternity issues is still with us, perhaps in the debate as to what is the 3+1 or 2+2 or 4 symbolism in the formulation of the quantum and other physics.

I think of things like two metal plates attract by the Casmir force (and as Rowlands points out there can be seen organic equivalents in force descriptions). But if we have places where the geometry of spheres match that of the planes we might ask what it means as far as the world outside it, what happens within the "crust" between spheres? Does it push things apart, contain them, or collapse them together?

Let me remark that Pauling suggested that we can have 20 carbons together in the form of a dodecahedron- nature with a little uncertainty as a fudge factor for the pentagonal angle is 108 and the octahedral is 109.54, but even a straw models can be made as such a polyhedron.

But a key idea here is that when we arrange carbon as in the Buckyballs what we get is not ideally that based on fivefold symmetry as much as a close stacking as the molecule grows more on the essential lengths of lesser dimensions such as of space or two planes. Only projected out are these true three dimensional geodetic domes.

So, briefly, and mirror particles held on the back burner, let us count the number of things in a carbon atom as if to find a finer but simple idea of what is there to understand vaguely the mass.

3^2 x 2 or 2^3 x 3 has been observed in these blogs to have some sort of relevance to possibilities or impossibilities of topological structures. Of 6 protons we multiply by three quarks to get a count of 18. Alternatively we multiply by four, quaternity, and we get a count of 24 such things.

Interestingly, 18 x 24 = 1/2 x 6^3 which is 4 x 27.

24 x 4 = 96 and 96^2 = 8 x 1152(the 24 4D cell group number)

Whiskers: Iron is 26 (and thought to be a limit of element production now by novas and certainly is a result of such novas that break down into alpha particles and neutrinos that allow the rapid explosion- save other mechanisms of local jetting may still do the trick for the heavier elements) and Carbon! Metaphorically, we see this sort of arithmetical numerology calling up all the intelligible numbers we encounter today in the twistor like braiding and graphing theories. Certainly the Carbon cycle in the sun is an evolving step to explain some if its source of energy relating on the way to final states of iron. Iron 26 plus carbon 6 equals 32, three times that is 96 and for times that is 128 which is used by Rowlands for certain exact fractions for some particle masses.

Of course there are interdimensions involved in these abstract and discrete geometric structures... We derive some fractional charge values. We imagine graphs that turn a tetrahedron into one of a higher octagon analog to imagine 16 tetrahedra it can be broken down into, or say a fourspace orthogon into 8 three space orthogons which in turn become the 24 three space tetrahedra.

Carbon as 12 x 3 is 36 or times 4 is 96. and C60 or the Buckyball x 4 is the 240 of eight dimensional sphere packing and other things...

We see then that a quaternity of quarks my be expressed outwardly as four "bonds" and as recently observed by experiment the C60 can behave like a Methane molecule as things can be bonded by four to it. (and in a sense there are 8 bonds which seem to enter the count abstractly as what are exploded timelike dimensions of a count.

* * *

The question then is is there some (geometrical) restrictions in a field of many possible arrangements of atoms that carbon is not just accidentally useful to allow the complexity for the arising of life? Although we may make a crude analogy to its similar forms in the periodic table and these certainly have effects on organisms, the general background of the over all structure of an atom would make this very unlikely.

This is not to say that life as such could not take on other forms- but these might be radically different, especially if matters of restricted quasi-nonlocality and quantum like in the entanglements- yet subject to the same intelligible rules of this sort of carbon symmetric underlying topology in 4 space (3 or 4 generation) matter with its ultimate limit of 120 elements this side of the mirror (or 92 if your view of 4 space is Fuller like.) But why would nature in any imagined universe say choose other elements for the foundation of life itself if not side processes of life adapting to the elements at hand?

Interestingly, the properties of superconductivity come up and aromatic ideas when we arrange carbon in graphene or on Buckyballs and so on. A lot of these new experimental results, from this simple perspective on atoms, could have been predicted within the real of matter and life as we know it by such topological concepts.

