The Unintelligible Universe

The Unintelligible Universe L. Edgar Otto October 14, 2011

Let us consider the general consistent and logically focused quasic plane. Each minium cell itself such a plane of which we can describe a quasi-space as a general frame for intelligibility. It is not necessary ultimately that this needs to be the actual physical case for the universe and paradoxically it seems to be needed for the widest conception of the universe of physics.

We assume that at each cell we can designate a surreal sequence that begins ambigously on a very fundamental level with a zero or one. We observe globally that the span of such a space that is organized and ordered intelligibly can be said to begin with an assumed zero or grounding in the infinitesimal as a question of singularity in regards to the depths of the multi-dimensional, multi-brane quasic representation as a general grid or framework.

We can imagine then, that such a completely unintelligible exists and as an existent entity is a background to which we can ultimately claim that logic can itself be deputed, or in the case of some difference over times that the logic of something is an argument that can be defeated. But as an existent it has a sense of reality to which we may appeal to a hidden reality for some concept such as non-linearity or dark forces, or faerie fields and so on- we sentient things asking the great philosophy question for some physicality why the universe exists rather than not exists.

Such questions also ambiguously inspire and has us make appeal to the existence of God which can lead us to physical generalization or abandonment of the depth of knowing, even the doubting of what we can compare to the world of our limited perceptions as if something hidden beyond it. If such of our concepts of God or gods relates to our most general number concepts- this can be an understanding beyond what we are now more certain of understanding about the infinities. That God is beyond such concepts of infinity, and beyond the question of zero or one as number.

So, if there is a framework, a sort of unity of a given universe or individual state, we can also label the pixels or planes in a sequence as to if they are set as an initiation or termination as a set fact where the existence of a unique organism or thought can, but not necessarily must, vary from the proposed unity of a frame. This can be mapped out on the plane for specific cases and patterns of useful information or possibilities, and the limits of applying useful parameters of technology. Surreal and p-adic numbers would be the beginning of such technology and each contributes to the quantum concepts as we swim through the quasic grid.

* * * *


I thought I might post this link again I found on an add in facebook and
in particular the idea of trees and the like, today. This seems a rather good teaching site for the general public.

Again, is there not a problem to start with, the more powerful axioms independent or not, that we assert by Peano Zero and a successor?

http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematics-and-nature-reality

http://plus.maths.org/content/picking-holes-mathematics

* * * *

For what it is worth I posted to Lubos if this is moderator approved- but sometimes I get the feeling we do relive history- for example how odd it seems to me to have a recurrence of say the old flags of Russia, and a nation called Serbia. Was it a better time and what is the appeal to the Panam and Playboy shows but some statement about more prosperity and a middle class where now Leave it to Beaver is declared a myth in a world where even sweet little Springfield as I recall it in Illinois has the third highest crime rate- suspected because there are so many young people but they cannot explain it. I suppose each generation has to relearn history, and it is expected if not evidence of genius that a theoretical physicists to learn must recreate the whole.

* * *

Lubos,


Not that I claim to be competent in these matters- but I find it hard to believe that such people could make such errors.


On the other hand, when Mercury's change of orbit was calculated (way back in the primitive first pointing to relativistic modifications of Newton) was not Einstein off by half and this corrected by the actual observation at the eclipse?


History seems to repeat itself, all depending of course on three space and how we measure what is kinetic and potential energy- but on a much higher level where perhaps we have much more to learn about super-symmetry and reference frames and the like.


Any, thanks for you detailed reply to my earlier comment on the quantum wars- it inspired a little deeper thinking on my part.


The PeSla

* * * *

Integration and Alternatives or Future Physics

Integration and Alternatives or Future Physics

L. Edgar Otto (Pe Sla) October 13, 2011

What can wake our generation of theoretical physicists from their slumber?

I was going to as Pitkanen for example why, with the far reaches of p-adic number concepts, that there was so much resistance from the established researchers? I thought to call this post Toward the Classification of Alternative and Future Physics but on reflection it dawns on me I have answered my own question. Certainly, p-adic theory is very appealing in its application to quantum theory. So too the idea of Surreal numbers, its touching on quantum concepts like the many-world.

Pitkanen asked in a post recently if his TGD framework would be integratable. He is aware of the general problem scientist seem to have in the keeping of things close to limited foundations so as to develop a set of ideas to higher complexity. But with the possible exception of the ideas of string theory anything that goes too far into the computations, the divergences and holes and so on, such as the appeal to a vague super-symmetry and its mirrors of particles, science is conservative to take the leap into speculation very far. Even the growing anomalies, as Kea pointed out, are dismissed or explained away - even when in the history of science it is precisely such places we find major breakthroughs. Of course in a sea of speculation there is a much wider infinity of choices than what proves sound.

Yet, when things are put concisely, reduced to some point of simplification, it is easy to resist that direction. The many handed gods and goddesses are then but a trivial thing to debate and dismiss let alone any hint of such infinite regress and fractal like multiplicity of structures as real more than our intuitive feelings they are.

From the surreal model I have an objection at the core of the idea- it is not quite a complete description of the multiverse. It is shown that the infinitesimal cannot fulfill its role of consuming in a mirror balance the growing infinities. We find the holes which go far beyond our concept of numbers by which we can then claim these are significant for types of separations for the multiverses. This is a problem also of our notations as to what is nothing or existing, an origin or fixed and real. In such a place as the foundation for physics we can assert that it works at least intuitively ideas like there is a zero point energy place maybe that contains such other analogs of this (as if the general Pacman stair step universe along the lines of how we compute things like mass in the hierarchy.

But this is a fatal assumption to use without some form of experiment or proof then to generalize it to cosmology large or very small. We need something much more fundamental. This same partial flaw is responsible for things like false vacuum as a force of nature, and while it is not forbidden it is rare and not fundamental.

