Natural Symmetry

Natural Symmetry L. Edgar Otto 05-06-11

Physics, as we know it and in my take on its foundations, may be extended without necessarily invoking a fourth and greater physics, (the Phoenix physics for after all we are searching for an explanation or better grounding for mass-energy in the existence of things), Although these may be there as we expand upon our notions of things so as not to confuse simpler notions as that new physics, or confine physics to the simpler notion of the day.

Some things there are very hard to see and to sort as to what is a restriction on their nature or a natural intelligibility of freedom when things work together.

Thus we imagine symmetry breaking as grounding in a principle, accepted but really explaining not enough and if conveyed to others is not the presenting of an original idea but an almost religious stance in propagating what is deep and learned and requires years of competence, is a value in itself as all knowing, and from one viewpoint of it as to reach the masses in some form or other beyond its dead languages, it is a tool to restrict others and in effect hide the wisdom.

Yet the charge that those who preach and illustrate the texts are as if a priesthood against a more scientific humanism for a democratic science and language shared by everyone so it belongs in no special situations to anyone, is countered by the fact that in the seasons of history the dark ages occur, and those cloistered in the remote periphery of carnage and conquest are owed by the future generations their keeping alive of civilization and its light.

So, if our ideas of symmetry breaking are based on a more limited group theory, a language as a weapon or a projection of someone's competence to join the order of theorists, the elite in theory, then our physics will remain in deep trouble. For there are a little further principles and structures that do not show the need for a quaint notion of super symmetry (SUSY). Nor in these notions does it matter in our choice of depth and span as to what of the world's structure is generated from the microworld or macroworld view as to the elements of number, or topology, in a sense the string idea is turned on its head if taken as serious at all to its ultimate conclusion and not the idea that a string may be composed of varying discrete points on a more familiar level that imagines gluons and so on... The gauge like idea, even the Braneworlds as generators without strings, is turned the other way in a world where in the emptiness of space, things weightless may not find orientation.

To this there is a natural symmetry of things. A good model for it would be a more comprehensive and topological view for what is a living organism in its complexity. The natural purpose of an organism to the extent is relates and controls its destiny in an environs is not longer a question of the need for purpose beyond itself even as a principle of least action in the most general of symmetries.

We can imagine certain fields in the organization of tissues and so on, a sort of morphogenic field with or without harder question of memory through time or action at a distance. In the theories of space itself we may imagine sheets of things that vary beyond our simple seen connections of things. (My leonics and TGD are examples) but these are not as simple as the sliced bread-like jumps of Riemannian multi-ply densities when we exclude the origin and negative values of the x-axis to which any paths may not cross- an idea useful for quantum theory in the mathematics at least. Nor is this to be seen as a sort of membrane theory only. Things are deeper than this and our principles of finding subgroups are not quite enough to use it as a powerful argument in some debates of speculative interpretations. If the group theory is not powerful enough, as is the calculus also, what to we expect to ground our asserted theories of physics that has any sort of accrued scientific certainties?

In general and informally we imagine then the compactification of dimensions when the symmetry is broken and as an answer to the question where do the extra dimensions go? But there is also an idea of condensing of things as far as the information goes in which case it can be expanded back as if a fractal aspect of the physics. Not so the (data) compression which is more the holographic aspect. We might also introduce the word capacitation where the question is open as to what is lost or not of information as a form of energy in ideal and continuous systems.

Nature, despite its chaos and discontinuities, asymmetric directions and uncertainty of the grounding of the nature of time, does seem to intelligibly find balances even in the ongoing reversible and irreversible aspects as if entropy and thermodynamics (which of course means that these natural processes trump some extreme notion of physical law such as the ultraviolet catastrophe). Nature is by nature only a quasi isolated system of systems.

In the condenser aspects of a familiar and natural dimensional environs (the question of generations that arise or even the question of what is to be considered super as symmetry, even what is the dark or light aspects of opaqueness of matter(or matter-energy), we do not need to assert there are restrictions, usually of an algebraic group idea or as based on pi and reflections as to what is a regular solid for there is a hierarchy of sorts that naturally fit numbers and vector spaces of the sub-cells of things together in away that is not some operation of canceling out of values or even reduction to some sort of zero or forbidden extreme of its division or vague cloud like indeterminacy of all values. In this respect the idea of numbers as ideal is as numbers as intimate to the fabric of all possible realities, perhaps multi-verses or multiple even infinite path histories, and as such is a stronger sense of how our world is intelligible and our physics as consistent even in the face of the dimensionless numbers.

Thus, there seems to be, informational at least(meaning our coordinate systems as absolute values, of singularities and distances between them in a quasic grid) where we apply the validity's of the concept of the Conway matrix, there are symmetrical analogs to the icosahedron that seem to be on sheets or levels, the vibrations of them more like a shifting cleft in music. One moreover whose scale seems a star grounded on some center or note in the next dimension rather than symmetrically reduced loops as heard so seen as beautiful but isolated from touched contexts in a world were such forces everywhere or from default including vacuum forces touch the loops and the loops do not bring with them necessarily a change of forces. Between the disc and the reed is the natural symmetry of the universe as bilaterally symmetric.

The expansion then of icosahedral objects may shift into still higher space systems in which the coordinates may themselves be thought of as if a Clifford dimension on steroids- a hidden information that say on the 5 dimensional level could be seen as the ten dimensions. But such Conway prime (or squared higher dimensional color matrices) systems are a natural extension of the symmetries involved that even return again intelligibility to natural dimensions as if a simple shape we have as a given to start with. This in effect abstractly generalizes the quasic grid. I suspect it allows for the organization of things like atoms from their parts, or in a way the molecular systems, things in reduction not just thrown together so as to wait for a discrete threshold for star formation or explosions. In this super quasic stance on space the generations were of course explained or a very trivial problem to ask why nature did things more complicated and less Ockham like in design.

Of course these considerations are still not as deep in the known structures of geometric objects in the application of the coordinate informational formulas- we for example could use the natural four dimensional great grand stellated solids for wider systems- It is also, in turning the notions and structures inside out in the span and depth of representations, that we get clarification on how these structures appear, simply connected or not with a center, to derive the nuclear and electron configuration shapes and symmetries.

* * *



[One can notice on this illustration a complex of things with string like or linear objects in the center surrounded by a 5D orthogon. This suggest to me that the ten and ten objects (as well the 40 of the close packing of 5D spheres) in the heart of electrons spinning on the 10 shell may have such an explanation. Now I just posted a comment to Leo and came back here to write this- in that illustration one can also imagine an antiorthogon although technically like on Leo's blog it is not just a question of dual symmetries as in these solids but at least four fold. So we can have the higher space orthogon in the center and the lesser ones going outward as if on his blog Leo imagines a tangle of things in new symmetries of space that sort of sink to the a core- and yes the lone zero point outside that can be thought to explain so many things not to at least mention that an electron and proton by charge, discrete charge, may be seen to remain connected or at an action at a distance. Nature apparently does not default directly to the center of things in space as well as with the particles so why should evaporation of such entities not go into several stages depending on the overall average threshold of "energy" and the differences of photons and so on where their number is conserved?]

* * *

A reply to Yuri, and the discussion on the link he sent:

http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/holomata-75739


Ahh, Yuri, I think I understand the answer:

He organizes the plane in two directions but does not see your 3:1 ground of information in such a plane- an idea which of course can be further expanded beyond that of hydrogen and helium. Some models where the small scale is discrete, and can be made from simple shapes built up like the tetrahedron to a large continuous scale (he knows the pattern extends indefinitely) is a two way digital and analog situation- top or bottom down in the flow of the physics of it all. Some think we cannot build the cosmos this way but is that not the idea of a unified physics?

It is not we lose things in the holographic 3 + 1 roots of information but a part of the quadrant not seen in itself. It is basic logic really. My point in fact, save for Penrose, is that the confusion of the 3:1 and 3+1 ideas is in fact what is now being done. It is still a question of if the information is lost (as into a black hole) and in many ways I thought this info could be found in the linear roots and sequences but forgot how or if I did not see at the time some sequences that isolated themselves in to loop that only the plane would show us- it is much easier to organize the information in these planes anyway as to the order of things.

But if, as with other purely holographic ideas, in a higher space some things are an illusion that will not show up in the linear reduced information of it all- then what are we to make of the 3:1 principle even if some sort of point dance on a tetrahedron makes sense- are you saying that your principle is merely an illusion like some say time is that only exists in some next higher product dimension? What explains that there are discrete things in the world in a sea of chaos and indefinite descent into continuity- it certainly is not the assertion for every infinite group there is a finite one- that tells us too little.

