Disruptive Technology and Theory

Disruptive Technology & Theory (Our Future of Additive 3D Printing) L. Edgar Otto August 7, 2011

Last night while contemplating some consequences of quasic theory I caught a show on the BBC on 3D additive printing. As a philosophy of production I have long tried to go beyond the assembly line mass production model of industry- a more quasical model with results that worked in the candle making. Of course the new industry will need faster software which of course needs a better understanding of three space.

One thing mentioned on the show was that such a new industry will find resistance for it will disrupt established methods of tooling and manufacture before one day these become household items as ubiquitous at the personal computer. Every once in awhile some idea comes up in the industry which I had long foreseen- such as the windows visual interface with DOS before there was DOS. I suppose for those of us who have such visions that there is a natural shunning from the mainstream because the alternative theories even if right challenges the order of things. I have come to realize more lately all these ideas I have seen pass by my own opportunities not there to so contribute.

In the end of an enquiry we crave not just the fame and prestige, our competence in creativity and security of esteemed self-worth, but the recognition our new insights stand as strong in authenticity and legitimacy as science in its previous tradition.

For some of you still in the game and with a sense of need for such feedback of expectations and desires, it may not be that your visions are wrong, just disruptive to the entrenched paradigm of the day that instinctively and without conspiracy all hint at but cannot find or even really believe turn enquiry into a mission to rather support some political stance that goes by the name of science as if in its secrecy's one is not to question the faith.

Science is worth little as a model unless it is a living enterprise.

* * *


Some Conclusions from Quasicity:

*1 We cannot simply double or halve (hypervirial) elements without regard to quasic dimensional views of space and numbers and still solve some current physics problems.

*2 In matters of rigid rotations of orthogons in space, 48 with inversion in three space, or three of these 4D orthogons, the quasic dimension of the ordered number in the grid is less than 6 natural dimensions.

*3 For 7 of five dimensional orthogons the qs field is less than 9 dimensions.

*4 For 15 eight dimensional orthogons it is less than twelve natural dimensions. and this goes on presumably 3n where the next rigid set of rotations is less than 18D and so on.

*5 I mention that the even cases fall along the main diagonal and the odd cases along another diagonal as if the dividing of the grid for half the phase angle.

*6 Clearly the preoccupation with manifolds of 6 dimensions is very low on the vast dimensions we can explore and these of course are divisible by that number of orthogons into their rotations and inversions, ie 2^n x n! . That is, 48 and 384 are divisble by 3, and 3840 is divisible by 15. So the better answer for things like string theory in exploring these dimensional concepts begins in the 8D case. We also consider the close packing of spheres in the various natural dimensions.

*7 There is a depth deeper than the span and depth of the quasic field within these dimensional differences that amounts to a super-guage theory and distinguishes what are time-like and mirror time-like aspects of symmetry in a close packing ensemble.

*8 This form of space considerations suggests a theoretical framework that seems to me to give certainty to fears that certain particle projects might create voracious black holes.

*9 In general where scale is a relative thing we have to transcend the model of physics of the relativity's such as of Newton and Einstein in the narrow treatment by natural dimensions. While this paradigm is not rendered obsolete it is nevertheless a theory that shuns or suppresses better and more general alternative new physics be they right or not but assumed or asserted as irrelevant or wrong.

*10 The quasics from a fractal viewpoint makes production of printed objects to any desired accuracy our quasi-finite tolerances would desire to reach.

* * *

* As the show on the BBC pointed out, we could be on the verge of a new Industrial age. Still, in a technology that will raise all nations universally and the weight is the enemy- there no more need for outsourcing for mass production as the manufacturing would be local, the nation that tools for it first will be in the next era of economic leadership beyond existing tooling eras (presently of China).

We need to develop new materials science for this "mass customization". The printing at the 20 micron sheet levels of a dust by lasers makes less parts to assemble and eliminates the need to drill holes.

There is obvious (not mentioned in the show) applications to nanotech and artificial or mixed living systems. But "If we can draw it (with hyperquasic principles) we can make it." Of course we can scale miniatures. This is still far away from our ability to reach beyond our imagination and work with pure space alone in order to so draw things as if some property of folding or modulating the vacuum concept. But the idea of "replicators" comes close in the sense of what threshold this complexity will be concrete and viable with our relaxed general dimensional space.

Let us in this age of egg grading and caste system of work and numbers only as the basis for our banking (should the virtual world take over this bit-coin idea that we are just an accounting number) not forget in a sense we are consumers but also a mass assembly line production model in our educational system. We can change this without falling into the idea of being anti-technology and vaguely living only in our heads or only in the cloud between us far from the needs of physicality.

* * *

Related comment just found on Morphogenic Fields and TGD to Pitkanen:

Matti,

I am on board with you here and have been since 95 or so. But since my on-line life I have observed that this area rapidly causes the moderators to classify it and related theories as suspect and even pseudo-science.

