The Chiral Theorem

Wed. April 21, 2010

The Chiral Theorem


Not much on my mind today save a vague plan to map some chiral coordinates and wondering about the Conway idea of abstraction R and L and 0 and 1 as a sort of surreal calculus (where the square root of two is a rational number?) I guess I only had a vague idea of what such calculus was but it is sort of a philosophy. But in those terms and reading last night on this in Rowlands it is clear to me that my quasic system meets all the demands of nilpotent system ideas intuitively assumed and developed, and even further developed than the nil, or double naught counting. I am amazed the weak force ideas would be taken at the state they are in now and directly applied to gene chemistry by some authors. I still am thinking a out the circle and line thing in all aspects- including the deeper sense I feel I have for chiral ideas than what I see said about them.
* * *

Later today: It turns out I do have an original thought today about aspects of what I called a decade ago The Chiral Theorem. I had not thought about it since then but sometimes, as my work is decidedly finite compared with the standard terminology of Lie groups (and the usual terms of quantum mechanics and so on). As such one does not always see what is so intimate that underlies a concept so familiar to ones own system. I imagined the chiral theorem as really that aspect of math or physics intuitively that was there as a fundamental principle which would better explain the evolution of galaxies.

What I have called inversion say through the center of a solid cube in effect can be seen more simply than I imagined of the more general case. Given t xyz the xy and z are all made negative, if only the x is that is the simple geometric idea of parity. If we apply this then clearly it relates to the foundational ideas applied other places like the vectors out of a sphere in all directions where some of the modern authors use this to derive holographic and conservation interpretations of the underlying space. In a sense then the chiral question seems a deeper foundation than where it is applied and extended especially as a measure of mass and so on. Is it after all a driving force in life- and can we say clearly just how similiar or identical the Casmir force is to the Vanderalls force and yes the idea of some sort of mirror supersymmetry and dark matter concepts and so on.

In a way, as strange and beautiful as the bra ket quantum formalism is it reads to me as a mere descriptive symbology rather than say something to compute within itself. So I can imagine that inside the bra and ket being the input and output of things where again this idea of a biased weak force violation of C P is thought a dynamic thing for life force rather than a casual result of the models of math and the consequent spaces. Quantum is not enough, between the bra ket we may find other input and outputs as a description, as linear as this seems and as collapsed in relation to some space it certainly would expand our description of what are the levels of processes in an organic system. The chiral theorem asserts then that it is a primary principle and physical principle that organizes the geometry and physics and will intimately correspond to the math, algebras involved. Things like the string theories are also a product of this, the math and physics a product of the more fundamental reality. It also has the ability to limit and extend things beyond the raw information contained in handedness and the binary symbols in not just a casual sequencing without an organizing purpose and principle. But I should map some of the examples, perhaps using the results of genetics (for example in newscientist today the relation of the sense of smell (aromatics) and lifespan in some animals may be more significant than what I got out of the article.

In the accompanying illustration I have the six dimensional structure and the 32 tetracubes- we desire to double them in some mirror situations but we can oversimplify the idea of chirality by regarding two of them as the same where we may not distinguish the handedness- not to mention the relation of chirality to the various ways of seeing the dimensionality.

In my old manuscript I used the old pi symbol for chirality- which is interesting in Rowlands treatment of the e and pi which once used the mirrors of those symbols.
* * *
Still a little later today while waiting for a ride to the grocery store: I begin to think about what I had in mind in mapping some extended chiral strucures as having to work within my own quasic system awhile, and looking as some rather basic and possibly trivial principles.

Developed further in my philosophychatforum days was the principle I called the Fundamental Theorem, which states that things change and things do not on the most basic level. It is as if to say, seemingly illogically, one of the most early of my enigmatic musings that all things have an opposite and all things do not. 1960.

But our modern forms are really an elaboration on such abstract principles and we should keep that in mind on the back burner of concrete seeking speculations.

The fundamental theorems in math are appealed to and most certainly at some point should be questioned and reconsidered. For one thing what goes through or into a boundary may not necessarily be what comes out- no zero sum. To say chirality is balanced with anti particles or extending the scope of symmetry may tell us little decisively concrete about the physics of it all. Mathematics and its analogies are of the nature that small errors may be guaranteed to affect the whole edifice of the complexity. In fact consider amplification from small regions based on the imaginary numbers or of small chaoscience (for chaos as kaos I will distinguish the ideas in spelling, not the assumed more modern meaning)changes leading to great ones and maybe at a distance and maybe what is not there influence thru no distance our eventual result of choices.