The PeSla (posting this on my blogspot today called Natural Symmetry as it seems to relate.)

[I may look at this in the simple case of the diagram supplied in the link. There should be no question as to specifying the pattern in the grid 2 or > space in terms of the information in so many bits- or we can possibly prove it only coincidently possible (either way one wonders how it may relate in natural space to opaque matter)]

* * *
Another comment to Pitkanen regarding another commenter who gave him praise and clearly listed why on the issues (and Lubos of course did otherwise on his blog) on the dark matter observation post recently:

Matti,

I think he means exactly what you are saying CP_2 but from M^4 view.

It is simply that it is a matter of choice to treat fractional charges or assume them unit charges and relate to the space and its mirrors.

While you understand the sequences in these spaces one has to see where these resonances default across all spaces and dimensions that seems to limit the possibilities of structures.

The generation problem is much more difficult to explain than even your stance on TGD and its multisheets and analogs of Planck- which too set to unity may not be seen as a fundamental constant unless it is set so.

The PeSla

* * *

I felt I had to add another comment:

Matti,

Between us (and I suppose everyone else) I may not interpret your term non-trivial second homology of CP-2.

But from your description of monopoles I quite imagine it more of a dihedral group thing. But would the wormholes themselves be physical and would they be observable. In some systems monopoles are not needed although I could agree with the mouths or throats idea with only implied connections. As to how this may relate to dark matter ideas our notions are too vague and need to be sorted out.

If we scale up physical particles we can generalize further to scaled up and thus in our familiar space limited, atom like structures.

The PeSla

* * *


Discrete Strings?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110505123941.htm

If the memory is stored in the vacuum state ultimately, or even in some complex state with connections to physical things, then the fact that such memory has to be organized would suggest that it is organized along the lines of the same sort of condenser physics I talk about and in our species perhaps it is a reflection of these still unclear laws of nature and its natural symmetries



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110505124002.htm

This is a question in the first place of the foundations of the role of neural and other networks, and in the second place as to the theory of what stimulates or slows down from a see of information and forgetfulness that has the opposite effects. Sleep is a side effect not cause of so called chemical imbalances. Again it is how we organize sleep and memory as important.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20453-easily-distracted-people-may-have-too-much-brain.html

for an example of such speculation from a holistic view perhaps. Take note all you absent minded professors! :-)

* * *

Gee, hot comments on Matti's the puzzle of dark matter post:



Jason,
that was a very good read toward the New Physics.

I especially liked the essential distinction to what is within and without objects in the direction of their dynamics.

I am not sure what to make of the idea of gluon gluon merging.

Fractals, as if discrete strings are only part of the picture- the world is holographic too. Not sure if on this you can derive classical gravity explained in itself but is a fresh idea. Nor why we should not consider some things as not continuous value.

Clearly the physics up to muon and chirality is a good call.

This of course relavant to my fractal or quasic space since 1968 without the complex terminology or that relation to fractals.

www.pesla.blogspot.com covers the philosophy under such issues and a peek into the first of these higher abstract structures.

Integration in such spaces is not simply done as addition.

The PeSla (Thanks for the dialog Matti)

* * *



Yet again a comment but on Pitkanen's next post on evidence of wormholes...
I now follow but cannot comment on Leo's blog:

Leo,

a very creative blog and ideas. The fireballs have been a mystery for ages, and early view and thinking about lightning inspired some of my own thoughts. I liked the chart on the new sort of micro black hole scenario. Certainly such things have internal structure (not sure they are technically black holes) Such things for now seem only to exist in the shadow of something that does.

But all these issues are in the same new physics ball park. Those fireballs are very powerful, one blew out 25 water heaters in my apt. complex after a storm and bolt from the blue as I was watching to see how far away my apt was and thinking lightning could happen because I had talked about it to my wife "what do you think, God is going to send a lightning bolt or something?"

Now here is a consideration, philosophy I guess, some reports say inside one there is sometimes seen a figure of a human form.

Of course I do not think there is some sort of creature inside- but I do think the bilateral symmetry is a universal and higher structure when we resolve the higher dimensions, as is the universe. In this sense the decay modes of things can make sense whatever we call these topological entities.

The PeSla

* * *
I place this article I stumbled on here as if a bookmark to self:

http://www.mathjournals.org/mrl/1994-001-001/1994-001-001-005.pdf

* * *

Information Dimensions and Higher Abstract Motions

Information Dimensions and Higher Abstract Motions


L. Edgar Otto 05-05-11 Eau Claire, WI


The power of art and science does not consist of the cult of one over the other, nor that in understanding one we have to diminish the influence of the other, but in the transition between them, at the core of our dreams and in our awakened breakthroughs and epiphanies. For at this transition close to the mysteries of time and entropy, meaning and information, we can choose to interpret things in terms of one stance or the other, keeping the other out of sight, a distant inspiration. Or we can without clear choice descend into chaos in the transition. At this place we have the interplay of concrete metaphor into intelligible information wherein the deepest of philosophy tries to deal with the possibilities of time, things in change but somehow fixed as one fundamental law such that we expand in complexity what on any higher level stays grounded so as to intelligibly use there numbers and space of many dimensions that such hidden knowledge may emerge into oneself and the world where our notions of time philosophic and scientific are in a unified system of conscious accentuation as art and awareness, simpler or more complex is justified.

Some of us can take the hints of the chord or of the melody. Some of us can play the music like careful engineers without the emotions or sense of beauty of it all. Then again some of us can just bask in the ambiance that even the simple thing so encountered is a cloud of dreams that also does not need justification other than the risks and fact of our being, so to the lesser poets of physics theories initiate worlds in the beginnings and ends in isolation but part of all things of the speculation that may or may not end.

*From the perspective of a power N of a Clifford algebra, N is the natural dimension, and the number so raised to that power can be seen as the root of the space. Or such a dimension N can be mirrored in the notation such that it is a root, a unity to which the value can be squared or a number can be embedded in some idea of an intelligible dimension of space.

*Unity itself can be thought to have these higher and lower relations, each of which can be imagined infinitely distant in depth and span of space and time, to one place or countless many. In the abstract model of motion where ultimately what are products or sums and values absolute the same, still in a binary system of coordinates as if these have a qualitative property of color, we can have spaces that are powers of other numbers for other continua than two, such as 3^N

*This is a subtle but intelligible concept. The simple (3+1)^N of analogs to Pascal's triangle (considerations of which extended to the negative integers inspried Newton's calculus) would suggest a richer view of space than we now have with properties that seem confusing to us now should we exclude the artistic view, the human spectrum of the equally exceptional philosopher, Goethe. While it is not saying much to insist on a 3+1 formalism information wise we can say that this grounding thought, and not the only such thought, contains higher meaning- such that in four space a line may intersect a point without being a part of the three space (that is one could ideally remove someone's appendix without cutting the skin). Or in the 3^N space, which is the hierarchy of powers and their differences ultimately, we can read into the structure a deep principle that applies to stars and atoms, as Yuri does, of this formalism, or as Ulla does in her intuitive reaches of the structure of carbon atoms as the medium of expression in living organism just as we might suspect in such abstract plane vectors in motion not yet seen in a unified theory where the organic molecules and structures are aromatic as squares and hexagons, and so on...

*In the 3+1 expansion of Pascal's triangle the sum of the rows are of course the squares of multiples of 4.

1
1 3
1 6 9
1 12 54 108 81
1 15 90 270 245 243
1 18 135 540 1215 1458 729
1 21
1 24 + ... = 256^2 that is 2^16th Clifford like dimensions.

*In this formulation (not the power of 2+2 to the nth) we note that the numbers of subcells can be read two ways- the orthogonal analog directions and the antiorthogon analog directions. This suggest fundamental systems of differences in what precipitates out in mass decays of say atoms and shows we should keep in mind such higher dualistic fields of spaces, composite ones.

*Now, here I talk about the geometrical structure rather than the higher abstract quasic motions but these can have a notation of their own to keep clear what level (here Yurion space, the Tricontinuum) things are relevant of position and moving within. Perhaps a prime value and for the f function always use the sub script as say 3^n. Of course this sort of ways at looking at the topology as vectors can be confused with the normal form of calculus. With even a fanciful Goethean calculus, so the calculus prime idea may be confusing. But in any case we clearly see this is an alternative calculus to be developed and is after all a "pre-surrealistic calculus" as perhaps all these issues of intrinsic weights and values over limits and invariants, and uncertainties as in the relativistic and quantum conceptions.