Two stay thoughts related to these calculator pay concepts: That some sort of iotaplex singularity may be symmetrical somewhere to the initial and final points and direction to the infinity of ordinals reverses that things collapse to combine or expand to repel.

And that if we so add triangles to a flat map of a tetrahedron we get a truncation of it and to that we find center points as if a geodetic structure most simply expressed, and yet it may exist physically as such- and of course be a space filler.

* * *

Since some can evolve such theories in their psyches- I fancy that we could come to some planet where life evolves to a more M theory that has its species of life based on strings alone as a variation in the general scheme of evolving things- but to my knowledege none of the stringers have applied this directly to theories of organism.

* * *

It may be of background relavence to let you know yesterday and today I have had a rather low grade toothache...

* * *

Ulla has an interesting summary of some of these NP (new physics) concerns on her blog at: http://zone-reflex.blogspot.com/2011/03/whats-matrix-relative-locality.html

In many ways it does seem rather like a mess. It occurs to me that even our ideas of dark or opaque matter or fluids (especially when we wrestle with ideas a the extreme of scale or posit certain types of particles, or even show where in the scheme of things the vacuum alone might cause some of these phenomena that : Ultimately we have to look a a deeper grounding than even our ideas of dark matter.

For one thing in slightly higher space, and values we may consider unitary as foundational or normalized as to scale, or some recursive hierarchy of such scales as geometrical thus true analogies we are just chasing the underlying notions of our metaphysics that seem to some extent universal and at least as long as we live that something in our perceptions and reality seems concrete enough to persist. In the greater scale of things the differences in the grounding scale of say Planck values do not amount to much of a difference at all- just the axiom that there is always a residual difference that may or may not ever vanish no matter how small. We can of course focus things like Rowlands in that the weak force is (metaphysically) everything or we can like Smolin chase fixed ideas for a fictional replication multiverse. Or we can extend all this that a certain mental aspect is involved only on a deeper and much more complex level than the first of such quantum conceptions.

It is clear to me that what may seem not symmetric to our familiar space can in fact be so. And in theories that assume a bounded brane or even sheets of such on a smaller low dimensional scale only that "since we can take the associahedron and it makes no difference in that case to what extent we extend the long axis" that this is a useful theorem that may underlay some ideas about ranges of effects flat or curved we now can imagine as a relative and limited non-locality. Indeed, such a resolution come up in the description of vectors in the new cyclic universe alternatives.

Not of symmetric shadows are space fillers in the sense of surfaces on which we can show the flow if independent of exchanges of say electrons in the sense of Coxeter's eutasic stars (a global and Euclidean grounding of directions and vectors) as shadows of the higher spaces will be symmetric in say three space. We imagine that the hexagons of this "space filler or truncated octahedra" as to be slightly indented in the three space. So where these things apply to organic structures we have the possibilities of the fudge factor between dimensions coextensive perhaps with the quantum range of uncertainties involved, at least reductionist perceived arithmetically and geometrically intelligibly. In what absolute sense of space would our notions understand there are no gaps in the tessellations? Would that be any different than say the notions of tiles of seven sides in hyperbolic space?

Perhaps, these sorts of consideration would suggest that some near misses of the semi-regular polyhedra have uses in the organic realms for some angles have a degree of freedom in the natural dimensional realization of the vectors of this fudge factor as if in effect these were akin to some non-Euclidean geometry of near flat angles and some general geometry of intelligibly relating to pi. What would be the life of lecturing on the frontiers of physics is not necessarily as profound as the lecturing on the foundations of physics or how it relates to the foundations of mathematics even in terms of simple compass and straight edge or prime numbers. Can we ultimately imagine a prime number system different and relative in locality from our range of perception- that perhaps but a model that is at core metaphysics- one that recedes from our technological and theoretical mastery as seems the idea of what is red or grue as a color superimposed a little less than angels but more than the beasts as our intellect upon the quantum waves and phase and dust...