So as overly simple as this may be let us consider this- the handedness may be at a higher level of the discernibly of that indiscernible. I can image being in a higher space of some sorts where I have to distinguish six hands of distinct and equivalent symmetry. Now there is nothing wrong with the idea of what comes in or goes out being a zero sum but this idea of a boundary could be everywhere throughout the continuous space and it may be wrong to only see it as a localized phenomenon or one that by this principle extends it to the bounds of the entirety of the universe. It is equivalent to the idea that we can imagine a space where every point in it is everywhere a singularity.

So, let us make a positive finite quasic distinction that may apply to those motion functions described from a cell in that space in all directions of a square or from say the bounded corner of a square. We could say there are the motions of a queen and a knight that either way make the difference of particles- we can even say that without a true zero or axis as if zero that what intuitively seems the case in more than just an Euclidean space the zero is not in that space but at distance from it and thus we have the irregularity of placement of points in the complex plane. We do indeed have to return to consolidate the wisdom of earilier geometries and not be so bewitched by the new and more complicated ones and the philosophy of science and arrogance of the "obsolete" the new ideas or change of ideas fundamentally inspires. We can imagine the unity of the knight moves as designated imaginary. In no case do we overwork the distinction of the use of e translated into trigonometry.

Our most general spaces, Hilbert, Phase, Configuration, Fourier Analysis, Lorentz, quaternions and so on are not comprehensive enough for intelligible unification of physics.

We can imagine the space of a quasic grid ascending or descending on any level to some order of dimensionality and we can follow the sequence thru a cell at a point or between cells in the quasic ordering. (we might also have intuitions that we can shift between such spaces or even between systems of such spaces or even entire systems in systems as some near or singular point of such spaces an so on into them. So the quasic space of some level grid as Q nay in a distant null point meet say R S T or four equivalent or different ones in a greater plane and we may also if we want make complex space mirrors of these.

But the null distant points can be thought of as everywhere, and a quasic cell needs not be seen as a point but as a possible minimum or maximum of a grid state and may actually be so perhaps or some quasi-continuous place in between.

But I have to get back to the hand computations again, that hard work which only the reward is that in the end numbers fit together- but there is no guarantee that the use of the time and effort results immediately or ever, especially if we are starting from such trivial points of departure.

While many suggest the observed non-conservation of fermions in the weak force is the drive of say organic things with the creation of its own gaps of vacuum and how the basic numbers also partake of the fundamental paradoxical theorem, we have to have a wider overview which may have clear micro steps of computation beyond just casual principles that work. The observed exceptions are really the rule and not just a casual statement of the rule based thus on very rare evidence.

* * *
And about 8:30 pm - from the corner thing as partial radial symmetry of a quasic motion we can do a sort of differentiation by subtraction which results in the difference of say 1 + 1 to the nth and the orthogonal 1 + 2 to the nth. In a metaphorical sense a "field theory" is the difference of local and nonlocal quasic motions. A cubic structure for example breaks down into 8 1+1 functions and 5 1+2 functions which also makes from a flat space a spherical space- in a sense then at the very heart of enumerable finite structures we have the first idea of symmetry breaking as a general and not just cosmic dimensionality phenomenon which does indeed relate to decoherence quasinonlocally and treats the realizable energy in terms of information and fundamental zero sum boundaries as if the realization of the limits in the universe of discourse in question of the Carnot engine, quantum or otherwise. Next we think about this as the magnetic and electric differences in the interpretation of the usual Maxwell like formulas and that of the relative or absolute nature of mass and space. Now to actually map the various natural dimensional (time like) distinguished senses of chiral jumps information notated. In a higher level sense most students have to understand things like heat and energy on its first conception as a poetic (hmmmm what is the origin of that word?) metaphor.

* * *

Algebraic Nuclear Physics

Algebraic Nuclear Physics L. Edgar Otto Earth Day April 20, 2010

The inspiration for this general idea posted today from some years back and from an evolutionary perspective, was the concept that plants develop flowers and other observations of design in nature. The egg in general for birds and reptiles; things with yokes; and mammal's that keep their young within while gestation. Of course the nucleus of a cell itself. This general shape I styled Odo or Odocell which because it has come to be generally known from Startrek as the shape shifter a more physics treatment would be hard to sort out from references on the internet. Of course stars and planets have onion like cores and our models of an atom are long known to have a nucleus.

From and algebraic sense of group theories and combinatorial considerations, the description of an atomic nucleus proposed here is a throw back to the nucleon as having a parton structure rather than just a quark formalism. The organic cell nucleus and the expression of the genome also in part represent a combinatorial throw back to say the inherent five fold ennumeration of codons in Gammow's speculation which in a sense is a dual or inverse of today's model and is more of an applied geometric- albeit abstract- and even non-linear morphogenesis like field.