One problem is the old (what you know is essential) action at a distance. This in a way means there is action also across generations as if at a distant time. Of which now there is some physical as well as social evidence.

Of course quantum is part of the picture but I suspect that a little more is involved here beyond the quantum and relativistic formalism, as you know. What organizes the quantum system?

But it was a most interesting and excellent paper you linked to and I do see better where you have tried to add to the coherence of this Morphogenesis idea.

Now, if we can shore up things a little more convincingly when it comes to applying the number theories to all this :-)

The PeSla

* * *

Discerning Intelligible Notions

Discerning Intelligible Notions L. Edgar Otto
AF14871466 August 6, 2011

I may not post all of these notes today but I will summarize so of the key points and observations and include a rather obscurely written post by the same title as a matter of the philosophy of science. In particular I have commented on the theories of two theoreticians (and it is apparent that galatomic theory becomes more relevant to a general system as these things develop.) I will try to find these theoreticians again- one essentially tries to show (and by experiment) gravity a result of the radiation or heat from the sun as an attractive force. The other has the general notion and computer programming of what he calls negative gravity using the standard formulas for things like the stability of systems of which he tries to explain ideas of "Dark Matter". Today I see Pitkanen and Lubos in a debate at a distance about the ideas around Cold Fusion- a real effect according to chemists in University of Minnesota who took a look at it but as far as I know no claims the energy comes out more than the systems taken in. In any case this too is worthy of some philosophy of science investigation especially if we have to go a little beyond its quantum theory showing that such is possible in theory (even perhaps without neutrons free as a result.)

Principle 1 - We have an intuitive sense of Natural dimensions but this should be modified in the sense that a figurate structure of the intelligible count of the ways to arrange points into arrays and lattices (here I found many of the important numbers but in a way that seems remarkable and coincidental and rather distant yet from the applications to these as physics theory). If we have say five points that determine 4 space as the structure we might imagine in a natural dimension 4 we can enfold or unfold its subcells to make a shadow or a pattern- but these are a dimension less- it reminds me of particle decay and is a more intimate idea for the origin of our notions of symmetry breaking. However, in the lower dimension in a quasic field it is not clear that the folded entity is in a lesser or greater dimension. This accounts for the differences in structure and mass between what seems the dualities of such representations in at least a four way deal. So in fact we can have a notion of radiation as a sort of heat and gravity, or we can imagine there is a negative gravity of sorts. We can also imagine that the old E=mc^2 can be viewed more generally as to what we mean by mass and energy- perhaps to actually include ideas of anti-matter and matter reaction measures- or say to give a good reason that some phenomena like cold fusion exist with the expected neutrons not there where things are at some null state of useful information in a cosmic background on all scales. We should further note that these concepts as a more refined mathematics than the simple discrete counting even with elements in multidimensional arrays where the geometry matches the arithmetical intelligiblity, that what can be a variation in our standard varieties of matrices as quasic fields can so be represented by various merges and quadratures of the elements in those submatrix sets over all possibilities. These, somewhere establishes the ultimate possibility of directionality or magnitude, and variety in the universe yet an overall unity for local and non-local information and meaning conjugate to zero, unity and potential infinity. This establishes the generalization of uniformity and diversity paradoxes as a sort of quasi-holographics independent perhaps of the intervention outside such a relaxed total universe theory or at least the non-utility of information where it applies to physicality.

It seems clear to me that the brain-mind is organized somewhat to this extent and more than the enfolding or unfolding as the quantum or GR view of how we regard these evolving structures as abstract quasic motions in our mind, that is where there is evidence of some general relation to the organization and bilateral n-dimensional (condensed, shadow, flanged) symmetry.

The Obscurely Written Essay:

* Natural Dimensions, Euclidean or not, Quasic or not, in a general background of structures of intelligibility, can reduce to enfoldings or unfoldings as if a holographic root of a lesser dimension but as lesser or greater abstract quasic motion dimensions (thus energy differnces and mass as well is suggested).

*Thus here for a general theory, comprehensive or not, we have at least four derivative general theories that are founded on intelligible notions seemingly complete or not.

*The conceptual link between these theories require nuances of what is the general meaning and methods of core terms and foundational mathematical metaphors.

*While the information between these terms often have a kinship suggesting identity and equivalence as with all vector bases as group forms, invariances and so on... the conceptual intuitive differences may be invisible or appear as empty and unintelligible notions.

*Metaphysically, Creation outside a general realm of useful information, totally determined (as example DNA bases of the same letter) or totally random (same example of random bases that may not ultimately relate to structures nor convey local or non-locality information) grounding can only be assumed or asserted as an original creative principle needed for the relevance of intelligible useful theory.

*That such a theory may be so seen as the case requires it to be or to face this same metaphysical questioning and as a factual notion may provoke or invoke emotional reactions.