* * *

The other day I came across this interesting page- flux particle theory- as theories of everything goes it is elemental in its own right and should be reading for any among us who on some level or other aspires to claim a theory of everything. Interesting his symbol is a dodecahedron with outward vectors (but then in a sense did not Plato have a sort of subatomic theory for his time that used component triangles of the polyhedra that explained in 4 elements chemical properties?):

http://www.gootar.com/gravityboy/index.html

"Unless a theory has a simple underlying picture that the layman can understand. the theory is probably worthless." Interesting quotation.

* * *

I stayed for more coffee and found this link from Ulla:

Ulla
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3596


Ahhh, I see someone came close to what I have been saying since 74. Including references to the I ching! (take that philosophychatforum elites! that dismiss such things as not science). Of course you will recognize a lot of this in my recent posts as my graphs- If they are using the term hypercomplex as I know it then it certainly has to do with the normal nine dimensional natural dimensions of such octonion roots- so they have more work to do to unify and apply some of these ideas. This is to say that there is still more to the gene code than we state in this paper with the arbitrary H matrices- but they do come from the four value base as I did long ago, 4n and all that, and 24 as well as the so called 20. See my KLMN graph of the 256 cell 16 dimensional case. But what are you to make of this article yourself? My quasic matrix makes clearer sense to visualize by the way. To see things 8 fold in that matrix did take a bit of getting used to but the base 8 has to be done. Things really get interesting when you reverse a lot of the evolving and let us recall that in such higher space there are fundamentally different paths or view one may take as to sorting these things out as if braids or knots or what have you. In a sense we observe a global effect here even if just implied. I suppose eventually the idea of information theory had to meet these concepts in our more receptive climate of multi-dimensional physics. It certainly goes further than Rowland's hints and treatments.

This should be very inspiring for us as it is after all about us and in general the heart of chemistry is this rather rarefied conception of DNA, from a quantum view or not.

I may come back to this to check some of the special way they claim for some details. Thank you for the link even if it is 37 years too late. I wish I had made it into Madison for genetics a couple of years after then- as usual the social world is not something we should assume makes sense :-)

The PeSla

* * *

Ulla, just found this link after the above post so came back- for you: (Oh, this was in the area of what your carbon inspired question was discussing anyway and the greater freedom of these symmetry concepts. And thanks for your last blog posting btw.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110403141322.htm

as I said- "Things really get interesting when you reverse a lot of the evolving and let us recall that in such higher space there are fundamentally different paths or view one may take as to sorting these things out as if braids or knots or what have you." Of course this suggests too the viability of a more particle or point centered count- hopefully will shed more light on the protein con formalities also.

* * *

If in a sense carbon is that intimate to life- then what are we really but something in the cost of living someone decides must have a carbon tax?

* * *

When it rains it pours. http://blog.vixra.org/2011/04/04/hidden-variables-and-the-24-rays-of-peres/ the article in his blog today I could not download the PDF but the counting numbers if not the relation to what sort of theory underlies this are certainly relevant to the new physics views awakening like violets under discussion.

Of course these ideas should be put in a more general topological context than just the idea of the 24 cell as important as that seems to be.

* * *

* * *

Unified Reality on Both Sides of the Mirror

It struck me last night while I was pondering 24 in the 109 and so on that the methods of Kea's in general and in braiding theory are remarkably similar to my long time use of the binary system as "quasic" information (even before computers and awareness that this was an interest to others in the world) I thought at first is was a sort of Unitary Field Theory and it may still be but the concept is much more general now- I said as much to the chancellor at UNC one year but that did not help me become a student- nor the 3D quasicrystals (admissions officers apparently know little mathematics or science). The director of biological research had a much different attitude and seemed keenly interested in pattern theory on amphibians to which she having Alzheimers so soon to retire gave my wife and child and I $100, why I asked- for research (that or we were homeless at the time).