Why are there nuclei in the first place and why in "four dimensional" matter can we imagine in three space, see it as nature seems to, a volume centered tesseract cube within a cube?

My intuition was the limit of atomic number Z=120 elements for the electron configuration and thus for the nucleus there should be the 600 cell polytope dual involved some way with the isotopes as part of this "Great Grand" symmetry (to use Conway's terminology). Such enumeration I feel goes a long way to explain what mass as such is- certainly Rowlands identification of it with charge seems correct.

Clearly the spinor-tensor matrix notations do describe some of the generation question especially the shifting between them of particles. When we consider the electromagnetic only, the comprehensive group is eight dimensional, octonians. But for the nucleus we need the tripling of this into the 24 dimensions (that is the 24 cell of group 1152) for the nine natural dimensions of which we see only three, virtually and logically, all present with motion rules of degrees of freedom. We could develop an algebra of greater symmetry not to be confused with lesser "super" symmetries, based on the roots of zero or one with a little wider and unexpected generalization.

If 240 + 8 (time-like dimensions) is the group involved maximally and as quaternion then there is more than the 480 ways to describe string theories involved. Another 120 will equal the 600 and even here five foldness can be extended 5! to 6! .

There can follow interpretative analogs to the physicality suggested by quantum quaternion physics - each generation of its own "filled vacuum" may be reduced to a privileged three sphere with its symmetry and conservation laws. This is also true of the expression and reading of arbitrarily privileged organic structures in the gene code when life reaches the inevitable threshold and dialectics of information handling in such spaces that more than simple physical properties may decohere and yet globally emerge.

Clearly the idea on such levels of symmetry breaking is a little more complicated than currently envisioned and when we consider that duality of projection between lines and circles, chirality in general, more is going on than meets the eye. Also, beyond four dimensions in an integrated intelligible universe we might imagine natural dimensional structures not so restricted nor irregular in the design nor as isolated real or virtual thermodynamically as our several systems and mathematics applied prove in their systems the case. The role of stars and black holes as the source or sink of things and beyond that relationship are parallel ideas that drive the entropy and creation of the universe extensive with its laws of physics.

* * *


Last night outside looking at the city lights like stars I thought of the theme of the above post- here I would place W's picture of Chicago if I had the permission but it more or less put the tall buildings (I saw when there last month) in a globe that reminded me of an event horizon with part of the picture outside of that. I also came close to a good poem based on it and these physics thoughts called City Light Event Horizons:

City Light Event Horizon

That same old paradox
why the starlight is not blinding
as it fills the night, space contained

I gaze toward the city lights
a lone candle in the cabin's window
deep in the darksome forest, blind

Does it matter, so alien the fixed and moving
beacons, lampposts and constellations
solid or broken reflections on the wavy river?

The well lit empty hallways do not protect from crime
darkness and my curtains drawn more safe in sleep
the lights a solid wall, strangers to outsiders

We merged our darkness long before our light
Love paints the sky by the checky numbers, we chalk and color box.

* * *



While the inductive statistical approach is useful and part of the picture, and a beautiful picture it is the balance of forces in the standard model or the world held together against gravity by its electric forces and so on, in terms of the understanding of thermodynamics when certain experts claim they work a measure of ignorance perhaps their job is a measure of their ignorance of foundational physics as arrogance seems to assert and thus confirm by the claim against the wisdom of equals and others. This to some extent is true for how we see the dynamics of living things. Linford!

* * *

The Fog In the Blog

The Fog In the Blog L. Edgar Otto

Sometimes I feel strongly that all the big words and abbreviations of the shared language of the string theorists are so much philosophy and hardly any science at all. In fact it looks like an incomplete understanding or partly understood mathematics. I think the problem in this fog of speculation is one more of the way we set up, have evolved, and done our mathematics than problems with science or philosophy per se. The issue is same old issue of the ghost of departed quantities at the foundation of the calculus and the still open issue of zero and the idea of limits that from a general view can be also seen to resolve this open issue. Is math platonic or not?

The reference frame blog today has another foggy presentation in big words that is really not a clear and certainly not a breakthrough comprehension of these string issues. The things said will in the main be seen as cleaver but embarrassingly less than a clear headed philosophic or scientific intelligibility. I can see parts of these authors theories that assert things which do not match or are relevant to each other so do not need to match- or are downright contradictory.