*The entire apparatus of how we do physics is in general now surpassed and not just the shift to our new physics if we see science from a still higher level of concrete and creative comprehension. But this should not be seen as a threat to any existing theory but an opportunity and hopeful future, a rebirth for the usefulness of science and the advice it is wise not to abandon the desire for such a project of human intelligence, that it not be abandoned to those outside its realm or those those who hoard the treasures from the common good of man.

*Politically, whether one wants to think of a Creator with a capital C as say gravity or matter or space as if a monolithic law or of randomness, energy quantum flux and so on- or just the math of it all, God the geometer- Perhaps there is some notion between us all here in the survival and struggle of ideas, that some deep hell or vanishing awaits for all who have worked a lie in this world that desires its revelations and the responsibility of such wisdom.

* * *

Odoschemes (Generalized Quasic Dimensions)

Odoschemes (Generalized Quasic Dimensions) L. Edgar Otto Aug.4/5, 2011 Eau Claire, WI

Now that we might begin to accept the new physics as physics I feel free to go into further levels of speculation as to the nature of dimensionless constants, topology and numbers.

As the Odocell was the name long ago for the quasic structure I take Odoscheme for a generalization of this structure. As this involves at least three quasic "generations and issues of the number 17 I style these Gaussion Group considerations in such an ensemble. It applies directly to what in our natural dimensional space of three and four dimensions we would expect of the arrangement of atomic particles in our 120 Z number of elements- and in a world where the nucleons and anti-nucleons are somewhere symmetric we find other magic numbers of differences in such substances. I note the so called "magic" numbers are part of this scheme of things that as stable regions of ensembles of matter have so far no real explanation in the literature.

Of course as in the illustration this particular posting seems more speculative than the progressively more so ones so far in this creative endeavor. I to some extent involves Mersenne primes as a subject for consideration (thanks for the spelling correction Matti as per you example, also Matti for you find reply to my comment and answer to how these may be observable on what level in relation to particle mass values and so on beyond the first few of them as I asked.)

Now, this is a probe, as well any of the physics that probes the universe where it is possible to so extend things into it as asymmetry- of which there are so many possible structures this particular ensemble may be a best guess among a vast landscape. The Lie algebras are as matters of continuity as well the associhedra conceptions such probes as their grounding views for hyperquasic asymmetries or directions. But my approach is more discrete in that say a fractal curve can fill the space of a dimension in question but only at the infinitesimal or in the vague concept of Cantor dust the aleph null or point level of which we may say such a limit as physicality is not reachable nor as the last or highest Omega infinity as a matter of physicality as much as theory, thermodynamics especially.

It is clear from the standard formalism, and what theories claim internal or hidden symmetries, that an inversion of infinity is not a bad postulate considering one can ask if Infinity "knows" what inversion it is in at some relative or absolute grounding. It does not good for a standard theory to deny concepts that threaten it and its consistence or coherence if there is no connection or explanation for them.

It seems to me that from the considerations of these posts, and of Rowlands on Dirac, if on this level of our wisdom and technology the standard ideas of particles matter, that to some ultimate degree we should postulate that somewhere the ends of a quasic diagonal and perhaps the center have in a sense the same ultimate and irreducible entity as a particle. The singularity or singularity complex of such perceptible and measurable realities would suggest the issue is not say how many varieties of the Higgs-like particles the models have and what the implications for the state of the theory- we rather should ask if at some point the gluon and the Higgs are but one entity and the same concept in the remote considerations of space and number. (gH or Gluohigg, perhaps Higglet :-).

This of course speaks more of my early concept of the Omnium as a universe model more than other levels of theory and speculation. In the link I posted to the idea of negative gravity being dark matter-energy in concept the theory does not address where the effects locally could be disjoint- it seems that if such effects could be modeled (computer-wise) they would have to include questions of action at a distance wherein the effects occur otherwise it is only a metaphor as good as any others I suppose.

But herein is the freedom to suspend or even be blind to the worth of some theory or state of mind and what is the possibility of wider structures of brain and mind evolution. It seems to me it is no longer certain as in some recent sci magazine articles that our species as such is doomed, but in a more subtle way than say raw Darwinism, to eventual extinction or slow changes- that we have to ask what it is that is worth preserving and in the over-redundancy of that do we fail to do so. Again these speculations would suggest that at a certain level there is wide room for what can be done in and with the reality of the universe and that whatever way we so change that we are a part of whatever future holds short of some external natural disaster. We evolve with this purpose at least if we reach a certain threshold and we should thus be optimistic. How long ago was India said to starve by the 70s then came the green revolution- and now, it has an obesity problem much like the United States due to the quality of food- while Somalia goes hungry... But these social gravity matters are highly speculative compared with our sciences - certainly the next century may hold radical surprises beyond our now self limited imaginations.



Let us also make the tallies with 136 in mind for the Eddington take on the dimensionless constants and further find structures for "time-like" symmetry count for the groups beyond an individual atom or an ensemble of them (or for that matter some idea of quasi-finite, that is dodecahedra-like, multi-verses.