The idea of crossings or braids in this more abstract space I treat as if the crossing or merging of colors of the coordinates (the ambiguity in fact as the standard notations of such crossings). Of course there are notations inside the notations such as partitioning in partitions as more general coordinate systems. It is not clear to me that braid systems have to close or clearly remain open or somewhere in between as if a crossing as to what is real on which side of a mirror (as certainly, especially those with point only theories of everything form a logically closed system and feel certain of their lesser stage and climb to higher theories as a total theory- the reality on some mirror side of notions and the implied unreality on the other side).

If we imagine connections between so many things and expand exponentially on enumerating them until the move faster and faster in computing, and it fills us our minds almost as if to take it over, the rings do connect and fall out or leak from the seemingly inflationary fray. But does such precipitation fall down or meet again to leak into higher realms of ambiguous spaces of gravity. I must say, that despite all these ideas that seem to be unifying I do not see how they more than metaphorically relate to the vague term "gravity" unless perhaps it intrinsically pulls and pushes from some concept of sides of partitions and mirrors- but what we call mass or gravity or even space seems a little more abstract than our defining.

I do not know if the 24 or 20 things that come up here in the application of combination's and so on relate to the upper reaches of the recent results in interpreting Ramanujan in the same way as I envision but it would be worth scrutiny by those advanced in the ratified notation and visions of the field.

It is also remarkable that interpenetrating three golden rectangles comes from the idea of those inscribed in the icosahedron already of simple three space 5-fold symmetry to reach a level of understanding dimensions, such as the string theories, where we find again systems of such symmetries. 2^5 x 5! = 5 x 768 or 10 x 384.


* * *

three times the cube sub-elements (or tau unit cube of some color) is 24 36 18 3 = 27 and all that implies.

four times it is 32 48 24 4 for 108, +1 for we count too the higher dimensional cell. Or 28 arises by +1 to 27 again in three space intelligibly. Or simply the multiplication of these things as x4 minus x3 that is 109 - 81 = 28.

the density of star polygons relate too as the incidence matrix say of 8 objects does describe the various diagonals.

I was somewhat interested in this flattened rhombohedron shape of the golden surfaces connected as 24 points such that it includes 8 triangles in addition but the squares are all trapezoids. These in a way are superfluous to the integrity of the physical structure.

Here is a delightful dissection of an 8 pt star that goes into an octagon that reminds me of my tau based Otto symbol:



* * *

What is the subjective resistance from some side of mirrors of which our ideas radiate outward (perhaps in some general space really requiring a much higher view we can find there are star honeycombs in a way after all.) Sure we can feel the certainty of a system or theory of everything in itself at the rejection of the reality of others- but if there is such a universal ideal theory to so encounter how can the reality of the resistance remain in the face of what is concrete general theories of the truth? That or we should abandon science in favor of some general acceptance of hallucinations and confabulations based on equality of psychologies of world views.

* * *

Kea's theory update and links were especially interesting to me today and do indeed evoke within a more general view of dimensions connections and possible ones which can be surprising. But the informational laws if consistent and coherent should after all cover all our representations and notions, symmetrical or not. Clearly this is a step beyond the standard theory.



* * *

I might conclude that years ago when Prof. Jim Stashef was consulted by the string theorist on the related topology that the surprise is that it was the topology that led to a more comprehensive theory of particles and space.

What of a simple vision of stacked stars and a restriction on a variable 5pt star mould... how long was it we moved to the polar climes without all but stray lightning bolt discovery of fire and yet in the struggle survived thin times between fleeting generations? Stacked as helices, solenoid or distinguishably extended with the handedness, and the star itself a two way spiral that can only hold so many generations of stars until the spiral vanishes under the others. I have to agree (with Kea) in this vague vision that particles have to start on the level of four things. But who knows when the hidden simplexes are counted just how far from the depth and span of infinity that some things even in the non-associative generalization of probability (especially where point theories are complicated by the uncertainty principle) that some things can become associative again?

* * *

Now I just clicked on Kea's link of papers: http://web.williams.edu/Mathematics/devadoss/papers.html a lot of reading to do but I find it Beautiful, Beautiful!, and that much from the poet in me feels reassured of the truth of such theories.