One issue is the nature of space and of course the inverse square law or in general some attitude toward the quadratic and non-linear. Newton held that the square of the small quantities vanished! The Euler formula in the illustration was mentioned in Rowlands book as having the Diracian symmetry 3 + 1 formalism. Let us recall that this is a formula that combines the algebra and the geometry of things. The quaternions are on one hand an algebra while the same sort of holon reduction can be seen as a geometry. Clearly it takes two natural dimensions to invoke the ideas loved by algebraist of the imaginary (so called by Descartes) numbers. It is not so clear that this sort of information can be done by one or no dimensions nor that from one side or the other of the geometry algebra equation some authors get things or choose to get some things backwards.

Euler has been said to make mistakes but if one looks carefully it may turn out his was not the mistakes involved in deciding what is summed to zero or infinity or one or whatever, even a third when one has an overview of more advanced fundamental analysis.

Again, set theory verses the integer idea as given and not the work of mans imagination gone awry- if zero and all or infinity are interchanged via the ideas of the complex plane and projective geometry of Riemann then the irrational numbers being all, or the zero probability of integers for example, is not an absolute condition of some type hierarchy of dimensions,time, entropy or space. What then determines when and if things are nilpotent (does anyone begin to see the fog here?)

Again, one man's ghosts of departed quantities is another man's quantities of departed ghosts- in my metaphors I show the consequences of thinking and ask to what limit do you limit such thinking- quarks, space, the trinity, and so on?

Anyway it was a boring day for physics thinking yesterday for me and any great new ideas if sensed at all seem rather far away to start from scratch and do I want to begin such a journey again?

But the dream of last night was interesting- the old 136 and all that but also the 89 as it related to the Fibonacci numbers- being the 11th one (but significantly in the dream I read the 11 as a binary two in the sense 2 x 2= 4 and 11 x 11 = 121 and x2 +2xy + y2... This could have a germ of an idea.

I also wondered if we can have a unique sequence from a list- then again list or not and independent of numbers or not (how I wish the primes were clearer but they may not exactly be this side of the hologram)in the quasic ordering of things. And that is a new principle apparently none of the physicists have yet understood in the complete sense of it.

* * *

I did have a passing thought about what some thing it is all about with things like naked singularities in GR and other point discontinuities in QM as having the same resolution if we find a description of reality. But the string theory as much like the idea of a ring or event horizon does not really solve it by some sort of sanctification thus a cosmic censor that rather keeps things away from such singularities. The string particles are of necessity ideal Lines not tubes! And the zero at a point is not some sort of minimum vacuum energy that may eat the solar system in theory from the LHC but it highly improbable. In fact what happens when we go into the black hole like creative object where the values do not stretch out again as if there is no inside to make the stages of things like plasma and preon quark and neutron stars and so on overwhelming Pauli exclusion and this the whole presumably fermion creation black hole particle tachyonic process of creation as an explanation of astronomical evolution.

White holes and so on as some sort of higher space changes of sign- all the fog but cleaver fog- for me it is not just a quantum thing the structure inside such creative objects or quasions- the hologram idea is a consequence of quasics not a combination of dimensionality of lesser dimensions that determine the freedom or not of the greater dimensions or vice versa as a quantum object on one side or the other. Such an object is a quasic object and one that reaches for the abstract and subtle ideas of a quasizied space. And yes, perhps more- for in the end the algebra as a defrag in one than one way is a geometry as an integration in more than one way on either side.

But other than exceeding the topology of distance and the issues of acceleration seen or limited or not- is this not the same old gain or loss of information of the constants (including dimensionless ones?) when perhaps the rules and laws of that information the universe doing its code and laws by differentiation not just an empirical only addition or lost into some sort of quantum or even Casmir fog.

* * *



I have doubts about the string concept of compact dimensions based on just complex or natural topology. Even the so called holes in the Cab-yau surfaces can be not observable nor influential in string vibration nor need we such a foggy hypothesis to explain particle generations. Nor is the Clifford algebra structure primary in an infinite sense despite its finite counterparts of discreteness. All of this can be done simply and certainly beyond three or four dimensions with the quasic idea. Otherwise in a variegated universe of such string possibilities what are the particles quantumly the same or the generations over some extension uniform?