If we use the quasic concepts of directionality and a shifting minimum space and distance, the concept has more relevance to cosmology as a system and logic and not just a hopeful assumption. In this respect there are only useful Quasi-surreal numbers. In a world, a beautiful one, where we can imagine these sorts of numbers and all previous numbers, including the various groups that apply to various ideas of physics, we can subsume the totality under such concepts as octonions and beyond to a bit- but the problem is that there are more to groups that may be the ground for determining a foundation for a physics or theory than these eruditely are supplied. Let us not forget that Weyl was open minded enough to see what was worth saving in the intuitionist program and has ideas that still are too far out that they do not seem to apply to anything thought a physical phenomenon. But lets face it all these great theories came (like p-adic numbers) at the turn of the century a century ago. If the nature of 4 space for example, or even the Euclidean 11 dimensions, is defined by appeals just to the surveyed and classified groups we will not make progress in some of the current unanswered questions of physics. If things as they are is the case there is not much point in applying things beyond the ultimate symmetries possible and the idea of the 24dimensional Leech lattice.

Nature does not know if it begins at a one or a zero even as a string of surreal numbers. What then distinguishes such numbers like Conway's small omega as the ordinal at an infinity or his iota at the infinitesimal? Let us also not forget that in the original formulations of the calculus infinitesimals also played a role which more or less divides physics to this day between the Leibnizean and Spinozan depths of philosophy. Surely in the flux of things these are equivalent, and surely if we are to dismiss some small derivative values the structures should be intelligible and justified.

From what I can tell the quasic grid and model in its generalization of space, its multi-dimensionality and information stance and persistent patterns is intgratable in the sense the standard physicists have emulated. Rather, perhaps imitated for should the abstract structure be the universal discovery is cannot be claimed to be the unique discovery of anyone- that is the failing of whole systems of faith in a physics, or even the rumor of it, has its toll and consequences on the self.

* * *

Now today I went to the library but only found the scientific american (I should probably check it out on line) but there were two most interesting articles- one on the idea of dark matter and galaxy formation including a lot of ones nearby that are so faint or purely dark we missed them. In particular by the old theory of our large cloud satellite galaxies our disc (one that should be relatively flat that life can be supported) moving around the dark matter causes the milky way to vibrate like a gong. Heretofore, the dark matter, thought evenly distributed, was a sort of spherical halo around the disc.

*1 Yet from either side of a dark mirror we can find a perspective, in three space, of spherical distribution. Likewise for an ideal disc, and in a sense even an Euclidean plane.

*2 On the mirror we can find intelligibly measured distortion of open and closed laws including a generalization of concavity, linear or logarithmic.

[The magazine also had an article on the ten or so unsolved problems of science- one of note is the understanding in the nucleus of how many isotopes there are, 4000 or so many fleeting with appeal to magic numbers thought stable.]

*3 On the electron level of things it said it was clear, while asking if there is a limit to the number of elements (My long assertion of 120) or if there is no such limit. By calculation they said there cannot be electrons around more than 137 protons. So, we do not understand any better some of the deeper things of the nucleus as if nature had a whole new generation like model to compute. I had recently the idea that it may extend a little further, after all 248 dimensions and all that... but I would guess now that it is still 120 for four space matter, to which we add 16 and the unit minimum quasic cell as an Eddington like refinement of his methods for the generation of that dimensionless constant Dirac wanted to ask why it is if he came back in a hundred years. Certainly, by using the power of 2 to the 136 in the monomark number of possible electrons (protons) in the universe he can be said to be doing something in his "quantum relativity of 1929 saying the matter was finished" is after all could be viewed pretty much in p-adic terms, especially the way I think Pitkanen thinks about applying such numbers.

*4 We can just as well assume a creative dark fluid flow that can be considered to result in relatively finite cyclic recurrences as to attribute the dynamics of a changing but intelligibly conservative universe so to measure the perturbations on the galactic disk- from a more general view these too are equivalent descriptions as we ponder and appear to measure (was this the newscientist article I could not read?) matter reacting to matter-dark fluid interactions. But the consideration of such forces. globally and in themselves and over time (so in effect a candidate that is or may lead to some TOE or thought so- as physicality are quasi-creative.

*5 Just as we have come to realize the complexity of the reading of the genome we also should begin to realize that there are simpler foundations that when one grasps the general view these are concrete and not matters of controversy. Let us not be afraid of such knowledge of which the potential is quite enormous if not shared to do harm, but it can also, as from the first of species struggle, bring too its cures and defense.

* * * *

I posted to Lubos yesterday on his "quantum wars" finding it another informative or educational posting. (and contains points on the methods and interpretation as philosophy of science I thought worth adding on here). BTW his kind answer on the X and Y was also a courteous reply. Odd that Pitkanen is considering also the role of these things in relation to the reasons for super particles and so on (but for some reason I cannot directly access his post today so had to come around from another direction- interestingly he has a paper of today's date on the subject.


October 14, 2011 Next Day:
Lubos,

now if we can just find some way to justify or explain a physical and not just logical arrow of time.

I thought a pot of liquid helium does not boil until you take your eyes away from it?

The PeSla asking the same old question of why some ideas are rejected but are not anymore bizarre. The climate, I have to agree is based on something bizarre if scientific- and I do like your insistence that physics should be consistent.

Oh, Galileo, different masses do not fall at the same speed yes- save at Newtonian velocity ranges?
Yesterday, 10:40:21 PM


Dear Pesla, thanks for your interest. Not sure whether the helium works in the way you suggest.

Your comment on "just logical arrow of time" is missing the point. It's the "logical arrow of time" but it's a part of physics. One always needs to use mathematical logic in physics and the logical arrow of time tells us that Nature only admits fundamental and derived "axioms" that say that "A [property or event] implies B [property or event]" if A is in the past of B. This is really what logical arrow of time means. So any statement that you assume or derive about the evolution of the Universe contains sharp statements in which the past determines - or affects the probabilities - in the future. But the opposite statements are never sharp.

There is nothing subjective about the logical arrow of time. Everyone who wants to say right things about the Universe has to use the same one. It's a real property of the Universe. Some people may find these comments "subjective" because I am talking about "derivation of correct statements about the real world'. But all of science is like that. It's about getting right statements about Nature. Any attempt to imagine that there is something "more real" or "more visualizable" behind science is just wrong. It's a naive preconception that simply doesn't hold in quantum mechanics and it really doesn't hold even in (classical) statistical physics.