* * *

Social Gravity on Badger Care

Social Gravity on Badger Care L. Edgar Otto August 4, 2011 AF14871466

Our souls were once more than shadows of
each other, merging, crossing paths
As our eyes kept strait forgetting or
not caring the way, glances half aware

The State owes nothing to the indigent
of its failed promises, veterans
Faded away coming home to homelessness
or lost in dreams and elixirs, even
Moved beyond all paths - Shhhhhh, acceptance
of the peace of light between rejection and the tunnel

Yet if you seek again the arms of Badger Care
all your silver asked to play, no refund, guarantee
I sit by the husks falling apart, pulling
their own teeth, enduring memorial parades
The half asleep to pass unrequited pain

Our shadows once distinct, remote in hibernation
merged as we fail each other, our lives
Passed before us read but once only before oblivion
yet I am all that is awake as the banners
Wave,their shadows on the streets and sidewalks
without colors to be blurred.

* * *

Comment to Pitkanen of Finland

Comment to Pitkanen of Finland:


Hi Matti,

I hope you did not take my standard comment as a challenge- rather it points toward a confirmation of where some deep arithmetic applies.

I would post a challenge if I had to but would that be objective as science and dishonest science to want to not find new breakthroughs - I do not want to remain in the dark?

So I have failed to communicate or connect to what amounts so far to our less than what is generally considered elegant recursive ideas when there is no other way to compute things.

From a philosophic perspective I offer you a metaphor from the television show Nightline- Beyond Belief. You have taken up the issue of consciousness and certainly we do have strange experiences like out of body and life flashing by before death. The conclusions were that there are yet unexplained phenomena which may not be resolved short of what is beyond.

So the metaphor is not so much what our consciousness is but the age old question if we have a soul and what is its nature.

BTW I no longer think that the key to physics is about particles like some bloggers repeat as a party line. There is much we need to clear up about numbers and topological fields and how say they describe these brain processes of which our central problem is applying measure to the linear aspects of field ideas which can be done somewhere beyond the current logic of the rationals as per finally a science magazine article on it last week- beyond the transfinites.

Why would there be a limitation of the first few Mersene primes?

Such a question I feel applies to the diagonal of orthogons to the center if any at least and there one just might apply an intelligible p-adic theory more recursive than pi as powers of hypervolumes.

I guess it is too hard to research this, invention or discovery Ulla, as we are doing now- so I will stand down until the climate changes more.

ThePeSla

see: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128231.400-ultimate-logic-to-infinity-and-beyond.html?page=1


link from my post a few back and with conclusions I intuited earlier for some time now. I do not think these problems will take another century.

ThePeSla

"An immediate consequences of this results is that the observation of the Higgs particle
may be not enough to understand the proper mechanism of mass generation."

Well, Ulla
I am not impressed with this paper from your supplied link save maybe the quote above rings true- so the issue is what we mean by SUSY indeed, but their conclusions come as a surprise perhaps only to them.

ThePeSla

* * *

I am not sure where to place this other than chronologically so I also made this comment to Lubos- as usual Climate Issues- but he cited a paper that involved benzene and the 162 nucleon electron degrees of freedom and partial differential methods- again I feel we have to transcend these ideas of dimensions and these methods as powerful as they are. As far as clouds go part of the origin for the more general view of quasic theory was the mapping of fog on the ground such that there was not a safety issue for aircraft- and noticing a trend or general pattern.

You know Lubos, something as simple as the vibrations of the basic atmospheric gas molecules (and things like a dipole shift for the adsorption of infrared via quantum theory and so on) would suggest that these vague methods founded on things like partial differentials are most inadequate in declaring what is or not in this climate debate. The politics and logic of it may tell us something and yes the carbon tax would prove an oppressive liberal and possibly false daughter of such social state ideas. Ideas espoused by the green liberal element.


This approach on the molecular level universally applied whether interactions are applied over somewhat distant molecules or not is certainly something that String theory representations in whatever imagined dimensions for degrees of freedom could concretely address.


Does methane not have 15 microwave vibrations (presumably the 16th is superimposed?) or is it the vectors over a large region of a surface if not outside the unification of vanishing particle effects (seeing them as forced or more of a falling if indeed one can show and not just assert some general distinction) which deals with four space (the Pietrie polygon).

Science should not be a matter of debate on some level unless you do expect there to be a radical replacement for some traditional view.