*The idea for this post comes from my dream this morning, and some of the images referring to a discussion with a young lady poet asking for ideas for a class- we talk poetry sometimes as she did with my son- I went with her own suggestion on her seeing a small chocolate Buddha downtown and I remarking on the small Buddha candle by the coffee shop which after too many uses of the silicon mould looses its definition. In which case the insight she developed (after telling her of course I did not want to influence the directions of an artist, as with learning the students have learn to think on their own, even for the engineers awake and problem solving.)

*So, in my dream I see a large ball of chocolate on a panel like I post here usually 2:1. And beside it are the letters LHC (which of course I already know the meaning referring to my color labels, my old home base of CHapeL hill, and the discussion these days on the collider.) And under that some abstract notations not familiar nor recalled but understood in the dream as I awakened - with a sense of embarrassment that I did not think of these before.

But as I awakened I asked what the ball of chocolate had to do with the abstract letters and numbers and the visual focus shifted from the ball to the letters and I understood!

*Imagine then soft chocolate and hard chocolate bits, the bits also winding strings like a hair ball. In the dream I could taste and crunch it too noticing the texture. But it was not just one system of chocolate delight- all its diverse features where composed of interlocking light and "Dark" chocolate. In some ways this just a metaphor, or perhaps a metaphor for dark matter like things in the minds resolving of things then to put them aside for survival in the real concrete world or sometimes the need to look at the foundations and observe our transitions between the poetry of scientific beauty and the touch and taste of our grounding for the science of our dreams.


* * *


I just read an interesting discussion on
http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=180190#p180190

Of which the combinotorics issues seem related somewhat to the wider ideas some of us have been dealing with in the blogs.

Found thru facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Science-Chat-Forum/104787332929459

but no comments to be made on facebook, one can for the related
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Philosophy-Chat-Forum/141216415938106

* * *

As far as this recent discussion and science news events go:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110504150655.htm
I have stated my position a long time now- that in theory we are not going to disprove or challenge this view of physics- yet it is only part of what we may think of as total separate pictures. A surprise would have been if observations said otherwise. Still, we need to look deeper at the physics that involves the depth of these considerations of spinning things and mass and fluid concepts and so on, if we want to get a wider picture of the dynamics of what is going on- this is not just some statement saying we may need something like a string view and so on or some sort of particle that gives the mass aspects. Like with quantum theory physics this view, if we desire, it needs to be transcended- but it will not become obsolete anytime soon if ever.

Clearly, if one gets the gist of this post that reaches into a wider concept of dimensions, they may find analogs to such ideas of the relativity assumed higher in our ideas of space- as as structures and processes in Six dimensions- as not as simple as assumed by our clinging to what we think is the absolute and simple ground of foundational systems for physics and our systems of mathematics.

Now, if in the simple demonstration I have made on this post for such an alternative concept in the depth and span of structures- a hint really of a more comprehensive concept to come (most likely involving our concepts of time) then any theoretical system extended and developed will be like the GR theory and in retrospect will seem a part of the bigger picture even if the logic shows it as complete. Is this not the case in the growth of science, physics, that we reach a point where like Hawking once that "we almost know everything, including ideas of dark matter as all there is even if we do not quite know what it is." paraphrase more or less or "the wideness of the string landscape appears to me as evidence that there is no God."

* * *

Here is a related article on dreams and memory I just found (other than of course the changes in chemistry upon awakening.) It is relevant to my post above where it is creative philosophy and this suggest creative science also.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028114.300-why-do-we-remember-some-dreams-but-not-others.html

* * *

Those who see the hint of fresh ideas in all the physics on the nature of time will know my position on this: Such things may intrinsically not show up in our conventional replication of such experiments- (as if perhaps, and in detail, there may be more fundamental physics than the three I envision- that or as a forth one - Phoenix Physics, and so on... it is intelligible in the way that four things of the three are in some sort of psychological analog to these higher dimensional spaces- of which one can extend beyond my diagrams obviously, and maybe beyond that in a more subtle generalization. After all, some lower numbers and dimensions in the quasi-continuous aspects of the perceptible universe to mix groups and systems so as to limit them close to the flat grounding or local grounding of such extended beyond our earthbound simple view of systems.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition.html

* * *

It should be clear to many that our theoretical models are at least as powerful as our trust in physical experiments. Emotions perhaps are what we accentuate artistically or care about in order to mix higher systems of fact and metaphor. That is to say, given the right theory in a sense its intelligibility matches that of what we should not be surprised at when the research confirms what we have predicted. Yet, considering the emotions and deceptions of the paranormal researchers in the controversy- what if there is a sort of physics theory that has to resolve things that is intrinsically something that raises these deep questions of coincidence, discovery, and the nature of physical and philosophic time- certainly this is a concept we should keep in mind- an separate to a point from our usual theories of observation while the technical study of any of the three physics.
Do we invent the world in our discoveries? Is the quasic physics the only tangible and local idea of scale for mental observations of the three physics- or in some deep way at infinity beyond the greatest and lowest dimensions, scales, is there another shadow place to which we somehow orient ourselves as if particles somehow twist toward and sense an irreducible and simple concept of gravity?

* * *



I reread one of Pitkanens recent post (and btw if somewhere the half life may vary then why not this sort of aether effect for opaque or dark matter like ideas?) So I made this post comment at
http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/05/puzzling-situation-in-dark-matter.html

Matti

I am not so sure we can say that a deep idea of dark matter is what the issue is here. But I get a grasp of just how the TGD framework can shed light on some of these issues. That is in reading some of your core ideas as foundational it may be but a small step to a wider view of things if you yourself can apply them or interpret them.

Of course I am lost in how we may compute the energies as you and Kea do- but in my last post I again came to her 256/81 value but I believe in a different level of the structures of such spaces.

We touch base on so many levels. But one thing I thought of as a major intuitive mistake on my part was my assertion there were only five quarks- and they announced the discovery of the top soon after. Yet in reading your post I begin to think that in some sense was not a mistake after all- just the descent into enshrining the limitations of current theories which of course would put your ideas out of their mainstream.

Nevertheless, after a couple of decades there appears something very strange about this top quark. It does seem somewhat unobservable in the Higgs-like sense as if it did live in a wider physics- and it could indeed be this idea of yours even if it is not the grounding of our ideas on dark matter- especially if we insist on these being in a sense a reductionist dust.

I have some general disagreements with some of your stuff but on philosophic grounds, again in how we interpret the hard issue of the finite and the infinite in equations.

I note here you have suggested ideas as to what is to be done in the development of the mathematics and theory. But otherwise you have stuck to the intuition and from my view your notions are much less speculative than the current state of our particle and cosmic physics.

The PeSla

* * *

Later that Evening:

I looked at the next case, it would be labeled 5D in the above illustration- and I found very interesting numbers... all around 27 and 36n, it make me think of an analog to the Conway matrix one step higher Cw' prime. Of course there are interesting things to consider and a three dimensional representation is better for it, and the numbers intelligible carry over with more connections of the five fold to consider- and the enumeration of dice with 8 color faces... and so on.

1
1 4
1 8 16
1 12 48 64
1 16 96 256 256
1 20 160 640 1280 1024 ...

Of course along Eddington's lines there would be a whole new relation of the coordinates as a little more general vectors and such- that is where we can connect the ideas as not a uranoid of 64 with 4 items but one of 80 with 10 items. It is clearer than ever we should specify exactly what we mean by these sorts of dimensions. A lot of interesting numbers show up as they would in other structures like 480 and so on... but, it is clear this extends to more than our current ideas on six space- to 8 and beyond. I do not know if we can compress them building on such sets to make more general sets than the binomial value, yet in a way we can say that (2 +2)^n or (3 +2)^n may have no direct intelligibly visible representation in such partition space. Other symmetries do exist as if on a super symmetry, or super conway order- and some are to be distinguished in normal spaces as pairs or duplications and thus even breaking of the conway weights and symmetries... quadrants, octants and so on...
double pairs for example, that is for the same orthogonal entity under consideration. And this can be drawn in normal space as if the cube symmetries were beyond the 48 of its group in some cases.

Perhaps, also the idea of a slice, perhaps in but one of the 6 ways, say of 20 things is like a diagonal in a matrix wherein what is left is 120 or four sets of analogs to the 30 cubes- this is a most interesting space to travel in.

* * *
Next Morning: I forgot to mention that when you take the half value of the rows you can have a 1/2 for the generator- a hint perhaps of how such structures may physically appear if we treat the symmetries as if complex space- but this is just a general passing speculation leading to principles today called: Natural Symmetry.