* * *

I must say that although I have conceived of such structures in this more spacious range of interacting lower dimensions, the dihedron, independent edges, even the distinguishing of point singularities as string and particle like of null dimensions, that it did not occur to me not knowing these applications in the standard notations that they could be placed in a more general theory of the things like Catalan numbers. I suspect moreover that they give a grounding for lags and jumps of such iotaplex particles seeming to move between curves on a still graph when absolute numbers are involved.

But what is a theory that we constantly explore its span and depths perhaps to question just how far any such theories should go before we saturate or satiate and rest comfortably on its further simplicities and complexities? One thing for sure, for those who in the general populace who want to know but cannot gauge the learning curve to become relative competent in a field, let alone creative enough to give or recognize some original and fundamental new knowledge, that in the end we come closer to notions that contain the concepts thus accessible such that it fulfills some of their curiosity and mystery, perhaps allay fears, to uplift the significance of our noble intellect of achievements- such that the explanation of this part of our experience of reality- even a child could understand?

* * *

In Kea's special update a few posts ago, in he comments a link to this proof:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0809/0809.1584v1.pdf
and I think such a proof would be welcome and in its compass make a leap to even more general topology theories- but alas, very little in the language and notation was something I could read at all. But I do find it beautiful for the calligraphy's sake, like old Chinese poems still copied but the meaning lost long ago.

* * *

An Infinity of Mirrors

Last night I did not do much but some informal and casual explorations without a directed focus. It told me I should learn a little more about graph theory, that some of these stray thoughts may be well developed and covered in the literature. But after the last post, even though a thought is here of an even deeper metaphysical nature (in Rowland's sense) nothing I write would feel as deep. That idea is that if we have an iota particle (more or less a point on a string from whatever seemingly infinite directions and so on) may come into existence only upon the duality exploding or expansion from a concrete geometrical structure, that in the heart of them at some context of a center singularity is the iotaplex of an integral count of grounding nodes for particle structure. This would suggest, as in Rowlands view, that this sort of difference grounds the observed particle differences without the need for a supersymmetry for their unification and yet the forces can be compared intelligibly even if not from the standard idea of one common force origin.

* * *

On the way back home from the coffee shop I did have a further idea on the "crust" theory of my last post. Basically, we can have a coherent and intelligible geometry between mirrors and the totality of it does not know which "holes" it describes or surrounds- is there a physics to handle these possibilities including the multiverse concept cases? Do they vanish into some sort of Cantor dust or are they independent and opaque or do they fit together in general as leaks of heat or gravity or even mass to form some sort of observable physics of measure? And lastly, the properties of superconductivity indeed appears as that of the boundaries outside that between mirrors. Why in general should we expect that given electromagnetism that it counters the effects of gravity by itself? Does this sea of holes average things out even indirectly such that we do emphasize the quantum world of mixing even if in a deep sense these are virtual and outside of the observable universe, even if we imagine them in some complex space?

From one view these sort of descriptions of "non-creative" holes no matter what the topology of the physicality of knots of crusts as formed or directed is independent and maybe irrelevant for description no matter what the complexity of the possibilities of compact spaces as an infinity of mirrors of which many search among the intelligible logic of it for some structure that would seem to express our laws of observable reality among the sea of innumerable possibilities.

* * *

I suppose, in the back of my mind, I begin to question if methods of such magic squares are powerful enough to at least describe what is, if not what rather is not- but that is the usual metaphysical question, especially considering Leibnizian backgrounds for our physicality. We still walk a tightrope as to what is a physical or metaphysical principle as if in the crust of our notions all is quasi-physical at least in descriptions of our reality so is or is not but a quasi-physical theory.