ThePeSla

* * *

Here is the link to the poster I referred to yesterday on sciencechatforum . His work from computer simulations is interesting and entertaining. This is not to say we can pin down the idea of dark matter as "negative mass" nor that we can say things about conservation (would his universe be stable and infinite?) It seems more likely this is a logical extension to the virial law and four way mediators as if this formalism can apply to say an analog into the subatomic force realm. Here again we have a clean presentation of but artifacts of our established methods of the old physics. Dark matter does not necessarily cluster around matter the evidence suggests- then again the forum did debate as elsewhere if antimatter repels or attracts- still the differences of scale here show a wider dynamics than just making vague assumptions about perpendicularity. Also why is the force of gravity and so called dark matter so different in a universally generally symmetric universe?

http://www.gravitation3d.com/index.html
* * *

Hexaplexus Hexanexus Hexacube Fields

In this illlustration a 8x8x8 hexacube (and a field with an intelligibility as a count if not an order axiom also) such that = 512 of which the hexanex leaves 480 in the hexaplex which differs from 512 by 32. In a sense the hexanex centered diagonal can be mapped on one cube of the octant if we so desire a more compact representation. Now, consider the vague concept of half of some infinite diagonal across a cube- this is the origin of the notion of on one hand the doubling of the speed of light which becomes the speed of light when the old initial paradoxes are resolved to that which is under acceleration so to speak- that is even in the quantum theory we observe this privileging of some value that the deeper field reasons assumes or explains a certain direction or surplus over the positive (after all the negations are a matter of simpler formulas and not necessarily the reason for something physical in itself and that includes complex number concepts.) Thus at a certain level of primitive or assumed primitive origins in a world where it seems matter is preferred over antimatter, the nucleon and anti-nucleon as the same mass- and this is more fundamental than showing by the sub-parts that the field ratio of remarkable coincidental parameters (that say life exists and in relation to the big bang idea) shows the apparent immortality and by reason of some incomplete part of a general theory makes that an advantage as if a proof the proton is not possible to decay under all but maybe extraordinary circumstances. That the world is symmetric and not so is an issue to work out deeper than quantum gravity notions.

Hexaplexus Hexanexus Hexacube Fields L. Edgar Otto August 1, 2011

As I come here with my thoughts of yesterday (which I did not get to post and had some more time to think about them) I find this blogger I follow with an interesting graph along the same lines of this fundamental thinking on the principles and axioms of fields. http://hoggresearch.blogspot.com/2011/08/velocity-space.html

Part the revelation of these concepts was the attempt to plot Peter Rowlands ideas on the nature of fundamental particles, the Dirac formulation to the quasic field. But what came out of it was that his map speculating on said particles was already field equivalent as complex numbers to parts of the quasic field where they share some various concepts of symmetry- such as my Conway representation. Yet the realization is that these are not quite the same thing - otherwise would we still have a problem describing these particles and such super-symmetries (of which in general Rowlands does suggest the concept can go multidimensional despite his insistence on the chirality of weak forces as the fundamental difference that measure mass or for that matter the string theories as if a form of quantum gravity.)

Basically he presents charts for the 25 or so particles. Now if things are quasical in my sense the idea of a need for four mediators in the weak world makes sense to me at last, as well the possible further inclusions. It is at this stage that we really should not assume physics is derived only from the mathematical formalism- for in a sense the trivialities reduce to what of more general systems we do not imagine or see, even often experimentally. From my understanding then the properties (which I feel based on rather vague and questionable theories that cling to old field formalisms of the quantum and relativistic tradition as the only views of which their lack of resolving can be shown on the level of existing theory and of which to suggest neutrinos have small mass is to fudge on our technical ability now) He puts the so called gluon in the upper matrix (or quasic plane) left hand corner and the Higgs or Higgs-like complex in the lower right- symmetry across the diagonal which does not in the same structural plan necessarily represent eigenvector diagonals.

I would only add, what I metaphorically call half of infinity, a sort of singularity complex- is the case where in the general quasic plane we can expand the resolution of the total system. We can of course imagine particles beyond this doubling and halving of things represented as the core three (and also possibly 4) dimensions, the viriality point made by Rowlands.

So the halve diagonal in a sense can contain any integral or binary function of the gluonic like things (hmmm where is the gravon in this, I must continue my reading him). It is here we may show the utility of applying something like Pitkanen's arithmetical theories for one thing.

So as a matter of counting pixels or unit cells, and the complexes of complexes of the quasic objects stacked or centered, that is the field assumption of order so included in the mix (hence arrows and asymmetry) we understand the ideas of braiding and so on and where the topology is in a certain sense unique as if a dimension.

I call these Hexa- for the preoccupation so many have with the representation they consider the "compactifications" of six dimensions- and that there are six faces to the three space orthogon (well 3n actually). The abstract diagonals are the nexus and that left over the plexus- these can be zeros and the diagonal of various signs. It is Rowlands concept of two three spaces each described by complex quaternions and thus more of the more fruitful string theory involving E8 that describes his table of particles. I note however it involves ten and ten things in the Conway like interpretation of the matrix (as if my first puzzle of "sea dice" A through J for ten number symbols and ten anti-symbols)... The next step is also a Pascal number of 15 which is more the first Conway like matrix and more like four space vectors.