* * * *
Reply posted only here: I understand the debate as to what is subjective or not and that does involve quantum interpretations in a much longer war. I am not sure when I see different physicists debate if or not there is causality in some sense, or at least predictability. I think, on a deeper logical level you and I disagree on the role of teleology at least to a not too remote future- the questions raised by something that could be tachyonic- and the cool objective observation of variations on sound statistics - but who is to say it is not logically the reverse of a mirror, such concepts as entropy projected into the past from some observed present state has logical assumptions all of its own on which to make conclusions.

If in this debate as to what is something like the Higgs, yet we have a sense of the steps of distinction with some modification of mass measure (The pacman and not pacman statistics so as to treat it on several generational or perhaps flavour or color levels as Pitkanen writes)- from some logical space when we get through all the twists and turns of time in the universe the Higgs as conceived by the standard theory is consistent and intelligible- in the present at least. In such a place the subjectivity as we may describe it- or even apply it to political philosophy- the objectivity is the same place. It is useless to debate which one is primary or eats the ghost of the eyes like pacman of the others. Perhaps the same can be said of any such "faerie fields", that these from a certain view exist also- even if they cannot be express so far as super particles of the super fields we should logically admit are there so to extend what is solid in our evolving science. But would any theoretician suggest the super symmetry if it did not seem consistent to him? The role of we as thinkers cannot really be spliced out of the context of the unification of physics- even if that is a very narrow razor sharp singularity.

Now, this obviously relates to my post above of yesterday on that other debate as to what ground the quantum mechanics, the surreal and the p-adic, perhaps the seeds for a future war where these are too Bizarre not to be now rejected.

As far as my quasic cell unit (the minimum logical, physical, and mathematical brane of many informational bases and dimensions) being the ground for this arrow of time we know this place from some view cannot distinguish origins from endings of some singularity parentheses as far as directionality. Thus I am sure, even on the mere level of 4D electron configuration in an ideal pattern compensating for the context of the "heat". This idea one either gets or not- the Eddington idea of 136 then becoming 137 that some may object to on perhaps an even deeper level- an objection to my own theories of which there is a little objection myself in this crack of a pregnant anomaly of my physical logic and reasoning. So is the progress of science which is philosophy in its code a little higher arrow than we have imagined of time and space and matter so far. Why use numbers that on the small scale and in the present spacious now that are integral and exact in some contexts like the 480 in the equations that seem complete for physics if there can be small measures beneath the unity of some minimum brane area- if it were not true there is more to the mathematics, logic, and physics of it all than what seems prime from some view of proof by infinite descent this property we observe and can so integrate with numbers as a consistent if not symmetrical pattern that makes them ground physics when the physics of it all then is the more solid level of reality that stands out as laws.
Everything depends on the ability of us to find the right axioms, at least. Numbers can be integral and even in the more advanced forms obey the inverse square law idea as we may conclude even from the influence of dark matter on galaxy structure. In the surreal number system (even if overly symmetric and leaving out the directionality we seem to find in quantum theory and other methods that stay grounded in science such a the combinotoric's in the matrices within and beyond Triality- the conclusions of braids and such) by its arrow notation would tend to suggest as in the zeta function- at least linearly the value of 1/2 applies to the real too- but I have seen no one explicitly suggest this obvious connection- nor where things are not linear or negative this a unique property of the universe, physics or number.

The LHC and other researchers have looked under the hood- surpassed and achieved what they set out to do- only we have to sort through and digest all the data- and I mean that as a matter of subjectivity, not raw collection of experimental facts. I suppose in science as in philosophy, people can debate locked into missing each others points.

* * * *

Matti,

I can see this post directly now. Today I posted some general things of which you may find of interest.

So, not quite sure I have grasped how you derive some things- what of this sort of number:

2^(137-89) ?

The PeSla

* * * *

Is it not interesting that Pascal's triangle can be thought of as powers of 11 in an eleven dimensional world (numerologically for now) or the patterns repeating in binary for the golden ratio. And in a sense in binary is 11 not three (a way to shift things into an idea of Triality?)

* * *

Sign of the Zebra Fish at Open Mike

Sign of the Zebra Fish at Open Mike L. Edgar Otto October 13, 2011


Well, perhaps talking to myself only, some philosophy of these interesting times- that and I miss my zebra fish as all things in the end ephemeral.

No deep insights today but I have kept things in mind about interesting bloggers and may take a look at what is going on in a philosophy of science in the internet (of which I just cannot take that seriously for some reason- our past technologies always a sense of the real and physical to consider first as to what effects on the mind needs adjustment.) Each if us has our taste for the music of our time, perhaps to make a generational distinction, to ground reality by our nostalgia's until what can be junked is a valuable collectible until relevant to no one it is junked again. It could be that a few days of not sleeping on the floor has made my informative dreams soft again- or that I hanging around the open mikes am a little tired of the same old walking stereotypes of winos and street people digging through the ash trays for butts or begging for change for 40s or one in particular who claims to be such a genius and former shrink who pushed a man (the man was drunk and the bar tender was trying to put him back on his stool while he gathered his pack) about ten feet into a wall whereupon the drunken old man pulled a 7 inch knife which the bartender took away and got the old man outside, bloody faced, and gave him a ride home. At this point the wandering man who pushed him- no longer scolded by the bar tender as he was busy- called the police on his cell phone for he thought he was right. I followed with my friend the bar tender until the old man was in the car and things were cool. The old guy who pushed the other then proceed to sit by a younger lady and got a beer- but he had been at our coffee shop annoying student ladies in deep study with nonsense- like nursing was a good choice but out of the blue she should lose a little weight. Lost so much in the loops of his head he tries to get inside others with all his psychiatry terms. I want to be none of these guys, nor the old blues player that hangs around town and the open mics singing the same old songs. In the end we need respect for the things of the mind of which the way some people have to live or life is for me the ultimate blasphemy. But these times are also wheels in spin that take from theory- that and the simple fact that we humans long for a little solitude and then to be out among others.