* * *

Perhaps, as in the link on Riofrios's page ( http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/2011/03/inflation-may-need-air.html )to the sci am article on inflation theory- and more thoughts on eternal inflation and cyclic universes (of which this too may be a tightrope of joint possibilities from some view) that from a metaphysical notion where possibilities are not forbidden(quantum style) yet that forbidden is not arbitrarily contrived, that what is and has occurred infinite times in effect has never occurred thus the origin of flatness despite our ideas of exponentiation in the notations that balance to some zero, at all.

The article discusses (between the extremes of a focused big bang like initial center to be moderated by conditions were general space evokes properties from its sparser emptiness- indeed, the measure of inflation regions not simply that of volume nor the supposed energy measures conserved or derived from it-) cases that raise the notion of anthrocentricity where most likely "bad inflation regions" can be more descriptive of the reality we so find ourselves within. So I take it as a meso cosmic psychological statement as to the states of minds we find with variation between the great macro singularity and the micro-iotaplexes. It is then about perception, the phaneron of backgrounds as to what may or may not be the concrete reality so perceived or as a possibility of perception. Such states of mind will of course find it intelligible and logical to imagine what is not seen and there seems no way in general to distinguish the concreteness of such a description of reality nor the mind of the perceiver and theoretician.

For an ultimate absolute is more general on the same level of perceptive backgrounds than any particular absolute that it may contain even if these are on the same scaoe level (where sums and products are the same initial and ongoing description. Thus theories can move, evolve in general or in particular, slowly or rapidly, inevitibly or vanish, even return again as a possibility.

* * *

Does anyone else see in the numerology of this article which asks for a better understanding of this technical achievement and unforeseen general effects, such as 14 or 64 and so on?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110401085103.htm

* * *
Footnote: In the illustration I am asking for a count of what inside some dimensional object may popcorn vector outside. In a sense we can have a view of a pure point or naked supersingularity (certain one that is a center or even a limit) as some point only theories describe things- or the string or ray itself may so describe things as there may not be a place where the iota particles are absolute. Yet between crusts one could imagine some particles to show isolated states if we break the string- provided in the general background these can be a realized temporal physicality that can be relatively stable. Or we can continue to imagine such cosmic forces in theory at least as disembodied ghosts.

Between Mirrors

Between Mirrors L. Edgar Otto 03-31-11 / 04-01-11

Can we better ground the methods and philosophic implications of quantum theory? I go a little beyond the general thrust of my blog theories lately so this page of Creative Quantum Information Theory is to be looked at for now as metaphysics into which, as with all of the new theory zoo we strive for concreteness in our leaps of thinking.

*1 - Within two shells of different radii we have an integral and intelligibly behaved "crust" or "peel" in which, independently (and opaque to) of other crusts the laws of chirality (as handedness mainly) and momenta as the grounding of things like mass may apply.

*2 - Two or more such crusts may intersect.

*3 - Two 3D-Penrose quasicrystal sets may intersect. A crust (in four space) geometry is richer than natural dimensional non-Euclidean ideas and this includes such geometries withing the crust between mirrors.

*4 - A crust does not know, locally, if it is part of a negative or curved space, it and its subdivisions are a neutral contiguity.

*5 - Absolute value of |a|^|a|^... I tentatively assert |- as points (iota complex singularities, iotaplexes) may move between crusts as shells or as multi-verse over spacious presences. A creative jump in this respect is not necessarily the idea of a quantum jump.

*6 - n!! involves half dimension values in a series compared to n!, Also we may consider fractional dimensions of integer values as abstract groups.

*7 - A quasic region of a crust such as a polytope, may be contiguous in a quasic manner to other such regions, thus an extending seemingly or for all practical purposes at a distance yet touching.

*8 - Two parallel lines may quasically be coincident in this manner or intersect at a point iotaplex singularity.

*9 - A crust may encompass a range of integer-intelligible motions and dimensions in its universe of discourse.

*10 - Two dual polytopes may abstractly oscillate with its shadows or between crusts in which case exchange of discrete mediator particles may indeed ground the force connecting them provided crust theory is "metaphysically" and primarily distinct.