Let us consider then the "Quasex" as a quasi-vector... for somewhere or from some fundamental view what we consider a vector or a scalar is the same thing and our theories are only so successful in making them distinct in a quasic or omnic field.
It would not be enough for example to find a theory that purely reduces things to scalars to describe particle behavior. For all we know that not observed may in fact totally vanish to creatively and probabilistically return, or that where the field is residual as creative we imagine it a mysterious, even dark force.

Still, in the quasic axiom one might ask if all surfaces are in theory connected somewhere then what does establish the sense of them as a separation and difference, I mean ultimately? Part of this is apparent logically as a dissection of abstract spheres (that is the spin is also abstract in Riemann's sense of his Plane mapping)
again the utility but inadequacy of complex planes and projective geometry only, in the division of one into five or six parts with vague detail of the cuts in the boundaries (See Tarski) so as to define the quasic apparent distance between created and creative object fields. (note also that this may involve super-transfinite numbers_

Part of the new complex of things traditionally conceived as knowledge and methods may limit newer and more accurate enquiry to the extent of their similarity of its underlying field concept. One such spatious concept evidently exclude is the idea of a fourth value or fundamental unit as mass, and perhaps the idea of gravity where these are not simply a matter of what is say some form of "inertia" continuous or discrete. That these are in a sense quasically recursive we would expect the structure if not the ultimate gain of structure in the world including mass-energy and say as Rowlands suggests the use of the "classical radius of an electron" to be intimately related to such shifts that are derived from the vibrations at the infinitesimal to which in the apparent space without need for amplification the quantum like field idea allows creation from considerations of complex number branes.

So the diagonals may be counted and treated as if coherent light or centered or focused light- that is we can define and distinguish thus the directionality and magnitude of what we mean by vectors and scalars. After all rotation and translation are also somewhere in theory indistinguishable. But this sort of finding was one of the things hoped found by our current atom smashers.

There may be developed across they abstract motions of abstract dimensions a sort of "taffy out" of the paths of mass decay minimum quasication and quantization, where also these states are free to mix while keeping their general identities.

I leave to the readers the remarkable whole numbers in considering complexes of these various hexacube tallying.

Let me return to a poetic metaphor- to see the universe in a shell and eternity in a moment- such a metaphor seems more a concrete reality when we consider what on different scales may apply when infinity is defined as subsets of itself and can relate to that which is discrete actively and creatively. But what is half or double eternity? Is this not a biological question par excellent also? I mean the idea that we encode things in a quasic field as if boxes in boxes and in that the varieties of linear encoding like DNA itself doubled and halved? What then a part of an n-dimensional quasicity of cells and that of their differentiation as a form of separation (which also may be considered a property or difference of handedness of the totality with small differnces- thus a theory hiding a deeper one again.)

So the simple idea that we could take something say 400 feet or so long and lay it across the diagonal of a 1.x or so foot unit cube which is a shadow of or the part of a face of say a 32 dimensional space. Or we can double this to include the centers of things at half-the-potential-infinity. In this sense we can imagine we can apply a measure of sorts to the flat and limitless and continuously elusively immeasurable.

* * *

Footnote: perhaps I should call things like this ensembles or constellations- that is my use of the term sheaf after reading Kea's post I found it in relation to Higgs bundles. Hard to find terms, not like fiber bundles and so on, pencils etc... But my use of those terms is not necessarily the standard use. Most likely less than the standard term. In any case the generalizations I propose do take some of the narrowness out of our standard views, terms and methods without really giving up our intuitive tenable stances. But if in some way a reduction to and integrated plural and biology like metaphor says something about how we use existing mathematics over the physics of reality, given or created, invented or discovered, inter-subjective or unique and individual, and these be in a wider sense a unification- the result can be that our social projects as well as our big science projects are at the whim of a narrow ideology of one sort of the other, for what in the face of what is rather than why it is not as a default somewhere is greater than a particular philosophy that in effect is life and death at its minimum complexity and maximum boundaries of what in this world is then the assumed purpose and view?

A better picture of the universe, as a totality and absolute limit or not, will go a long way towards clearing up the false and the small but significant percent of anomaly in our reasoning so as to allow an honest and more human approach to various now without compromise political issues that as a matter of survival and not false claims may make hard decisions that transcend the issues of the day.

* * *

A comment to Pitkanen at TGD diary today 2:33 pm CDT :

Note also an assessment of the situation by Rio Frio on the future of science on her blogspot.

Matti,

Of course if we throw a dart at the number line the chances are zero for all practical purposes that we do not find a transcendental number.

In my post today I think I found an area where your theories may apply to distance measure as the diagonal of matrices and of cubic structures.

See Hexacubes.
Of course from my view limiting the numbers to ten or eleven things is not good enough to transcend standard motion spaces. Clearly, (2^6 - 1)x 2^5 in the count of + or - 32 could be interpreted as 11D - 5D representations of continuous algebras of such vaguely defined dimension of the Clifford type.