The Null Law of Transitive Thermodynamics

The Null Law of Transitive Thermodynamics

(Mother-lode and Glory Holes of Information Theory)

L. Edgar Otto 05-05-11

Outline of Ideas:

The Three Physics and Complimentary (at a certain level, threshold or scale beyond the zero background we reach a directed loop or cycle of complexity between them in analogy to the zeroth thermodynamic law of things in equilibrium if one equal to the others that are then equal to each other.)

*Ql / QM
*Qm / Qs
*Qs / Ql

*Color Spectrons as Quasic Orthogonal Space

*The Grounding of Braiding Theory, Partial Color Matching

*The Independence of Self Connected Systems and
the Metalanguage of their Description

*The Grounding of Chance Methods

*The Global Threshold of Chiral Systems and Spin Direction

*Contiguous to Continuity in Transitive Thermodynamic Systems

*The Containment of Regions of Low Numbers and Dimensions

*When the Equations Reach Discontinuity and Unity as Indistinguishable

*Shifts and Sub-shifts in Quasi-independent Cell Differentiations-Integrations

*Decoherence and Vacuum Density at Dimensions of Indistinguishably

*The Spacious Idea of Non-locality Action without Dimension or Distance

*Sub-inversions of Ottonian Complexes and the Dihedral Planes (symbol - O^ng and O^ngx)

*Can more than one Spectron or Spectron Complex (Df: a quason or matroid grid divided into 2^N parts, symbol Cyrillic - Ch for chromoid) Combine and Interact?

*The Absolute Zero Grounding of Assigning Mass or Gravity, or Implied Physical Like Structures to Dark Phenomena and Their Wider Expression into Reality

* * *
again please refer to Matti's blog comment section for his reply and taking time to consider alternative views ( he would also make a great teacher )

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/04/octonions-and-quantum-physics.html

My last reply here also:

Hi Matti,

you certainly have given a good presentation both in how physics is done and for some areas of your new theories.

I looked up fusion rules, a sparse article in wiki really, thinking perhaps that was what I woke up and saw this morning, but it was not I am talking about other things that apply in other areas that will not accept certain decompositions and irreducible groups as a fundamental idea.

I posted today not thinking my decomp over relativistic one could have a sequel- in the for of an outline of ideas to which I may expand upon later- in short I used your format from your pages and now see the efficiency of it.

It is quite a burden really though things must have names to pin these ideas in the language of assigning a name to them for there are way too many names to explore. Not that we should not give accurate credit, but the legal credit at the end of movies takes up way too much space and time.

I do like your original ideas as approach to things and hope that, if it matters, I can find some links between our systems that we can make more breakthroughs. It is hard not to see where you are in agreement with say Lubos on some issues but I am trying. Keep up the work, I like the last posts on the flux tubes and dark matter- but from my view although it does not change anything- these are descriptions not fundamentally different save the current physics will not consider the implications of your wider ideas which to me does not make sense on their part.

The PeSla

* * *



I suppose I want to make it clear where the battle lines are drawn in these theoretical debates as that may shed light on what is needed to make progress- it is not clear to me at all that some decomposition of tensors for example makes sense when we apply the general idea to the human metalanguage of such competing notions. But I do agree and have for decades the multi-sheet idea of Pitkanen or for that matter the guiding connections as if wormholes as at least abstract but physical objects. Especially as they apply to biological organisms. I too thought of the cosmic ray source and so on as a theme for posting or that over a short period of time the cells send out nanotubes to exchange information (two recent articles) for how does the cell know to do so anymore than a computer circuit if self evolving will dedicate part of its circuit to make an antenna as if beyond it in the darkness it knows to communicate with others? But the physicality of such things is on a higher level than our needed grounding in what is thought to be proper reductionist physics. Such sheets come up in other places like the multi-ply densities of polyhedra for Riemann as far as that goes and his jumps in complex space. But I see Pitkanen here explaining he sees such sheets from a more general perspective- even more general than the brane idea, for he sees them somewhat like I do as quasic grids of many dimensions. ( I suspect ). And oh, thanks to Pitkanen for answering my last question on the outline above or at least showing me it needs better context. I suggest also that certain braiding ideas are about such ideal wormholes or even null quasic implied ones. After all the origin of some ideas of scale is that we treat the grounding distance as zero- I merely treat it a step down from that which I want to make clear is my use of the alternative name Null, or double zero. This sort of idea may turn out to be different for our styles of physics and as with the quadrant of things as to what is zero or infinite a fourth physics would also express this line of thinking.

I also wondered, in relation to lightning really, if the gamma like things or the cosmic ray things as timeless and structurally invariant as a sort of special relativity independent of perturbed forces for billions of years is after all a dynamics that speaks for some higher level of things than what immediately appears and might be explained by things like magnetism and wormholes and so on.

* * *

So yesterday afternoon my post of the 24 things in a hypercube and the spinning of the cube relating to them was after all a very simple idea that may not have much real application at all, in fact the results could have been an artifact or accident of my labeling. This morning things feel much more profound and just perhaps when it is all said and done, even with our grounding ideas of theories by statistics, that some theories like the standard one and descriptions of particles are after all the artifacts of our incomplete notions and arbitrary labeling.

* * *

Imagine the diagram of the previous post on this containing squares of the 4 color quadrants in the hypercube. The squares of course quasic ones (and we can so divide the cubes as 8 octant's in the next level of complexity and so on and even show where in the low dimensions and numbers these may be restrained (are there only a few low primes of a certain form as some of the greats have casually suggested?) These squares are given four colors and the question is, how might they combine so as to exhibit the loss of certain functions or identities of fields and so on, of certain vectors and so on. These may even be in random and not overall symmetrically arranged (and this I suspect is a chiral level of groundings where say the apparent mirror cube in the hypercube is overall at right angles that all colors ideally match). In any case, ideal, vanishing, or at a distance for action, enduring or vanishing connections, level of quantum like computation up to the question of our examining a single electron determine if here is a multiverse where all such electrons can be quantumly thought as of but one, we now ground those ideas that involve the approach of braiding theory, concrete or abstract, with laws or not of asymmetry beyond the expressed cases. Or in general his idea of the types of particles in the main as of what condensates or statistics and so on where perhaps even the nature of connectivity in the quasic theory might break down. These then the new considerations of locality and non-locality which may not easily be grounded in that distinction between the quantum and qlassical physics of the continuum as with the other thermodynamic possibilities.

Ullas last post on the zone-reflex had some interesting concepts like is a photon superconductive- this as a notion is worth looking at deeper both as to the nature of light and the deeper way we should ground the idea of such particle wave motion beyond just the arbitrary power of mathematics of sin and cos and such. Why is there no more complicated form of light? Were not cosmic strings thought superconductive? Given a theory of particles, standard or not, it may be easy to account for wispy neutrinos, momenta and all- but how do we then account for photons?

If in a sense the 2 space colors of such spectrons match (or between whatever dimensions of space which intuitively seems to ground the holographic and symmetry action principles ideally but does not quite do so) of say 4 colors we note that if spinning in space, globally, that 0 1 2 and (3v4) colors may match. Thus we have the idea of fractional charges possible too, in the last case if we match 3 we match 4 that their vectors for example cancel out. This is an important distinction for three and for space as to how we read labels.

Now sometimes it appears that I get some things backward- some students told this by their teachers if I had tutored them at all- but at the same time in some matters like the hypernumbers that I was right! So, we can have 1 2 0 spins and 1/3 or so on considering the oscillating of a cube over its 4 squares toric circuit and so on, but we can have 1 /1 as an inverse unit spin or 1/0 which is a sort of potential infinity and for various reasons dealt with or forbidden as solutions. This concept should be seen as backwards- that is motions as quasic motions in such space that is not a dynamics as such but a matter of position. In a sense the velocity of light is relatively an infinite invariant in the scale complementarity of Ql/Qm systems. Here again we have to deal with the unity (as if we regress to thinking of heat as caloric in the simplification again of what seems irreducible notions to explain or worse an sort sub-caloric in only and infinite regressive space that we insist by mere subtle statements to avoid contradictions or uncertainty in notions is a sort of constructable proof by infinite descent.

Of course let us not forget the ideal brane, sheets, or quasic planes also is after all the abstract idea of Psi^2 for the wave equation.

* * *

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110503171734.htm

So, nature also decides to do different things with a film or membrane within its span and depth of fields of vision. Between the zero and the infinite, the digital and the analog, the negative and positive for way dialectics of feedback...

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/05/christian-boks-dynamic-dna-poetry.html

When is a poem worth a life? Perhaps at some ground encoding life itself.