Sharing Scientific Wisdom

Sharing Scientific Wisdom

I received a reply from Professor Rowalands which makes a statement on science of which I am in very much agreement so I thought it fitting to post it here.
* * *

Dear Edgar



Of course, you should pursue your ideas wherever they take you and not be concerned what I or anyone else may think of them. I have been involved in business meetings in London most of this week and have not had much time to reflect about these matters. In the immediate future, I will be writing new papers and organizing a number of conferences – I have quite a bit of catch up to do in this area. I would stress that what I and my colleagues are doing is a programme based on fundamental abstract principles that lead to developments which can be expressed in largely mathematical form but whose sole justification is their correspondences with the real world. We are certainly not opposed to speculation, but regard it solely as a means to producing more rigorous conclusions, using the accepted principles of scientific method, which, in many cases, we believe we have achieved. There is a logical structure driving the work which is revealed both in Zero to Infinity and in the many detailed papers that we have written. People who read our work need to realise that it is written in that spirit, and that a great deal of it has been presented to our colleagues in scientific conferences and published in scientific journals. A great deal of it is compatible with orthodox thinking, and we are not particularly interested in attacking orthodoxy. I would urge people who want to understand the work in Zero to Infinity and related papers to pay close attention to the detail. It is really significant to the meaning.



Best wishes

Peter

* * *

I also noticed an article today in thereferenceframe blogspot about and astronomer in Chapel Hill which seems to me to reach similar conclusions to Rowlands foundational view as my own (although I am independently and outsider to such wisdom) but there are minor disagreements. Apparently we are all converging on the same overview and for me I did not think physics was that simple as to be based on geometry, dimensionality or what have you- thus, as an amateur I have come to realize that maybe after all my physics is as good and up to date and orthodox and any of it out there. But we all give lip service to the community of science for the world and the use of various media like the internet today to share wisdom for the betterment of the world and not for some question of power and control by some arbitrary agenda. Maybe what I am is an illusion as surely as the astronomer from Chapel Hill argues there is only two dimensions in our hologram- and yet my encounter with Rowlands gives me a feeling that I can hold my own with my heroes and giants- that as I told the service interview upon completion I planed to be a high energy physicists and they laughed at it- said I could not do that- so I said poet and they laughed then I said put down Hippie and finally he said I will put down you are going to school. Well I never went to school and I did not become a hippie but I have kept up the interest in physics and have written a lot of poetry. I also dearly love Chapel Hill and regard it as my home base.

I think Rowlands ideas on thermodynamics and holograms are closer to the facts. In particular from his reference footnotes the idea that due to the fine structure constants in relation to say 136 there can be what I call quasi-nonlocality. Now this is a difficult concept but does relate to the quantanglement issue and that of what we think about the overall picture of space. In general though, we can find a casual or unique sequence of concrete things but the math may not tell us of other solutions and this is true in many geometric forms. Now the Dirac formalism can apply also to models of types of grounding space and that we assume a type theory logically gives not concreteness fundamentally to such models applied. I could I suppose but I dont see how in the overall picture of a creative 3+1 universe.

The issue of dark matter is either an important one or it is not but an incomplete idea- for me it is as if we have another notation of say fractions and division to worry about needed much like we need to get around dividing things up like cooling with logs and exponents. We need also do use the notation and find better formulas for things like the double factorials for the group effects of powers of two in the sense of duality or viriality as Rowlands means them.

Then again all this could be a human element of boredom saturation with some thought or perception and the central idea of Desire. Desire can go up or down, uppers and downers to a good or bad hallucinogenic trip of the basic emotions as described by Spinoza to limitless Joy or Sorrow. We see by the mathematics of the infinite that the powers of two may in a sense exceed the continuum as a continuum while the continuum itself as if say a dimension less is not a strong foundation for a continuum with certainty.

I in my forum posting used terms like the idea of dark matter-energy, or what I called in some sense opaque matter or energy- and the logo of this blog is some idea or analog to dark fluid. It is as hard to reduce the idea of dark matter out of a need for the fundamental physics decisively as to neutralize the idea of consciousness as say the ground for quantum theory.

I would like to add that all three of us question the need for gravons- interestingly all our intelligibility could fail together should any be found- maybe there is some sort of quasi-nonlocality that shows such effects.

I thought my genetics ideas would be welcomed with grateful hands by the general community since my open policy was to share everything and that these ideas would be useful and important. Well, it is not my loss and philosophically perhaps there is enough time for us to solve other things before we explore the stars- nevertheless the stars I explored in my lifetime I would not be discouraged to reach for and wait.