Forgive me if I make wrong judgments- but as a lady Aussie poet once said:
"Would we feed the whole world, but my children's bread is my children's bread."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111012113554.htm

Now, as happens when there is hard and dispassionate technical research and these placed in the popular press (well the mess does seem, in astrology terms, the chaos that comes in the cycle of the year at Pieces- the sign of the fish before our new spring of physics- one can expect that there are those who are indeed outside of time or so much is hidden in their states of mind- to which one has to decide what is the real and what is the fantasy in the jumble- Can a shrink not diagnose and heal himself, can he help others if he has not looked into that mirror? Does he not make progress by entering into the fantasy of his patient at least initially? But what are we to say when the news and popular press, behind the scenes, enters into the people's minds with fantasy? One day the new theories will give us all a little more strength and allow our minds in old age not to be full of cloaking devices of our memories fading not to return this time around.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111012132655.htm
(well, use of the term dark matter is here a little ambiguous. So if there are no junk genes but here a higher analogy what do we call it? So much of science is the look for romantic and popular terms as the public clings onto a novel idea just outside the box.)

"Early comparison studies of the human and mouse genomes led to the surprising discovery that the regulatory information that controls genes dwarfs the information in the genes themselves. But, these studies were indirect: they could infer the existence of these regulatory sequences, but could find only a small fraction of them. These mysterious sequences have been referred to as the dark matter of the genome, analogous to the unseen matter and energy that make up most of the universe. "

Still, Now we are getting somewhere with our more advanced understanding of time and light! I hope some of you can see the connections in the physics, biology, and the mind here.

* * * *

Neat, wow yesterday at my posting it was very hard to think and express myself at the critical point of an idea with the dude standing behind me saying how things were all illogical and he claiming to be a professor. But I was already miffed on his bothering the student ladies deep in study before exams as I said so I chased him away from me. The owner just now saw it right away as a problem and gave him a warning but I said what I knew and he banned him from our coffee shop. Some people just do not know how to keep out of each others business and bring trouble around. The old dude playing the music of his era like Procol Harem almost decked him that night for annoying his wife. Some have called me the Jupiter here from such people and it is not a place that just chases away anyone disabled- some of the long standing customer's here are well loved- like Johnny who draws cartoons and they use them for the tee-shirts of the workers. I cannot figure out whose fault all this is, the individuals involved or some chaotic method of running a community.

* * * *

Now, a something referring to previous thoughts a little more dignified- as sometimes the artwork itself leads to the organizing of ideas- I see here the 2+2 or 3+1 formalism but I have have never played this Star Trek game. So vaguely, the board is more to do with general relativistic fields and the pieces that in themselves a quantum jumble- that is I see the question of the unification of the physics- now, what we do not see, apparently, is where the quantum gravity fits in- nor the role of the conscious or logical entities that design or play the game.



Oh, and in the links that started this posting today- if we can cloak events (new scientist has a lot of articles on time lately I cannot access which does time run out as the title of an article seems to me to give substance to my question as if over some general background of time if our intellect can be in some sense a limited resource. However, to imagine a physics as radical in relation to deep memory as I have suggested that memories are stored in the space or vacuum once established as a physicality at least- that is it is not just fields or chemicals or nerves and so on. Of course these things touch or coexist. But to imagine the cloaking of events as in the link- is it but a small step to imagine such higher ways to store things and retrieve things from the beyond or emptiness that in a sense may be the mechanism of our reality- that looking back as we find solid scientific ground our ideas were not radical enough, that lesser theories amount to so much razzle-dazzle or camouflage. How else could the borderline scientists conceive of something like the Philadelphia Experiment and yet it not contain even in imagination the complete awakening of some solid truth?

If the transfer of mass between stars or black holes in their consumption of momentum or evaporation's and so on can be explained as magnetism (for the scientist say there is nothing else it can be, all that is left)- well, the total theory would seem to me to be a cloaking of one great event- the universe itself.

* * *

A related status post on facebook today - given time to relax and take an overview of the relentless trials of our current realities:

L. Edgar Otto
I am slowly becoming aware of how much my behaviors and actions were influenced by the moods and stability of others if I admit it, something just outside my knowing my own limits. Anyone who cares for others is senitive and vulnerable to what together we share and care for. So too, regrets too late to learn that take a lifetime if one does not cloak events from some light once seen in time.

* * * *

Beyond Entanglement (Distar Mathematics)

Beyond Entanglement (Distar Mathematics)
L. Edgar Otto October 12, 2011

Let us start with this link in Lubos which seems to me relevant as an example of the philosophic foundations I was prepared to discuss today.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/10/majorana-tamburini-laveder-superluminal.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

Let us also see the discussion on the X and Y, the structural question I asked Lubos and his kind reply, and the idea of mesons XY in Pitkanen's post today. Rio Frio has an interesting attribute to Einstein, but as with all these questions at the foundations I look for possibilities in my concepts of Quasic Abstract Motion. The wheel is still in spin for so many theoreticians- all I offer here is a pointing out of those stereonomic concepts that would explain or justify some of their assumptions as applied to physics. Other bloggers who go back to the drawing board of the foundations have been a catalyst for my shoring up of these applications of axioms where they can be thought intelligibly applied, in the deep language of physics or the metalanguage of our inner voices of thought and dialog.

1. An entity can be at a distance from itself. (quantum things may be in more than one place at once.)

2. In a background of raw and indefinite space an entity may be duplicated to many numbers, within the same abstract volume or in hierarchies, or linearly to the totality of that volume (so to may reduce back to one entity) but in an intelligible manner where it reflects the laws and physicality of the universe in general and quasic universe in particular.

2. Nothing can stay for long at rest relative to the next higher direction of dimension where it is in (diagonal) motion in that dimension. Nor where there is an abstract diagonal motion in a given dimension can things move without encountering resistance to said motion to the logical finite scope of the given dimension.