* * *

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stein-the-mathematician-as-an-explorer

* * *

Well, I copied the text of this blog for a CD-RW. 80 sets of see older posts- and it is amazing really how much I have typed over the last year or so. I quite imagine one could get lost in the complexity of it. I also found a way to recover some things on former forums and poems on yahoo as it is rumored to close soon. Luckily I had the videos without compression on the coffee shop hard drive before their biweekly crash and lobotomies. Well, the development of the ideas and the encounters with others here is there to be seen- odd storing it in reverse and the photos tend to help but they will come from a separate photo blog more easily. So too some of the ideas, most not in a more formally developed form, were there all along from my independent view- as so the remarks of the old forum and the large book of 1995 hand written called Instruction and Being. (4000 pages that all seemed to be summed up in one page called the quasic grid.) This is a most interesting thing for on such a grid you can summarize so much that in effect it turns a normal computer into some sort of super one. But then doesn't nature herself do this?

* * *

Escaping the Bonpa Universe

Escaping the Bonpa Universe L. Edgar Otto

With gratitude to my roommate, Bonpa, for access to his math and physics books from the Scientific American book club. He has yet to read all of them as he has an extensive Buddhism collection also. I was thinking today how much I may have wasted my light those times I have been free enough to think- homeless, well that lead to a lot of poetry most of it lost- I mean it is really hard to care about some national disasters when you have your own 911 or Katrina. Anyway, if I were his age a mere 20 years ago I know that it would take ten years to read those books- then again a lot of them are obsolete by the time they are read and all the answers and complexity is not there at the end of reading. But we think this would make our lives and position in the world better- our minds better. Well, good luck to those who meditate and survive their moods of medication, it is in the water here and no one cares making much to do about veterans and things (far as I am concerned we would all be better off as veterans if we shut down the department, especially for this state which- while the city is easy to fall in love with in spring- winter is quite a reality check and I am tempted to give up after so many chances I have given this city to try to fit in, that and god help those who live in a town where the university is a major employer.

Not that I am not well loved and have a lot of friends, but most have moved on, and this dumping ground for the mentally ill, second hand drug schedules if you are unfortunate enough to feel a little patriotic, or religious, and not be disabled- lately too many ask me if the world is coming to an end again- interestingly this is also a place to train rookies. You see, I am bored with the same old scene and the long term treatment for my delusion that wisdom is a noble purpose.

Yet, there is something in the back of my mind that promises an even greater breakthrough but for now I am packing and planning my route- not used to this influx of a few dollars not nearly enough but a windfall if you live like on the street, can tip the barristas on hard times despite their majors- still, I feel so guilty as if this was not money said I earned- even if the government could never afford what under our constitution it owes some of us- even when all we asked for was to be left alone. I am amazed, looking back, that the first time falsely accused in Madison that I staged a hunger strike- heck, I did not eat much then anyway.

It is sad when bonds are broken and we live in some sort of transcendental end like in that movie where the old man turns into a star baby before the falling into a monolith full of stars- he still reeking of his ape origins- sad that so many have passed on and some as I am not hidden could also renew the bonds- especially the young who left too soon. But I must say there are few lives I would trade places with and in counter to regrets for those fallen- occasionally I have to admit I smile when some of the old bastards vanish especially when they could have done so much more with their lives and for others, their slaves and meat for them and cannon fodder that by neglect where I would have made a difference for them they held me back. Perhaps a poem is worth more than a life after all.

But as I said, I am so tired and bored of this place and the same old people and the same old eternal war- I hope a change is good for me- but how many times can we remake our lives and that not just the same old thing- in any case, as long as I have light, and the blessing that no fates will befall me like on some and that I am free to even question the gods for the human purpose of thinking for one self- the project I make next will be so much better I forget the baggage and great losses of the old books and works of art- including, this question of time still a mystery in the heart of things of what might have been in a very wide universe.

* * *

Division Algebra over Relativistic Fields

Division Algebra over Relativistic Fields (Ottonians)

L. Edgar Otto (PeSla) 05-01-11 Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Someone quipped that we now understand the infinite, but the finite will take us a little while longer. I suggest that the deep relationship between the finite and the infinite will take a little longer still. In effect we do not understand the infinite as well as we might think even if we have become used to ideas like renormalization.

Some concepts seem to me for all practical purposes to be more of quasi-concepts. Among those more or less centered in this view is the idea of dimensionless constants, like the Reynold's constant based on Newton's second law and important for models of fluid flow. In this at some initial levels or closer to the relative micro-scale the first approximations can take time as a close description and as the perturbations expand from this into series the lesser smaller values may be discarded in their modification of the pristine case.

I suggest that perturbations in itself is a quasi concept and it is quite remarkable that in some cases like the prediction and discovery of the outer planets that this was more a stroke of luck than a certain mathematical procedure.

The scope of the unfolding of certain geometric objects like the hypercube is also quasi certain, we do not necessarily know if such folding applies to the depth or span of a wider range of dimensions, if the scale is local or extended without bounds, if it applies to the macro or micro worlds exclusively.

We have swept too much of the foundations under our rugs as to what is dust or fluid in our models, the inertia and viscosity of it in our changes, the idea of dynamical force. At some level we say that it reaches a zero or point of relative rest which does suggest a sort of vacuum energy source and even models for the structure and dynamics of the general cosmos. This too is a quasi concept at the heart of how far we can probe the structures of vacua and singularities.

We also sweep it under the rug of quantum ideas and no further going on to explain the deep source of oscillation in these geometrical transformations for the nature of particles and wave theory except from a vague metaphysical perspective. As such we imagine the complex number systems and rotations greater than the simple rigid rotations and translations in space so as to appeal to chance as also a working method of accuracy in the indeterminate that depends on a wide induction of the data. Rater than the simple fact of treating objects like classical spin, their loops and twists, and asymmetries, we interpret them in a landscape that brings them back beginning at 720 degrees, strings and the like. Some intuitively sense that this resolves our ideas of gravity, some interpret this as a vast world of super symmetries and quantum gravity.

But in the familiar scale of things, the human scale, this idea of what then is non-linearity is a quasi concept. There may be a vast and inaccessible world of some sort of curved space with few solutions, a higher relativity, but other than the ideas of time from the human scale even pushed to observations of the micro world and macro world to fine detail and definition and with more intricate machines, what relevance is left as we understand the reality of the dust and the various restrictions of its numbers and geometry, or for that matter conservation laws, energy and entropy itself perhaps laws to seem to be quasi laws and broken at least in the short view. Chiral ideas and shadow particles so described too all for the key to some particular evidence for some paradigm of physics.

Add to this that even in fluid flow, say when the ink drop expands into a torus if droped into still water, that it continues to make sub tori, this not yet explained. How is it that smoke rings of sufficient size can oscillate as if hexagons?

Our reach of computation to questions of non-linearity is also a law that can be of a greater freedom of expression as to what may be practical physicality.

I propose then a method, not necessarily the method and one that because of my time restraints will be illustrated from arbitrary labels as a standardization to which those with the time may go on to discover wider generalization or applications to the concept of particles. From that perhaps a better and general dynamics of the algebra and topology. That, in this idea of quasi-scale we decide the non-linear describes the non-euclidean geometries of one form or another, or what coordinates are the positive or negative in dimensions such that we can find descriptions of time stopped and the traditional hyperbolic invariants, from an abstract global perspective of such topological space and objects we might conclude that decoherence like perturbation is a non necessary quasi concept.

Yet can we regard a theory that does not in itself give us ideal and pure numbers, especially in the case of singularities or a complex of them as often a competing concept that requires tweaking a foundational fundamental physics?
Must we forever separate the concept of gauge and knots and the like that may weave through them unto some point of assumed orientation and breaking? Surely the bare charge, a bare non necessarily quasi singularity can only be adjusted to what shields them as a constant beyond the simplicity of binary continuum powers and primes of the groups in ways that can be intelligibly explained as well as of it we observe a standard but dimensionless measure.

From this view, we certainly can see that in the quantum world that quaternions may be applied, and where we extend that world to octonions it is essential to do so if we are to understand why nature has given particles at least three fundamental generations. This of course suggests that we can use the group numbers themselves as things that we can treat without our ordinary laws of arithmetic and extend to infinity such group laws without restriction, rather quasi restrictions should we understand the why of them in generalizations beyond the octonions.

I chose the name for this trial idea as Ottonians, not so much to name something after myself as to be humble in the misspelling of octonians... And perhaps it is not an idea worthy of my name.

All of this from a number theoretical viewpoint is here concerned with factorials where if we had infinite eyes the primes would be totally described, we imagine. But less than that we need to understand such factorials from a finite growth in relation to ideas of changes within the growing dimensions. It seems to me that should we look beyond four space into eight space and more the count of such seemingly all too obvious and trivial calculations is most intelligible.