L. Edgar Otto Eau Claire WI



Dirty Dancing
L.Edgar Otto


O, Sweet Universe !
I plucked you from the wall my flower
You let no one cut into our dance
I counted the starlight of our freckles
I submitted and led through your milky ways

The rolled over despite the missteps
The fact of bond and faith, the dress rehearsals
That I would not disturb the kiss and path of seeds
Alighting on chance wind and taking chances
We knew not how but were the authors of our dances

You slept in the teddy bear of clouds in your
Own world and wake I followed down your vague desires
I could not know your pathology of lies were the
Work of the lesser demon tempting me to
Risk my soul and all the god game's garden

My poems once all about you become about myself after all
You as we who doubt but will not give up Love's illusions
Want the what-if''s of more than meets our tattooed eyes
That or your mascara runs, your color grows cold, we old
You beside me made of clay and formaldehyde. I but echo ghost

Find in your cloud of dispersing ash and gritty inert sand our dance and
Desires begin, transcends again as I touch your freckles full of starlight

* * *

The Bridge to Heaven or Nowhere

The Bridge to Heaven or Nowhere

(Here forthcoming today will be a departure from the holistic reductionism of the underlying philosophy of physics presented by Peter Rowlands- this is a metaphysics of sorts or even a theological discussion of sorts. That author is not responsible for the thoughts on this post nor our disagreements if any)

* * *

One should take care to make the proper distinctions between what is dimensionality as well as what is the meaning of dimensions.

We could distinguish between the powerful idea of symmetry breaking as local and non-local in the neutral and mathematical method of octonian algebras as perhaps a primary ground for physics rather than just a way to find the physics of that ground.

Stereonometry in a sense is the product of physics and metaphysics(philosophy)in these ideas of generalization helpful or hindering in the holistic reductionism.

Philosophic creation (anihilation), and the relation to the group quasic grids as scientific or quantum like reasoning is a holofraction of fundamental parameters and the question of the micro or macro influence of entropy is still open.

I imagine things beyond these foundations of Reality as the logical dialectics and absolute views, even what defines a concrete or virtual sea of vacua, as a more general result of dimensions in relation to dimensionality.

In a sense this explains our epistemological reasons we make human metaphors or parables or analogies, multiverse in the small and large or not, for greater mysteries for example although not found in the Bible the idea of a trinity and yes the relation to three space (Is not a proton composed of three quarks? Is not the emanations from the tree of life in cabalism ten and eleven fold and Newtonian? Could we not say that the second person, or one of the quarks is relativistic?)as one of oeconomics, that is a godhead group like, a physics of sorts I call quabics.

But are such structures the stuff of reality itself or such as if holistically the philosophers God of nothingness who eventually loads the dice and walks away?

In a sense then the West Wind that led to the advancement of science tied up with the idea of liberty may surprisingly be verified as a better political system philosophically. But on further extension some of our seemingly outdated ideas, as Newton with his astrology, and Bible code prophesies, and working hypotheses of universal gravitation, he as Rowlands points out a holistic reductionist able in looking at foundations to see further than most thus know the limitations of his own theory, we may find a bridge to what can turn out a reality of some of our more religious ideas (yet not in our limited sense a formulation or charatication of what is God- He as a translation of Heaven cannot at this point be shown that such a reality is distant or something within or becoming the reality in our "space". This like what is useful in the nilpotent verses the idempotent foundations can be a higher level yet opaque or dark uncertainty of mirrors in a wider reality than we now know but suspect.

What sort of fundamental parameters would we add to the list which are as elemental as the first ideas of Platonic solids? Love? Ultimate Freedom (the italic gamma)? God, spirit, mind...uncertainty, nothing? This epistemological question may be worked out after all, the memory in matter may be accessible to our senses.

(idea temporarily lost in the complicated presentation...)

Oh, in a sense in such a higher topology the same formalism of nilpotency may contain the preservation of what may appear as an absolute past infinite transition of a unique and cohered individual system (soul?) requiring the passing thru the global and personal anhillation. Can there be a mind without first a brain? Can there be an abstract physics without first a concrete group theory and structure? In what sense is an individual like unto the idea of creation as the weak force- the local identity creates the world multi-fold over of what it is not in the virtual space as well the other or universe of what it is not is multiply annihilated (in perhaps a quantum absolute sense).

This view of things, admittedly a matter where philosophy meets the physics, comes home to me more so as I feel or contemplate my life path and time, my aging and consideration of as if a measure of survival. Even on some level the Christ was fully human. It is as if in this project, reluctantly the cup, I was destined to address these issues to unfold them to the world (but then that is a goal of science since the Greeks too) but I am free to ignore this strange wisdom. Or maybe somehow while the living any pattern may come together for a unique and seemingly universal physics. Certainly some of the scientists like Newton,Decartes,even in a way Einstein- thought this one of the consequences of their theories or at least the stated unifying purpose. Was my adopting and defending such a universal purpose early on the self fulfilling prophesy as a consequence of this stance of purpose?