In my hexaplex and hexanex count differences some binary representations occur on many scales where the count of each is equivalent. I am open to a better term for this. Note that Kea's relation to the zeta function considerations at 1/2 is very relevant. But how this can be a good future and of shown importance in society for the careers of those involved may take some time- the next century maybe as we are in a sort of dark ages awhile.

ThePeSla

* * *

I wish to state that physics may not just be about particles (Dear Lubos) as much as the general idea behind the geometric structures- otherwise, what is the ultimate use of the string theories and so on that still has to add mass ad hoc and can only speculate should experiment find the need for more refined levels?

* * *
Personal Note to Coffee Shop student friend:

Hi, from here check the sited I follow. Kea has an interesting page for Europe funding independent research... check it out as a new astrophysicist and what the future may hold for the ladies- and check out Rio Frio's concepts. See you in he coffee shop. Hope you can find these places. Here the blogs I mentioned:

http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/2011/07/higgs-to-be-confirmed-or-not.html

http://pseudomonad.blogspot.com/2011/08/same-old-same-old-ii.html

http://hoggresearch.blogspot.com/2011/08/velocity-space.html

* * *

Sci Mags today:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110801094715.htm

Look for nature to utilize physics and mathematics in free possibilities! I would have predicted as much having never seen a body cell- but the symmetry of plants with cuboctahedral rigid walls in general would access the structure method here given- then again it develops flowers and is intimate to the light.

* * *

The sciencechatforum has an entry which is called pure crackpot and can be found at
http://vixra.org/abs/1107.0052

Now there are reasons to criticize this theory as will be apparent from my general discussion on whatever problems we have with the negative- and yes from some observations on the so called dark matter. But let us not so criticize this idea on its own terms for it also strives to take a first blush as fundamental notions. In any case the same unresolved problems and a shown dead end is the poster who said that of the theory, who is deep into the idea of the Minkowski models. To me both are now alternative theories that begs for a breakthrough in understanding.

I add the bubble question also posted there as new news for I did not include that link from science daily today as it too is not quite up to the more general case of what such sort of space actually may be or appear from the quasic view.

The theory has the germ of many truths to come and if they are saying in the forum it is an alternative theory we are still waiting for one that has shown there are no alternatives they present for a more complete or even a final answer. But let us not in these breakthrough or crackpot papers build up our hopes too high as the authors when we use notions of the old science and its methods- other than of course the author here shows great potential for abstract enquiry which to me is less metaphysical than those employed by the so called defenders and propagators of the science that may be- especially in an atmosphere where enquiry seems to be retarded. Perhaps the author will consider things like tachyons as one might surmise from some of the notions of his theory. The symmetry breaking concept of the Higgs looks remarkably like his graph does it not?
* * *

The Quasic Axioms (and more Articulated Cubes)

* * *
The Quasic Axioms (and more Articulated Cubes)
L. Edgar Otto 1 Aug 2011

Having established by abstract quasic motion notations that for a given motion through space of some dimension and that covering a range of dimensions (after all I mean this discretely in its questioning of the nature of "dimension" yet not in the way that Clifford does where that term is less concretely defined.) I also question if we can at some place make the distinction between the continuous and discontinuous in the manner so cleanly Rowlands does or that certain cherished ideas other than the assertion these are fundamental and given as such, that the continuous of the time and proper time, and space and proper space (his terms) that three dimensions and all such generalization of triality, after all it is more like 3nD than 3D, as to what explains our concepts of entropy and time as distinct notions in that these are due to a subset, a charge chirality on the meson level- but it is clear that such subsets is not the origin of the arrow of time beyond that as a given assertion it is fundamental. All our blogger theories that seem alternative seems to suffer from this lack of action and good grounding for causation or for quantum randomness to which other theories justly may regard ours as outside the rational mainstream- but with sorrow for dedicated explorers we see now who is outside that mainstream. The Membrane M theory also suffers from this sort of thing. The Minkowski formalism is especially weak in general as Rowlands points out, but this is not good reason not to consider four vectors as primary or part of the picture- complexification has its limits (just as twistor theory, even espoused by Witten, is a little redundant as far as deep explanations go.) I further suggest that compactification and symmetry breaking are not pure ideas but working ones on the level they are now.


The other part of my explorations lately other than my templates which contain some errors as my mind becomes more aware of such details and possibilities of drawing, is the idea that there are vast algebras that can regard say the recreational cubes like the Stenhaus cube as important to a lot of alternative theories. For example between a set of "cells or points, pixels or elementals" they can be all not connected or one solid object as far as vectors merging go- and anything we can count by conventional methods in between even as a matter of Pascal probabilities. Thus abstractly we can have say in a 27 cube situation 3 pentacubes and 3 teracubes or in the next space dimension of 64 we can have 6 5-ominos and 5 6-ominos... with due consideration to how we count the diagonals 3 or 4. So we can have in the same sheaf or constellation of these "elementals" two interconnected simplex groups that are not connected to each other and so on. These should be known or explored by combinatorial researchers. Is it not remarkable or coincidental that there are 30 such 5-ominos? And in terms of chirality in the 3n situation (triality and raygun matrixes and triquaternity) that Sudoku does relate in the 81 and deeper for the solution of such "black box" principles... and a little 3x deeper than this?