When we apply my interpretation of the Conway matrix of colored cube matching, that matrix of 36 things which I intuit breaks the usual observed particles in its own sort of possible symmetry breaking between what is the 24 or 48 of the orthogonal groups we find a good beginning to the description for our new particle zoo. We also find some things which may have been a candidate for particles, like Penrose's zig-zags, there in spirit but not true particles when they are reduced to the idea of twistors.

In fact what I propose here is the labeling of the cells or faces of the hypercube so as to match a normal labeled three space cube with overall colors and with the permutations of six sets of 24 colors on the faces. Thus what occurs in the hyperspace of its six directions, three as translations and three as rotations where it is a shadow down into three space representation, has influence on the rigid spinning of the three space cube.

We find that the perpendicular invariants of all such limited three space descriptions are in the z direction of imagined translation motions, in a rather discrete manner or quasi discrete of things moving through the hypercube.
It is not clear to me this enumerates all the permutations or what it would suggest for any doubling of things, or what series integrated, to make the totality symmetrical in operations.

But we know these cubes, at least as rigid cubes in three space, will in the hyper-rotation in the hypercube exhibit a sort of classical understanding of spin. Or in the hyper-translation exhibit a zig zag or wave like motion that covers only three of its four toric faces thus rocking back and forth, that is the observed oscillation as if a foundation for discrete waves, does not exceed one half pi, a right angle in one direction or the other. Here at the heart of simple motion we observe the essential distinction between 3+1 models and 2+2 models in 4 space.

The reading of the order of which face in the hyper cube is a quasi-concept which also means that we can perhaps benefit from a different ordering that may be useful to apply to a linear connection of things instead of the powerful and clear sequence over a two space of many compressed dimensions. But having thought I saw this once cannot recall how to do it or if it did not suffer from the usual defaulting to loops which no longer showed the themes of the whole.

So, in the 6 x 6 grid of 30 cubes we observe that these can be rigidly rotated into 24 positions, and there are 30 permutations and this equals 6!. We note in this quaternion space that this = 12 x 60, and it = 3 x 240 for 6 x 5!.

If we continue, to the edges of the 8x8 grid we find 21 instead of 15 cube like things in which case we have 21 x 240 with four space for 5040 or 7! and while we are considering such arithmetic let us note that 80 x 1172 is 7! Let us not forget as we have here 3 axes of the 60 that 24 x 20 = 480 which you may recognize in some of the physics formulas.


* * *



Full of Time and Stars

Tardis:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pixelportrayal

Monolith:

www.evageeks.org

* * *
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110501183605.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20436-strange-cosmic-ray-hotspots-stalk-southern-skies.html
* * *

I received a long reply from Pitkanen as I asked so please visit the comment section there for his kind reply:
http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/04/about-grt-limit-of-tgd.html



to which my return reply I post here (otherwise we have a long forum) which reminds me if our blogs are not visited at least once a year before the end of june on the blog buzz they will vanish. Does this mean an older blog like Arcadian Functor or mine before I exceeded the photo limit and google started a new one?


Matti, :-)

Thank you for a most interesting reply.

I am reminds also of those science magazine articles a few years back that tried to see the whole of our visible universe as inside a black hole of so many dimensions. Five I think.

This holography idea for me is the old question where does the information go? Lincoln says on the sciencechatforum that once a particle is adsorbed it is no longer connected to its pair partner. Some have said that there is no inside to the BH.

This challenging paper did catch your eye as I thought it might. But considering I can play two dimensional chess in three space, 4^3 rather than 8^2 I do not put much stock in holography as a fundamental principle. That game btw is harder to play than 4D chess with the restrictions that seem to happen to the moves.

You grasp the issues and I am impressed- and yes it is time to think again about such interiors of which there is a certain fractal aspect of which maybe what is relevant is only some sort of dynamics visible that is not curved for such analogs to relativity, quite besides consideration of what we mean by acceleration and so on.


In any case the Casmir effect can be linked on a very small scale to the very large scale whose description btw could equally be viewed as if an ensemble of point like particles.

The PeSla

More added here: Of course some of the names you referred to I will have to look up. I assume some are about spinning black-holes. But I agree with Penrose as the values need not be Minkowski like but can all be say positive. A matter of view. I also, in my own posts considered that we can have a translation of discrete values across some subspace of say a hypercube... Is all this not just a question of when we can view something as a particle or fluid? And I am considering that space not quite to be considered inside or outside of anything, and relatively so. Somewhere perhaps between a vague singularity and our cherished dynamics of continuity.

* * *

Depth and Span Beyond Sub and Super Group Theory

Depth and Span Beyond Sub and Super Group Theory


The Next day in response to Ulla email clarification: I post here because the essential idea of subgroups not explicit as stated in the May 1st post, but is certainly implied. The ideas of a special position or part of space for a local phenomenon, or that singularity of points that would repeat (as in the article on the gluon formation in the string ideas presented in the lecture cited) in a pattern, that these are in a sense invariant singularities of global patterns...and can be found also in the patterns of a more general space and its dimensions - this too a principle that ultimately raises the question of the role of primes. The working our of ideas of (super-?)gravity of course is perhaps a still higher problem or it could be a result too of this default integration of all such locality phenomena.


* * *

Ulla,

thanks for the clarity.
Guess we have to consider this at some level. My string friend and I did in 95 (he is not longer at the university however) that is the exotic group E8 which got my vote as he mentioned it as a possibility in his thesis I was correcting (things like spelling and so on). But I was deep into Coxeter long before his ideas have become more mainstream.

I think Lubos must read our blogs because comments seem to follow our postings way beyond the idea of synchronicity. Today is no exception- it is as if he addressed the from of my last post to dig hard for an alternative in his traditional claims for his style of physics. But from the higher view it certainly says that he acknowledges my and Pitkanen's concerns as worthy of investigation- and others involved too. But I still cannot see his thinking as merely an expansion from some surface- all these theory systems are not quite going into the depth, or the span of things. How can he be so blind as to promote the ideas of those whom do not know they are blind to the directions of things?

If I have a problem with the limitations of our foundational group theorems then that has some consequences that go beyond what is not then seen nor said.

There is a problem in finding the sub-groups and there is a principle that shows that one is prime p and another principle that p^2 will be a factor of the subgroup.

The problem in finding the subgroups 2^X shows that a group say X of the 'Monster" Group has an enormous number of them. In fact from E8, its snowflake symmetry of 198388 or so dimensions (or the 248 natural dimensions) is the maximum symmetry possible. We know that 240 eight space cubes surround one.

Obviously there is more to the symmetry of things than this initial but difficult exploration.
More symmetries in fact. And from one view we can consider them invariant- for what peculates out to our world to scientifically experience. That is in a world of pure space as we might envision it (nature may choose other fundamental spaces as well with apparently no restrictions philosophically) without mass or anything like it to which all else is ghostly fantasy- that is we are interested after all in what seems a concrete ground of our being- not such empty space, matter for itself, or vague promises in the clouds.

The exception seems possible in respect to organisms, and perhaps the brain-mind systems where it is thought.

Yet in living things, in the complexity of them, we see that this idea of groups can have wider paths of evolving and going into the depths or span of the model of the abstract space it so describes. Into the depth and span of such spaces there are other paths, ones that more or less determine in the flow and in the systems of things that seem invariant that they are as if solids or fluids (as in the simple link yesterday of which I suspect the 64% of the flow of sand in an hourglass is more like that involving phi, which of course goes into many directions of the mathematics.

So, we may say that we an factor in a sort of super-group idea (or subgroup idea for in a sense Pitkanen and I have turned the idea of applying numbers to space the other way) that p can go to other powers, like the Fibonacci series or Mersenne numbers and so on, p^2^n all should be investigated. But even here some paths while real may not be the only ones in the local expression of our genes for example.
A lot can happen when we finally realize we need to see things beyond the point, linear and vaguely continued point spaces assumed in an ad hoc time translation or motion translation spaces into at least the results of aleph 2 spaces of curves (Lubos sees this as a good idea in his article , a sort of default locality and after all, just as I said we may separate the group idea from what it is intimately connected with just like at some place we can so separate space and time to a more classical field- this happens in the turbulent world of such fluid and solid concepts- the old how to derive the classical again which is perhaps the resolution of special and general relativistic ideas within each other.)

Much that we do not suspect can be done in ordered paths (albeit they can be quasi-discretely different) actually may be so from some more comprehensive view of space and time and spacetime.

The PeSla

2Fsub(n) + Fsub(n-1) 1 11 111 11211 1123211 112353211 11235853211... makes for some interesting 2D patterns as an analog to cell differentiation.