Perhaps we should not be torn apart in our age that so emotional over the creationist and evolution ideas. The destination, at least irreversible and imagined teleologically and transcendentally of a Heaven and possible mystery of which perhaps a dummy parameter of faith or faith in method may do) can also be seen as a nothingness. Either way we find the compelling intelligibility of mixed or extreme theories- one man's artifact of intelligent design is another man's blind watchmaker. Nevertheless we feel there is some reality in the fact and design of the watch! It is not always from a post modern view that if we approach some ideas of life and how to live it asymptotically we write ourselves out of the play.

The compelling idea of symmetry and it breaking or its compounding of structures should be looked at deeper. Monopoles? if we have the phenomenon on higher than a grounding level does that justify we can find it on that absolute level? (my background illustration of yesterday shows the pic of monopole-like pairs and also take the lattice of tetrahedra as if the metacube of what is inside or outside in say a 4-D analog to the octahedron. Surely the intelligibility of Rowlands philosophy can help us keep a balanced view of thinking as we sort this out. The null laws of thermodynamics as the zero law is about a cycle of the idea of the temperature where a can be hotter than b than c than a... and surely there are more thermodynamic and perhaps intrinsically irreversible laws to come.

Beyond the idea it is mysterious fiction somehow and the arrow of time indivisible is a tightrope of broken symmetry, that in a sense it is not clear that the south pole is as strong as the north pole even on the most foundational level of physics.
Perhaps our need or possibility of concrete balance goes to this higher religious level where in the code of things and the unity of things what we become here or in the hereafter is also a bridge made of concrete math and physics - but knowing the what of it and the design of all there is and we perceive of it fundamentally is not necessarily the ultimate understanding of it- yet. But that there is an intelligible possibility we can look again at things this way as scientists should resound with hope as much as caution as we design and evolve ourselves and this world.

Again, if God did not want us to use our mind He would not have given it to us.



Next day after reading the footnote references of Rowlands Book- one day I may point out some alternative views- an amazing book! Maybe the dualism of the grids and the physics can somehow interchange as if the virtual and real in the universe of the Neotericontinuum and here the Theotericontinuum. I love the principle that things are only one way like matter over antimatter by our viewpoint out to space as within it, or in a way we are outside an atom so it appears spherical- I like the view of a unique string of numbers or sequences as an axiom. If his idea is that of a 4D shell around an 5D quantum space then it certainly is the quaternion like around the octonian like quantum like quasic space- but there are more quasic dimensions- yet any deep objection save perhaps that a point has no space or thermodynamic properties, or even a line for that matter as to the time ambiguity well- he did discuss the speculations in almost every case- including perhaps the other theories for 136 and the nature of standard theory. One can find contradictions but these seem over a more philosphic nature than the physics and in a sense the QCE as rather fractal like does balance well- and apparently he was fond of Hoyle also- in a rather infinite universe more of a zen or Poe like conception I called the Ultranscontinuum. I note also that in matters of tachyons that as if perhaps a teleology of sorts was not included in his holofractive physics. In general we agree very closely and I am amazed we reached similar conclusions about such things as gravons and high energy cosmic ray origins and so on- not that I thought this what was it all about in or current physics and the depth of it. I take it seriously that the continua can from some view be seen as continuous if mass or charge and also be contiguous- but I am not sure that which is consecutive reaches out or not beyond the averaged entropy of an open if not totality of a universe.

* * *

Why 136 ?

Why 136 was the question Dirac would ask if he could come back into the future. The interger numbers add up here from my quasic grid which here incorporates the 32 x 32 algebra of Dirac as in Rowlands book. The algebra view is just as good as the geometric view and the Eddington view in a sort of Cartesean and vector even Lorentz space and the Diracian view seem to me to be a duality along the lines of what Rowlands says is at least one principle of metaphysics in the world "That the reality or universe cannot be characterized." Let us add that to Conway's principle of abstraction and one can perhaps understand how it is that today my view of the world and especially for numbers has shifted. I am back to before the school system gave the the apples and oranges view of integers- not a bad view but no longer can I see the numbers on my calculator as such "solid" or particle things. It is more like back to the idea of adding phone book columns then playing outside while the adults try to agree on the sum to know if I was right- yet it is not a matter of genius as much as an observation of the spinning numbers as I watched the gasoline meters fill up the old two tone Chevy.

On the other hand the Diracian algebra does seem to suggest there are indeed idiot savants who with the pentads and so on seem to use the base 60 system.