(Lubos metaphor applies here that the neutrinos feel the rock- of course I read this trend of thought and post after I thought about these foundational things again but these may in a sense describe what mass can be- in any case in viewing my early poems SphereBook, the idea of neutrinos contributing to earthquakes was in a poem that does not seem as speculative for someone in high school physics when the same form of these questions could actually have such consequences in obscure theory- maybe it is obvious when we actually try to apply the aspects of what happens with the elements (higher) in supernovas or as we learn more about our sun and climate.)

4. An abstract diagonal (orthogonal field) quasic motion is in a sense the idea of directionality to so interpret, that is a vector like concept that can be independent of the distance or one dimensional component so reduced. But across the hierarchy of dimensions, involving things like irrational numbers and even the powers as dimensions in an informational binary manner, in one direction we can have endless spirals of fractal like objects, but in the other direction there is a limit to the parts of the design that can continue the pattern.

5. A sequence (philosophy encoding) I represent as a series of all 1's or 0's or combination's taken far enough to express the concept as a working symbol for now and these are drawn through with a line. It is here that we see in a quasic grounding that there are degrees between locality and non-locality as well as these extremes to which we have to keep in mind the more abstract structural directionality. In a sense the generational (inherently quasic in the span or depth of such stereonomy as structures) as well as the dimensionality of entities is that which we can interpret as some form of mass or other intelligibly distinguished continuous or discrete creative entities.

6. From a psychological stance in the impartial presentation of a code, say that of random patterns of set symbols forming words, or the nature of human languages in origins and design as a tool for thought and communication- the question from a quasic view is what we feel we are and what we have internalized as our own and what is thus unique to the constellation of experience of the individual as unique or what is just the intelligible background of the universe resonating with the mechanisms and laws of the mind. Thus when we make a breakthrough it can just as well break us as redefine for awhile some disconnect with our sense of self or routine- this can be a decoherence, can be ignored, or can actually indicate rare moments of being changed by our insights before transcendence. The language someone can use, on drugs or not to control a sort of rest in routine or behavior or what is to be expected as the unfolding of time or events and states of health can get very complicated in its ignoring or evasion of what may socially seem sound when such people are lost in their own motions as if a fixed quantity of intellect. Sanity in the end is when one can distinguish the reality of such people as well as what in our evolved dialog within ourselves, and learned so as our ego time goes by.

8- Let us recall in quasic abstract motion notation a rest is a change of none of 2 to the nth coordinates while a diagonal motion is a change of all of them. Depending on our idea or dyslexia of the directionality involved we can interpret these as Clifford like or p-adic like concepts of numbers. So it should not be a surprise in this abstract concept of at a distance or continuous as contiguity of mass even as if at a distance (that is no distance or all seen in a total space to some logical extent as mass or mass by default of no defined motion or other dimensions- that the posters see the idea of superluminal neutrinos as in a sense linear (beyond the complex number concepts even) or that in such recursive or resonances of particle spaces we find the statistical mixing of said properties of the particles involved- and yes a sort of vibration possible to balance and make things in the main directional and intelligible again.




* * *

As we can find generational directional minimums for the density of matter that implies that influence of structural matter not seen (and this as with all extended ideas somewhere between the local and non-local proximity where we may conclude that there is an implied influence such as the sensing of such fields or maybe just the logic of it- for again distance even in one dimension is a deeper concept than just that between to points (or as the Greeks counted between two one dimensional zero points) we can find implied concrete or light matter as if creatively from the observation of it as if in the opaque background. Assumptions about what seems constant on one dimensional level may from some perspective be said to vary or change but not in the usual sense of cosmic acceleration which also depends on how we view the limits of this generalization of dimension and dimensionless ratios.

Thus, again, an intelligible quasic concept of the relation between distances, and those values in a given natural dimension such as the square root of two or phi for the best integral shadow or fit of a projection, is a useful relation between entities insofar as information goes where a distance is ambiguous as if it is a class concept. Recall, Cantor did not succeed in defining dimensions.

Now, there is an article on newscientist I cannot read without subscription that may relate to this- but it could be that we finally take a little more seriously some of the ways we might organize the observations with new theory. Note also the delightful article that we may be descended from a sixth sense- fish with the electric field- now consider to what extent there may be still another, that is as we sense in proximity or distance concrete material objects (thus distar) which may not be quite as occultist or mystical our intuitions of some claimed properties such as the containment of event memories imprinted on the rocks and the like. Now, if some object can so relate in this relational dialectics why not our ability to organize such perceptions- and why not in a general world where all such perceptions are possible there are natural intelligible limits where the expansions or accelerations of moving objects or fixed of intelligible ratios do form a more general hierarchy of quasi-step wise differences which may be an implied constant?

In this sense, what is possible if this is a ground of communications between people or cells or what have you in the kinds of vacua of creative spaces then we can know that what can be so viewed or not as to the unique privacy of mental states of others have solid ground for shielding and limitations from any remote viewing which makes for a mastery at least in an intelligible structure of thought and organism of the front line of defense against access and invasion, a uniqueness as survival in both the ideas of space and time- or what may in fact be analogous opaque equivalents.

* * *

The Grand Unified Old Opera

The Grand Unified Old Opera L. Edgar Otto October 11, 2011

I do not have much to say today on physics. Just watched some of the games. The Texas Rangers grand slam at overtime, and the Cubs vs Lions (5-0 like the Packers). I was late to the last Packers game and they were behind when I came in to watch it at the Mousetrap but I did not play music at the open mic that night.

So, I just checked posts and comments and mail- damn, son mugged again a second time this year in Chicago and I may have to visit there or have him move here.

* * *



The PeSla (L. Edgar Otto) commented on Can Neutrinos be Superluminal? Ask OPERA!.

in response to a comment by Philip Gibbs:

http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/#comments



http://www.vixra.org/abs/1103.0087

Fernando,

I will look forward to your paper.

This reminds me of the conclusion of Fred Hoyle’s book on the Quasars after the so called big bang evidence. That perhaps the world does not start with a big bang but many little bangs.