* * *

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.6140v2.pdf

From sciencechatforum com with interesting comments from Lincoln et al. "no respectable scientists think of singularities as physical things although we can play around on the surface of them- that is get help from the mathematicians who can cleverly solve some equations that are never the less wrong..." and so on...
This is a promising paper- wonder what they could mean by Ultra-relativistic?

* * *

In comments to Pitkanen and his interesting replies- posted here as new post due to length of the one of May 1st.

* * *

At 8:09 PM, Anonymous Matti Pitkanen said...

I am not enthusiastic about loop gravity. The reason is that it forgets all other interactions and is therefore doomed from the beginning. It does not even serve as a promising methodology since the canonical quantization of gravity serving as a starting point is simply mathematical nonsense: just a completely ad hoc attempt to generalize formally from finite-dimension to infinite dimension producing expressions which make no sense.


It is understandable that this kind of attempt to generalized from the case of hydrogen atom to the level of entire Universe was made at the time of Wheeler. Mathematicians had not worked with attempts to understand infinite-D geometry yet. But nowadays we should have learned that the geometry in infinite-D context is extremely intricate and the mere existence requirement fixes it to high degree.

For some reason this lesson does not seem to go through- probably the reason is what physicists call "pragmatic" attitude to mathematics meaning in practice beating head against the wall for a century instead of using it for its original purpose.

One might think that string theorists would have taken the lesson from the work of Freed about geometry of loop spaces seriously but this is not the case and they are still wasting their time with the landscape. If some-one happens to know a manner to stop super string theorist like Lubos and make him listen for a minute, tell the trick also to me;-)!.

At 12:49 PM, Blogger ThePeSla said...

This one you may find interesting:

Perhaps here too the ideas are clear enough that we should look beyond the "landscape".

from sciencechatforum com.

loops and things, well perhaps it is a good idea but not general enough in the detail of it all.

what would Lubos think of this? What do you think its worth as both a mathematician and physicists?

ThePeSla

At 12:52 PM, Blogger ThePeSla said...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.6140v2.pdf

sorry, forgot to post the link to the paper... btw on my blog for comments on May 2 I tend to see our ideas approaching things from different scales macro and micro and yet we seem to share a lot of viewpoints and ways to answer some of these popular concerns and questions.

The PeSla

* * *

I am always interested in how some of our theorist can boldly state that some idea does not apply beyond the general context of their expertise, especially when future generations may be watching.

* * *

Came back to get phone number from fb for my pending trip South.

Here are some interesting developments- the latter thru the philosophchatforum :
http://www.imp.ac.at/contact/communications-department/press-releases/press-release/article/study-suggests-that-successful-blueprints-are-recycled-by-evolution/articleBack/3792/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110502122138.htm

We are getting there, but it is too early to more than speculate with some of these articles conclusions.

I replied to earlier comment from Pitkanen in earlier post.

* * *

A New Philosophy of Mathematics

A New Philosophy of Mathematics
L. Edgar Otto (The PeSla) May 1, 2011 Eau Claire, Wisconsin

New mathematics, new philosophy of mathematics, perhaps a new philosophy itself. What sort of idea is an original idea- that which comes first? That which cannot cite some earlier work? That which stabilized the chaos and variety in the multiverse? Did Einstein not publish his discovery with other papers or abstracts of abstracts to show he spoke the language and played the game of physics, with no one to reach with him into the contemplations- he there first?

Since him, as it dawned on some others, space and time never to be seen again as separate things, independent and absolute, but one entity. These over the span of spacetime to dominate the wider scale- as so our wider span of thought the human scale. And yet, discovery or invention, how do we measure in individual contribution as to the when? With what reference frame he who comes first can be said in a world of time without simultaneity?

As far as the string and other physics of our time we are in a position much like that before Einstein. We regard the idea of independence of the background as clarification of the scientific stance toward other confused notions- or say that on some basis the mathematics of vectors apply, the universe of universal law, objectively and dispassionately, double blind, of sufficient sampling and luminosity of that light we discover in our arcs for motion pictures, our drinks of medications and meditations with mind. What is true and cannot be made untrue yet surpassed in the philosophy of science no sooner is grasped as a powerful idea than it becomes, especially in the west where we are rewarded with great machines of planet forming, it brings up the age old questions of what brainwashes our thoughts and divides our minds to which we are only too happy to claim them for our credentials, to use them even if know partially without their higher implications as clubs in debates with the clamoring crowd coming to our castle in fear of the monster of Frankenstein and in no mood to joke for things solid science keeps us strong against the madding wave of superstition, fission in bubbles of beer, the Young Frankeinstein.

So, we are on the verge of a new physics, and new age perhaps for mathematics. It is as influential on future mathematics as that result of our understanding of space time to which the mathematics had to catch up to the theory as did the experiments.

In particular, we sometimes separate what is useful to do so but it is not the end all of theory. Many want to go back to put things together again, to unwind the marriage of space and time and find a new love, a new beginning and look at absolutes. Other just want to undermine the theory established no matter which side of some political fence they are on. Science while it should heed moral law or at least consider the consequences of its discoveries, should not be the weapon of politics alone.

A first such principle, and a powerful one, is how current theoreticians consider the idea of groups and apply them to physics. We have separated the idea of groups from the idea of sets so to establish and apply by various theories some pattern of symmetries. Symmetries said to be the proof of such groups and sets. There is even a longing for some sort of super-symmetries, and these as well behaved as their theories of dimensions to which they may claim surface things project into the volume things and as a hologram explain other things emerging- so in the identities of all of this we derive the idea of conservation, some spinning objects of spacetime. Henceforth or for this century at least, let us not keep the Group ideas and the Set and symmetry ideas separate, for at least in the depth they are one entity.

The second thing is our crude way of counting the dimensions, to count the vertices as from one corner then develop the network outward or count the symmetries from all the vertices- the so called stabilizers and orbits, again separate functions, and the endless play of the search for the true meaning of the continuity of sub sets.

I must ad a third thing, our understanding of primes as a most powerful concept in abstract algebra. To understand what it cannot do or what it does not describe in the real world of things is to come closer to a more unified idea of physics and the philosophy of our being in this world. Such stabilized and orbiting partitions and separating of some notions to discover or make them absolute is not as simple as our idea of counting the dimensions this way, we stuck in a corner or floating in a disembodied cloud- numbers are much more subtle, especially for smaller scales.

It seems reasonable, to say in a cube we have three edges and eight points for the rotations and all that of twenty four. It may seem fanciful but reasonable and intelligible to say in a hypercube we have for edges x three planes x 16 for 192 rigid rotations... thus the general formula n! x 2^n for the full group with inversion- all very reduced and intelligible. But who is to say that between for such objects there are four and not three from some perspective and not even considering inversion thru a center, a higher dimension really in the count? At what point do our assumptions exclude into the compacting down of space the extra elements or those implied as shadows in the distance we imagine in the count and balancing the books of particle energies for our physics?

What is the Knights tour but he the piece of resistance, the four knights who left the full deck long ago to joint the old gods and dreams of higher space? What left then as they move outward to the next major arcana of a hidden structure and nucleus of three space but holes to be filled, to move between from one realm to another, to chase and replicate the joker as well in the deck, resistance, inertia, that which from a wide view or sense of feeling animals see the world as familiar and intelligible and cannot just be reduced to dust, or become a fog of dreams, but a clear path thru the depth and span of dimensions.

We cannot just define ourselves, nor the particles and fields, as just material items nor as mindful stuff alone- nor suggest these the same substance. Such a world would no more be dynamic as we observe it, and diverse, than to insist that zero plays an intelligible role in the group and set ideas not beyond its vanishing.

How we see these simple math games and profound and powerful ideas is to a great extent, while we are free to play on our own and develop the pecking order on the playground, will influence how we see or refuse to see ourselves.

In this new philosophy of mathematics we could find a new view of ourselves with an intelligible way to negotiate the magical and the real of numbers as existent that we are intelligibly one with the idea of being, its space and time and spacetime, its realization that we are one with number and can be numbered (in a way of course this bit of wisdom even from the gods does not insult the intelligence nor quality of their creation if not they but just our gardeners for our souls), unique and to some extent that uniqueness in theory is preserved- the truths of geometry too- that if the numbers exist in an ideal way independent of us- we are ideal too and they are not as independent, necessarily, as we imagine in some earlier philosophy of mathematics to which the concepts of what anything is cannot be so contained.