*Minimum action or entropy not considered together may make no global sense.

*If we do not upgrade our notion of God we cannot upgrade ourselves.

*Unlike Clifford dimensionality, quasic dimensionality is not so abstract (nor dependent on the idea of a three space only.

*A linear sheaf is the reduction of a continuum to a point.

*If in the world of useful physical information (not ad hoc mass as in most theories particularly the Membrane theories) the virtual particle considerations are structured much like the algebra of real particle considerations.

*The idea of equal symmetry, as one of a viable view say where entropy and time or weight and mass are indistinguishable, this implies a real or virtual origin. But this is not the only case.

*An abstract color as if the ordering of the ensemble of cubes with merging faces is a matter of probability if they can be vanishing if the same, or creating if these are complimentary.

*Things at the quasic sphere or plane (not technically within or without the boundaries of an entity) are real (in the Riemann zeta 1/2 sense), thus we imagine a quasi-variable point of view Planck scale so to ground a more universal third thermodynamic law.

*At some ideal remote point of intersection (where physicality objects can quasi-lag as quasi-discrete objects) a not necessarily local ideal point at infinity (of two intersecting membranes at a point) some definite entity may virtually approach the infinite remote limit and bounce back changing signs and handedness but this is true of more than sign and is in a sense anywhere not remotely a precarious balance of complex values and sign including the roots of positive unity not unity. (We can also have a sense of adding or subtraction a zero as if a sign, nilpotency and neutrality and a measure of so called filled vacua.)

*In these articulated ensembles of cubes (which can progress to higher order when sorted and evolved to lesser degrees of freedom and growth limits- and the ensemble of various dimension in one entity involving ratios like phi and other roots including 2 units in four-space or two real units in that space for a fourth direction) I envision the laws of such cubes as relating measures and directions on several levels of entropy- not necessarily the result of the arrow of time via the differences in sub-units for such a crystal concept of precipitating cubes.

*In the remote compass of some count of what representations can be housed in an ensemble of such orthogonal spaces we note that certain lengths cannot exceed the units of dimension of the ensemble nor at zero these are outside the dimension of the ensemble of abstract motions and representations.

*The inclusion of the diagonal neutral elementals of an ensemble or not in the counting of n-ominoes as subsets of spaces is an open freedom also to include or exclude from the rest or ground state of the ensemble.

*The mass of some Higgs-like particle should be the average of the binary 108 and the less fixed 135 = 9 x 27 units as a rough ratio where we consider the differences between the representations of 3D in 4D or 4D in 5D... these relate to the count of 9D as 3n Triality. Note also that 128 as a pure binary fits within this range of some particle mass values. The dimensionless constant ratio is on the same order and is also explained by other as these articulated methods.

* * *

This posted to Kea today with such subjects on my mind... I post here also because it is a bit much to post on her focused blog on the science of it all.

Kea,

Sometimes I think that if I had gotten into school and went down a steady path that I would have been brainwashed into ideas that are now transcended. It is costly but sometimes to be on the outside is the only doorway to new truths.

Those who look at the Foundations like Peter Rowlands know full well the problems involved with physics unification and quantum gravity ideas in particular. I find him remarkable in what he shows cannot be the fundamental case.

Our alternative theories suffer from certain principles that seem to some existing ones metaphysics- but now the real is in our camp and still they insist on their rank metaphysics. Do they listen to each other?

I wondered today what is left after the old sciences die (so to speak). Perhaps it is more a social world after all, a scaling back from things like exploring space and hard technologies.

I think I was born old, young lady, I mean to me you are a generation later and it was hard for me to compete with the one earlier. But some of my deepest ideas have come from those times I had to sleep under the stars and in the rain.

But who of those who have a deep understanding would not want the experience of life, that is deeper than survival and competition at our core?

I feel I was reborn at 30 and the occasion was I looked up from the count of electrons and quarks and said "Alas, I understand the heart of what mass is". And in the fog of 15 I thought I might solve the "binding force". Now while I feel your pain, appearances aside I share your joy also...

The PeSla (who is not a recognized poet outside the circle of mediocre ones at the university- we do not exist)

* * *

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128231.400-ultimate-logic-to-infinity-and-beyond.html?page=1

Well, here we see a glimpse into a wider world of these abstract things and as I said some of these axiom of choice problems in ensembles are countable after all even beyond the surrealistic calculus where some irrationals are treated rational- but just now seeing this article I am not sure if it is just a wider vision (beyond Cantor's paradise) or the multiverse (to use the article's term) I inhabit is wider again (but I do not mean just adding on another transfinite level nor an ultimate one if any.) But if we cannot deal with this sort of math how can we even begin to do physics?

* * *