One idea for me is that of micro-time travel – what this amounts to is that such invariance or uniformity of universal laws is not as radically superluminal but some degree of this, perhaps a generalization of symmetry where in a sense the same Lorentz invariance occurs with a hierarchy of values if we can distinguish the inside from outside of things within finite considerations. That is to say that Einstein is not abandoned in principle just applied a little more comprehensively. Nor can we say quantum theories are likewise abandoned.

How might this relate to some beginning where theoreticians have postulated some left over mini-black holes? What is left when all such entities evaporate if not some unlimited acceleration?

And more to the point as it begins to dawn on us there are other ways to see and unify the physics- can there be micro-warp bubbles in the micro-warp bubbles and so on?

Sorry, I am not familiar with any of the names you mentioned.

The PeSla

* * *

Ahh, this paper up already in the PDF. An impressive work and use of the formulas. I am not that comfortable with the ideas of negative energy but I take it to be a way of looking at things (not to say there are only zero or positive values involved but certainly this is the usual problem of generalizing zero as we have our notions of infinity.)

The powers involved could be seen as pure dimension numbers including the all important squaring of something as a dimension- or the reduction from binary powers of c in the computations- that informational idea. 28 or 48 dimensions in the grand unified old opry of things- and 200- perhaps as in the generational idea we here consider the second generation of things- the muon to the electron as perhaps between such generations (of neutrinos) these sort of relativity concepts apply as well ideas of the Casmir (thus dark entities), still much the Peter Rowlands ideas of metaphysics of what is and what is not distinguished as Muons... To this we of course have to add some idea of tachyon or time principles as a general idea of the flow of time or of time of dimensionless direction in the macro world (tauons?) as well any such concepts at the ground of locality, that is at zero, of the micro-world. The other quadrants of the Cartesian system may make good sense to apply after all, as well some idea on some level of the alternation of things that vibrate into an idea of negative space. But this requires a better understanding of absolutes and the foundations of mathematics.

Ate Logo Fernado, keep up the enquiry :-)

* * *

There was a reply from Fernando. I am not sure just how the on line publications work or stand. I do recall that some have speculated in the folding of space to achieve faster than light flight from some popular magazines a while ago. Still, in the general scope of his formulas with what principles I have thought worthwhile in the "new physics" I find a lot of can have things I see as solid grounding for the general concepts of space and dimensions. The question remains for me one of if we use more of the relativistic concepts we tend to overemphasize the continuous groups while the finite ones, and indeed the problems involving descriptions of singularities, are in a sense unexplored. I do not know how well this series of what seems very standard formulas is to be received- but from my graphic views and the idea of measure in condensed or unfolded dimensions these general patterns make sense.

For those who have followed some of these concepts the distinction between the 6x6 where it repeats in possible symmetries certainly applies where in the 8x8 it would be obscured. These are not very advanced graphics so are closer to the general logic of drawing. But I cannot say I could evaluate this work as do professionals - indeed I did not know my explorations involved M theory. But something like seeing dark matter as neutrino condensates does seem conceptually right to me or at least as good a description as any other, for example. What shows that any device based on these ideas would be workable or not? Let us not forget also that it is not just the idea of whole numbers or fractions involved but a sort of operation such as addition that involves pure numbers like pi. Now where do these meet?

I certainly would expect that any new physics breakthrough would come with new ways to use the old mathematics or even new mathematics if one can say there is what to our human enterprise does solidly seem original- or at least competent.

I stood once and got a photo at the old Grand Old Opry building in Nashville, but of course no one was there. There was a time when from Mexico the radio could reach so many with the songs of the sunny side Carter Family - but note, for popular music they did have training in classical music. Copyrights were really just a matter of accounting. But such raw first arts certainly lead to new forms of the music - and perhaps the romance of fully developed and superior forms grow stale.

We sugar coat many things but so do the proteins with what was formerly toxic. So we say that from some view even a fruit diet is toxic to us. How does anyone know what to feed or teach their children? Oddly, today on the science magazines there is an article that states such sugar gave us an evolutionary leap for it also enhances our resistance to invaders and helps the immunity in survival. So too, those who wonder at what is happening in the synapses or in the space that surrounds them.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111010173015.htm

We build our coils of life upon a sweet backbone- and I have only begun to encounter so many creative people out there in the internet of all that have some part to play for the general picture. We have yet to harness intelligibly such wisdom which for all I know is not a renewable resource.

* * * *

The Inelegant Matrix Theorem

Alright, Ulla, referring to a comment I made to you a few posts back, that I would look again at your general question of matrices. I guess, if I let you into my head on some issue it most likely has some synchronous value- yet I saw the answer vaguely before I read deeply your posted comment.

The Inelegant Matrix Theorem-

The influences of things squared is all important for our theories of physics- and of those the square matrix stands out as that of stability or instability. We can of course work within a matrix and so apply the concepts of prime numbers. We can strive to place on such arrays some general expression as an elegant directionality or asymmetry to describe some physical situation.

Or we can see that in trying to impose a balance or a general elegance on the spaces and processes the matrices describe that it is the very inelegance that hints we can impose general theories of groups and symmetry. One might say it is the origin of where these symmetries tend in the search for elegance in multi-dimensional theories.
In a way then, the question as to randomness, is one of how in such matrix spaces we can regard them as unique and prime or as predictable so containing prime laws and interactions. As such we find what arithmetical and topological laws there are as intelligible as relevant to our experience and theory of the universe.

In a sense this justifies the general methods I understand as TGD or p-adic grounding of numbers (where even if a number is but a symbol that represents a class of things containing much information and little specific meaning, a theory tends to have an intelligible unity on some level, a reference to changes or deviations from such unity.

To start with the change from 25 to 37 if numbers are arranged inelegantly into a square array is one that for me kicks in the initiator and terminators of that level of symmetry laws that applies to DNA as we know it. But this depends on what seems a lack of finding ways to understand the primes as if their pattern were totally random or of independent units when they apply at some certain threshold. There are other ideas involved such as Pitkanen's use of such numbers (that too not clearly relating to what may be the differences in 4 or 5 space formulations or where on the linear level these are limited by some elegant idea- certainly the lack of combining the arithmetical and the topological inhibit our balancing of theoretical elegance.