Just to bring this idea home a little, the consideration of how things move abstractly, like the knight moves, the changing between signs, the parity, the bare analogy to those concepts of what is existent or shadows, real or ideal, intelligibly finite or that implication of a vague wider sea to which we now depend mostly on the relation to methods of chance, these justify our thoughts and methods like the Fourier analysis, a view really that thinks of waves, of heat, of oscillations in the motions and so on, that divides space in depth and span into the various trees rooted or not into some general structure, like the quasicontinuum, to that we justify our concepts of extended motion, energy, force like things and mass beyond a small discrete step- we in fact justify our quantum formulations- but we need not be trapped into the paradigm where it is on one hand a stepping stone and on the other a great suspected solver of all paths of the intelligible as we ourselves find a more certain view, ideal and pointless, between existence and non-existence that not necessarily something independent of us and within itself, we the observers and observed on the scale of our own background- and perhaps final choice to uplift some aspect of our beliefs or faiths and skepticism so as to make the leap into what we wish and intuit in this- I to tolerate the diverse and precious minds and lives of others maybe did not need to make such a leap in order that after a long quest for what we hoped to find we found something better and freer and the mandate to do things as if for so high a purpose- a distant God in the background, the work of gods as a creative force, not the oppression of such narrow views of chance and necessity, in which the shamans of logic know better among themselves the limit of the game and the self-healing motions on the believers if they who lost their faith continue the ritual, logic to catch up again to the mathematics.

* * *


Interestingly, in my stray thoughts of last night- of course the papers thinking of the 7 hexagons to cover the torus surface, and in a way the same sort of intelligibly connected topologies that suggest such a role for carbon in the expression from some zero vertex in topology as a useful study, or that the number of divisions of it in three space is that 13 is the number of sections- all of this should be taken in the light of the new mathematics, geometry and numbers from a slightly higher vision to which even the six points of this genus where the fox and corn and chicken, and the boatman conscious of this to cross them if he can go against the stream of what is accessible in the infinity of the Tower of Hanoi so to find beyond mere gears and clockworks the other solutions to which it is hard for mere machines to program to do in steps and to see.

But I would be remiss if I did not mention, and in detail and recalled the gist of this post and the understanding, that this did not come from a deeper dream after reading a few of our theorems in an old moldy book I found before my move soon to come- thus I felt compelled for a further post, and that it is the hope of the sun in May.

* * *

This comes close to my sentiments today, with synchronicity from a fellow poet blogger:

http://picsandpoems.blogspot.com/2011/05/in-search-of-spacious-poetry.html

In search of Spacious Poetry by David King

Tate Modern's Turbine Hall:
a space to test conceptual powers -
almost to destruction.
How can an individual fill a space like this?
Though few are called and fewer chosen,
art eschews the easy victory,
prefers to fail at the impossible -
the task a metaphor for that
which faced the Great Creator when
the world was yet an empty shell.

But here in Turbine Hall is space
an ocean might not fill,
space that awaits a single concept, not a world
of possibilities. The thing about
this eeriness is what has gone:
the turbines that once powered a neighourhood.
It's these the installations must replace.
So much has vanished from our world,
our culture, our environment. From us.
We need to give the space that's left
a shape, dimensions, to define its emptiness.

Poetry
can make the poet in us all
think small.
Yet poetry deserves its Turbine Hall,
a fairy godmother to call
and wave her magic wand,
to trace
something gargantuan in us,
in what we stand for,
space
that only poetry could fill. But
what a vastness and what poetry!
Mankind perhaps would end up looking small,
creation grow beyond today's imagination -
but individual man walk tall.

Do not suppose in saying "vastness" I mean "long".
Words do not fill such spaces by their numbers,
but by a coefficient of expansion. This,
the soul, and only it, can give.

* * *

And Sultan Ratrout sent me a translation of his inspirational poem (on facebook):

The Sunset Journey !

- Its the sunset time, The time for self-confrontation , a time not to escape from Allah ! - Confront yourself in front of Allah, today you are alive , tomorrow you are dead ! - There is Allah waiting you in heaven , raise your hands up and supplicate whatever you want ! - Go deep down in yourself , contemplate what you did, take advantage of time, not unlike that time that wasted. -Don't argue about your fate that has been written ages ago, but learn from your past sins with regret - Address Allah in eyes full of tears, and pray with an honest intention and piety ! - What a beauty stemming from Tasbeeh and istighfar (Seeking forgiveness) phrases, There is no god except Allah, he is the one who saves you from depression and falling down! - Beg Allah in this period of self-frankness, Seek forgiveness from him and from those whom you oppressed ! - Clean yourself of grudges and bad intentions, People change even they have the most stubborn opponents ! - Don't get desperate ! Allah's mercy is unlimited, Always be optimistic and always raise your hands to him !

Sultan Ratrout

Vintage Thoughts and Truths - alas, we but frail humans not quite able to reach into such heights and believe. leap into the faith, transcend mere fate and chance, save for grace and mercy- and the promise actually when the heavens are unified, that in some ways tomorrow we are alive as to some degree today we are dead.

Reply by The Pe Sla

* * *

Ulla sent more links and a general statement:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0212/0212245v1.pdf
Adel Bilal, Introduction to supersymmetry (2001) ArXiv hep-th/0101055,

They are invariant under local supersymmetry. Because of the underlying supersymmetry algebra, the invariance under local supersymmetry implies the invariance under spacetime diffeomorphisms

I reply here to this-
of course under locality any such concept of averaging or invariance or the condensation of entities even if chiral depends on the math of the compass of primes and their distribution over our familiar real spaces of fact and perception. This still but the germ of a new theory where clearly our ideas of what is the stablizers at infinity (for we are trying to view that sphere of an infinite radius with infinite dimensions, possibly discrete in some view that is nowhere while our center singularities are everywhere- to go a little beyond Pascal who was beyond St. Agustine's two space... and of course we will have to go beyond n-space concepts one day if we extend this sort of analogy.


Ulla,
Not sure what you refer to here as invariant. Those papers look to me long winded and from my view very much outdated but perhaps seems revolutionary for their time- in any case beneath all the symbols and equations are simple numbers they do not seem to be able to count consistently. How could such intricate minds find dead ends and slip from theory into a morass? I wonder if they will ever see it as a waste of time- or for that matter if we take the time to learn this agenda and totally understand the papers wonder if it was worth the effort.

But I do not know to which post or comment you are referring to here- I just posted what is likely my last for awhile in which I took the last step to firm some of the themes of the blog up. But thank you for the links- interesting to me from a historical point of view really.

No damn cat, no damn cradle (strings...) well, all such ideas have their place- but until some of them deal with a better view of at least dimensions they remain controversial. And if we are to justify our use of such things in biology (DNA etc) then we have to go to a better philosophy of mathematics and the tools of it.

From a science fiction view- sooner or later we become ascendant beings as we go thru the wormholes of the ancients- but with such speculation I have to see the work, not just say that certain octonions were explored and shown only relevant to certain spinors and so on (as Matti said) if that is what you refer to..

Have a nice May Day... it is going to be 25 tonight and seems a flashback to late November, may snow tomorrow.

I already miss the clarity of Kea's post, to which when she makes a clear statement as to the absurdity of some methods- it rings true.

You all can email me any time, thanks for the links.

* * *

Footnote: Omega Minus- (I refer to Lubos post here which always seems to praise Jewish physicists only and not the work dispassionately) this discouraged my independent research for a long time and I see no good reason to be grateful for those who developed this sort of physics, they also set back research and for what- some sort of tribal world view. It is high time, if indeed we want to see science rise again among all cultures- and I doubt this will happen at the rate things are going now- we took the best from all such cultures and faiths for our physics and not worship the false saints of our forefathers and mentors to the detriment of our own ability to think and discover for ourselves and not just use the knowledge we stumble upon that is so inadequate because it was a stumble- and then to praise it as the sum total of human knowledge.

But like politics, such philosophy will not let us make rational decisions soon nor even those to which with a tendency we gravitate in our genes. Not as long as we persist in but one of the many faith based physics of limited views and inability to see our common grounding.

That the untruths are glossed over, talked down, forgotten in time to be followed again by the fresh new masses- does not make things true nor democratic the new paradigm.

Even the great Goethe, as brilliant as Newton, seems to have had his imaginary playmates- the imagining of friend before him and their expressions as he told them his problems. But since "He who has a lot within needs very little without" to quote the old genius one can only wonder to what extent this imaginary friend we call the internet if we need outside help will respond to us without anger and dismissal but with soul. Let those who can see thru the screen to the true heart unto the degree he can of another so see. And to those who cannot quite see may the wisdom of the mind not stifle your creativity, and we bow down on our knees in respect for our prayers for human courtesy and civility.

* * *