*11 - Consider the octahedron and cube so oscillating but in the binary count of component integral tetrahedra we consider also these as shadows of higher space representations. Two creative points or spacious singularities may intersect or exchange a context of polytopal mediators like mirrors.

*12 - A universe as unique and a totality, as if an illusion, embeds an implied multiverse and whatever shifts of its unity or constants that are observable, thus such quantum like grounds are there in the quasi-metaphysical indefinite structures of space, at least.

*13 - An indefinite (stable or not stable) magic square matrix may be a Portal to vanishing or creation of a totality (or seemingly so). Thus, for all practical purposes, a physical reality that may be random or quasi-random, both seemingly so.

*14 - The "totality" of an organism (brain) is in effect its own endowment of portal magic matrix quasi-centered evolution and transformation (or not). The mind-matter duality is solved only as such a portal in physicality.

* 15 - |- I assert a spinning cube across the diagonal and with a clear interior, will focus light passing through it. In the count of three or four space orthogons involved there is the idea or question that what is emitted must balance what is adsorbed or it decays into so many parts- the question being that within the crust and self-dual will it self focus?

* 16 - Teleoscoping: |b preceded by a can be followed by c| ^ |ditto| ^ |...| Unified point-singularity multiversal averaging and inter looping within and between crusts with the ground of paths expressible by quasic teleoscoping notation can be done intelligibly between absolute span and depths and to the same powers of this between mirrors or complexes of crusts- these can also be viewed as quasi-tachyonic in considerations of time. |iotaplex| ^ |iotaplex| ^ . . . that the universe or as totality is also the multiverse perhaps taken to some binary power and that mixed concept is not necessarily equal to some zero or to absolute zero.

* 17 - Teleoscoping is done between areas or brane like regions as it is not clear it can be done with the full information (although it can arise from there) by its factored linear components. Some areas that involve transcendental numbers by curves such as circles can be so equivalent to such squares and some cannot.

*18 - What is field and what is spinning iotaplex can be seen relatively in that if these absolute points are and ground the mediators that move between curves between or among mirrors, the singularity particles may be seen at rest and the context of the field itself exchanged as undergoing that which is in the abstract motion.

*19 - Of course outside the crusts or where such intersect we can assert in effect a quasi-information of virtual but scaled and very fine calculation of something like mass as particles- but the topology of it- a little beyond the idea of what is held as invariant explicitly, can contain an intelligible enumeration of mirrors as "holes". But these as creative quantized information set context may or may not relate intelligibly short of the powerful tool of vague statistics, to what can be distinguished as multiverse or universe- that is the universe is its own crust between opaque mirrors where the connections may not exceed its local totality save by theory.

* * *

*20 - Considering natural dimensions and that the boundary conditions as applied such as in Boson D-brane theory, the term "crust" might be taken literally as the earth's crust for those boggers and others consider such things as the earth expanding or poles shifting by what is outside moving independent from what is the mantle inside (Einstein). But the boundaries although limited are not as rigid as the formulas so arranged might make us believe. For one thing it is a matter of relative viewpoint even on the nuclear level for: If one reverses the direction of decay in an abstract sense the context or field adsorbing such leptons or particles may keep them scale invariant, space and time-wise, and yet the result is the apparent shrinking or expansion of the boundary envelop of the context of the field such that the crusts may shrink relative to existing theories like the boundaries of a proton innocuously bombarded with laser photons and interacting with the muon catalysts. Thus space can appear to contract with the inclusion of more mass and exclusion principles (more fundamentally explained) depends on the implied properties of super-spaces of so many interconnected dimensions. Such topological notions could have kept open the possibility that something like Saturn's rings were there from the creation of the solar system, as seems to be the case. (although of course being a relative notion reductionist dust particle accumulation can be made into an intelligible ongoing model.) The relativity itself involved applies in that one can imagine light a constant when it enters a depth region of higher dimensions so bounded that the region or context is that which undergoes changes.

It is interesting also that as if the peel of an orange compared to the general rings of fire, that considering triality these break generally into three regions.

* * *