Yet nothing ultimately shows the universe and not on some level forever inelegant, so far. So we have long standing unsolved questions on what are the primes that strives to solve things by long standing limits to what we know of groups and dimensions. In my notation above ::: could be a ratio where we are obsessed with six space as an emphasis. But how many ways must we enfold the idea of 6n + or - 1 and try to fit it into such a hint of a pattern? Not to say these ideas are not part of the general picture as good as any if the preferred one- albeit one of insufficient generalization.

Perhaps the reason I suspect this as a correct reply to you and an answer is that I have considered in quasic graphs the ratios and labels across the diagonal, more of a logic concept, perpendicular to the main diagonal as also theoretically significant for the physical world. But can the reflections across all limited groups that apply completely describe an elegant theory or would certain numbers be left in a symmetrical pattern, perhaps holes of the composite variety?

In which case the idea of entropy as randomness, or as part of some irrational number convergence or divergences may be grounded in such a general concept of primes as things balance and evolve and certainly can be interpreted as wave probabilities which is one of the essential philosophic views anyway. But can such views, especially if we have dark spectra of uncertain continuity of which no one seems to try to reconcile in the measure reconcile the wave description and the matrix description of traditional quantum theory shown equivalent, that is elegantly?



Sorry, my thoughts on this by the river were not as complex in the wording but it is the best I can do now to simplify it a little. I know 89 is important but it is not directly inelegant- so can it apply to a higher form of space or knots?

* * * *
Oct. 10, 2011 Dimensionless Structural Topology and Perceptions

I gaze into the river from the veteran's memorial bridge. The sunlight makes the spiraling eddies and the vortexes stand out above and below the water level. It is hard to tell at first which swirls are above or below the mirror of the river's surface. The muddy tornadoes spin as well those above the water level for the most part clockwise. A few seem to spin the other way. I pick one and try to make it spin the other way- and I did this a few times. Yet, who knows if it were just my imagination or some trick of perception.

There are dimensionless constants as numbers- and there are dimensionless constants as well topological spaces of the visible and invisible ratios. Pinker says we have evolved to see in two and a half dimensions, and can mentally orient things in three. In imagining higher ones I think we can orient them mentally to very high dimensions. Yet, what then of the viriality, the halving and doubling of things. For, in the inversions where mirrors complete the symmetries we only see half the next and forward dimension and part of the next particle generation. Thus if we imagine (and these simple concepts being on some frontier of cognition, Matti P. does make one feel the explanation is too simple or pat- as I too said once of some earlier insights- too good to be true.) So, we have the inversion of 2/9 which will express the 4.5 of nine dimensions. Thus we find these unities, scaleless, and projected and recursive pure numbers as part of a seemingly neutral picture that gives us the other whole values if we seek them in the measure of the particles on the other side of mirrors and statistical natures. This is too not weird not to be true and very simple awaiting the relations to pi and so on as part of the coordinates added or multiplied across mirrors. But that is all I have for now- some seen by other as for example the falling out of the number 163 (actually 162) in the mix. Note also the raw numerology of those spaces left in the 3+1 (that is 192) formalism as values of 28 across the 4 quadrants- or as values of 9. And in some ways we exclude the 36 of the real representations in three space of the Conway Matrix of Mahloon color cubes.
But to compute these things on this side of the mirror and change them physically (see the Kea post today on orbitals), to turn the spirals around anti-clockwise in the flesh- that is as hard as to have the insight to see into the depths of the river and keep clear what is real and what is illusion.

* * * *

Beyond Thirst in Scripts of Blood Sung in the Wilderness L. Edgar Otto Oct.10,2011

When, after a long climb to the highest mountain and
descent into the lowest valley- the same place, some Beatrice,
Some cosmology in the crawling or moments of
your pony express outrunning the masked outlaws
No matter how mundane the message you deliver,
that your found yourself whole again?

Or wondered if the mollusk shelled creature with
one life and no other was really you and not delusion?
Gods and parasites perhaps to blame for your confusion
wounded slave not at fault you remained so and
Forever the fool your fancy to transcend ruthlessness
in courage to walk away as much to stand and fight.

The universe as well the hungry know not what they do
Seemed so indifferent before we knew better...

* * * *

Lubos on the Higgs particles (4 becomes 3!) an interesting theory:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/10/who-ate-higgs.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29



* *

Lubos,

Where do the X and Y particles fit in to this?

The PeSla
Yesterday, 3:01:20 PM

Dear Pesla, if you mean X and Y bosons from grand unified theories,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_and_Y_bosons

then they are totally analogous to the W and Z bosons, including the spin. They are just associated with a larger symmetry - one that also transforms quarks to leptons and vice versa. But they have the same spin, they're massive (much more massive than W,Z bosons, if they exist at all), and their being massive means that they have eaten a component of the Higgs field (although it is often - but not always - a non-elementary field in the grand unified theories, or a stringy one).

* * *

Dark Fluid Concepts as Quasicity

Dark Fluid Concepts as Quasicity
L. Edgar Otto October 9, 2011

I was going to post today, more from a science than science speculation, a series of sayings Ratio, Labels, and Lampions but after some rather insightful and easily recalled dreams of last night these philosophic concerns, and the flight into the fancy of the sci-fi (one by the way is not the theme of Queen's Knight to Kings Bishop Three save in part of the mechanisms in the background.

I. Since the dawn of the second philosophy, so called science, the pendulum has swung between objections to the ghosts of departed quantities and the quantities of departed ghosts.

So too, our settling in theory for some answer or wish fulfilled that theory has found a way out. (of course out to and from where is still a vague issue. In any case the world seems polarized where when some things are understood, politically, there can be no meeting of minds or true compromises- evidently.)

II. There can be one unique, so uniform laws of prime numbers as a structure and ground for space, but there can be many spaces in this structure that interact. (This I suspect after writing it last night to reacquaint myself with calligraphy, this lampion may have been the origin of the dreams.)

By Dark Fluid I mean the general concepts, what I have termed the idea of opaque energy or matter in all its speculative forms. In the assertion that this is the same philosophic description of quasicity I understand that the issue is one of the problem of duality, modernity via Descartes in a sense and I offer a new grounding view. Of course dark fluid is technically the presumption of the relationship of dark energy and matter as if some sort of reductionism of ghosts or physicality.

I note that Lubos today asks what looks to me like a similar question on the F4 group for string theory with the usual Coxeter diagrams- as with many it seems they are becoming more open to new ways of viewing the background for fundamental physics and in ways that when put under scrutiny are not in disagreement as to foundations of physicality. But as Peter Rowlands states- it is not the groups but the physics that is the goal of the enquiry- otherwise physics is empty and only as good as we reflect on the implications of the groups.

So, I see first that to imagine a string needs a physical abstract dimension further in order to be able to "vibrate" is merely an assumption of physical or material reductionism. We can have faerie chess without vague theories of faerie fields or particles, waves and so on- but it has to be played intelligibly and logically. That is there seems to me an alternative to this need for such added dimensions- and it clearly, information-wise, could be encoded in the reduction of dimensions into things like the intelligible matrix relations of the diagonals as if lesser dimensions. The alternative to this is the equivalence of the quasic space which amounts to asking (and as a theory where the idea of broken symmetry is intrinsic to the relations of such space and not necessarily external) is the degree of contiguity between particles or spaces that varies where of course both extremes can be seen as part of the description of the general picture.

a:b::c:d :::: e:f::g:h :. ::. ::: in relation to how we emphasize some aspect of a covering group and its uniqueness as language or metalanguage- along the lines of Principia and Godel. Something along these lines descriptively involving some new ideas of ratios and the abstract mirrors including where we could adjust the logic of such dots and add the idea of a fluidity or flow when we balance logarithmic expansions and asymmetry. But this sort of thing, including the justification and computation of mixing states of particles in the mix may ground the current methods of the mathematics as applicable to the physics much like any ground we regard as prime space and unique and logical. But this and other such notations are as I said still vague descriptions to which if some of you have the general concept you could indeed make progress in the actual development of such new theories.

BTW the more I watch the sit com "The Big Bang" I find it hardly funny and may actually do damage to the role of theoretical physics... and how we should view those who work in the human enterprise of science. I am wondering in fact what is the appeal and what sort of mentality in general would relate to this show in the more limited climate of knowledge in the world today.

Let me add that with the new era of study of the sun we may expect in general a wider view of science of the stars and a more realistic understanding of things now merely political like global warming issues. But I am not sure our general politics can influence on a deep level in the final analysis how we awaken to the truths of science.

Now, (despite many interruptions in the coffee shop so as to think about and recover aspects of the science in the morning's dream- one I was quite surprised to be in that state of mind again)... I choose the sculpture from the Eau Claire Children's theater I came across this morning- it has colors by the children in the form of triangles and represents to me those ideas along the lines of twistor theory which start from considerations of such connections on the micro scale (and we know the flow of such things up or down work together to make sense of the cosmos)- yet it is involved intimately with chirality (handedness) at least on the surface of things. Thus in an abstract sense Penrose et al do indeed have intelligible methods and explanations that work as well as any other in the description of gravity. I am not trying to replace such theories as well as the others but enhance their foundations- between quantum gravity and special relativity is the Newtonian we all first learn.
So, it is hard not to separate the ideas of knots from the mix but that in the end is but another way to view things against a more general background.

A string without its added vibrational dimensions as a very poor relation to the basic idea of mass, of physicality- but it does not need one in a world where we can describe more fundamental but less reductionist entities if we understand the nature of such quasic space, that of condensing or compacting of surfaces, holographic-ally distinct or not. This new insight amounts to a further generalization of the ways things connect locally and globally in the real world of space and time and the seeming quasic abstract distances between them as a quasi-quasic principle with some reasonable developmental necessity- and of course where the transfinites supply the expanded spaces that can be seen just as well to permit string vibrations or suggest it before the dawning of a more general brane theory- I imagine the plotting of prime numbers (of course in binary if that can clearly mean anything distinct without the loss of some general philosophy code information- as a shifting of the quasic grid coordinates in a prime space- one where it is clear that in the number theory we do know that we can derive all the senses of viriality- the halving and doubling of some things. But what an abstract idea for real and imaginary things in our yet distinct manifolds (appealing to whatever religious analogs or not or whatever grounding in faith for it all as a shared stance to lattices) on which we find the physics to substantially react.

* * *

http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2011/10/world-as-hologram.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fvbhn+%28Dialogos+of+Eide%29

But clearly, if we can roll space up into spirals like wormholes so to form our Plato like concept of the cave- we can also paint on the walls then discuss what is on the inside or outside and what is the meaning of the language and symbols our touching with dreams and dust conveys.

* * *

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/10/does-witten-prefer-knots-over-strings.html

Matti,

Of course it is said that linear knots only exist in three space- not the same thing as you said. Yet why could it not be from some view? In any case, if this is somehow the concept of memory, as if it is a physical thing like the idea of matter as knots in space. In the TGD model is there anything in the idea of memory as unique that can exist outside a specific organism or do these tubes vanish and the memory so vanishes?

Leo, your model does not seem deep enough for me as it seems to be must making linear knots borrowing this same question about strings- after all knots can be classified as having one sided topology and they can fall apart if pulled tightly into their kinks.

Matti thanks for you detailed reply to one of my earlier questions, the links you list do seem to me just to be an outline or record of your discoveries.

The Pe Sla

* * *

http://plus.maths.org/content/ This I clicked on in facebook and has some interesting social and popular articles of our concerns...

http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematics-and-nature-reality

I especially like this link as it begins to consider some of my color combinatorial issues as a method- and the deep look into our biology as a key to new physics:
http://plus.maths.org/content/biologys-next-microscope-mathematics-new-physics

Still, I wonder if we ever will inspire a generation as in the space and atomic age again...

* * * *