Reading Rowlands is hard only in that like an alien language (and which of us is the alien in our communication and which is the themes underlying the symbols?) I am slowed down by so many of my own thoughts and words. I understand his speculations as my speculations of perhaps the physicality of possible more complicated spaces- I understand the problems with dimensionality and how it can be applied to particles. Indeed, I asked sometime back my string theorist friend about a certain group of resonances and he said there were not evidence of them or the doing of strings in that way. But he then asked me how I knew about them in but a day as it took him two weeks on the 286 and I said my matrix. "What in the hell of a matrix have you got?" In any case the quasic grid is as if I finally summarized the 4000 pages I had written toward the issues in my practice manuscript Instruction and Being. But if we can simplify things to a page a thousand fold then could we not in a sense turn the 286 of many such pages into a sort of a supercomputer?

I had more to say last night, the need for a new look at such higher chirality and parity, the Favre dimensions I now understand by Rowlands to be his timelike. The need to consider again just what symmetry breaking means.

Now I am not sure of the names for the groups and so on where they are isomorphic or not as Rowlands suggested but that if I understand it is the case for by a trick of notation in the quasic grid we can hyperflange (compress) the eight dimensional things into the quaternion things in a sort of localized structure.

Interestingly he speaks of the entropy of the Carnot cycle as a more general thing if we can apply it to the universe as a whole I ask- and the five foldness, here in the second illustration a mere ten representational dimensions 32squared, is a fractal thing in itself the understanding of which requires even wider quasic dimensions.

Lastly the lowly three space cube spinning on its axis hinting of deeper structures such as these algebras- the principle can be reversed too and we wind up with all the pentanimo puzzles of five foldness. and perhaps a reason we only can use sixty of them and so on- all this simplicity reduced intuitively to familiar space. When the theories are so abstract quantum theory seems a safe and familiar ground what does this say for the future of our theoretical and experimental physics?

I also coined a new term Distarality to handle the Eddington-Dirac dimensionless constant question where the dimensionality and not just the dimensions cancel. I note also the Einstein quote on this in Rowlands book. Distar is Spanish to be at a distance from as Rowlands also explains where the Zeno problem may be still unresolved.

Of course after a few days I must not forget how speculative some of this was- it takes a long time to feel assured of things. What in playing with the cube puzzles seems way too unsymmetrical in space is often very beautifully so in higher space.

There seems more than one way to break symmetries fundamentally and in the ten faced deltahedron we have 16 points as if this act like the thrust and circuit of a hypercube.

How interesting the discussion on the sciencechatforum yesterday on say the nature of shifts or not in light from the "quasars" and the article in new scientist on it- or any of the young and old speculators who are or are not in a forum between others or sharing useful things with others and so on... I say again it is time for them to catch up.

In some ways (and perhaps with his better expertise Rowlands et al can make a more complete map of the Dirac algebra incorporating a 4096 system with some negative things as mirrors like -i and so on, a sort of over quasic space extension. A lot depends on how we begin our counting at null or one or zero and so on. The quasic grids dimensionality incorporates the idea of an evolving counting and cosmic code and the direction input and output of that code which I perceived as "teleoscoping" in its thing preceded by is followed by sort of Turing erasure...



Standing outside smoking last night, despite feeling I might need a break from such a burst of creativity and easy deep thoughts arising which perhaps are more important as a use of my light and time- must I, does it matter to anyone else and is it that important that I write it down? On the blog intangible materiality today the author considers such questions for himself and mental landscape and the internet. I imagine the other and the locality of ones perceptions and the underlying meaning of it. I quite understand these higher Pladeian aspects of the ghostly geometry of our minds and their material development between the inputs and outputs of at least quantum formalism. I see the need also for what may apper non linear ultimately in all this as well as the idea of dimensionality more than ultimately random and more than a reduction to a quasi continuity of linearity. I understand that there are aspects of our consciousness as these theories seem to be able to apply to abstractly and perhaps in some future wider materiality where we dwell in the structures to organize our ordinary not so exceptional thinking and certain exercises equivalent to such topological computation help transcend our views at the time. No exercise, no transcendence, no surpassing our states of mind.

I am not sure that a book that addresses the enigmas of our day with suggestions of future solutions or applications is rightful a physics book, but it is a reality and a sanity as a core scientific view. In our space time in a sense goes both ways so why not the light from quasars for our personal local mind be rather like the one as generator, the Aristotelian view also that our eyes in effect send out rays to them- they not just the post modern thermodynamic garbage collectors but the beginnings of our search higher and deeper for making sense of the underlying structures and unity of the world? Of course this thought is a statement of epistemology and for now a metaphor of the measure of what is abstractly- the ground of or arrow of time wherein as Sagan said God must first make a universe before he makes an apple- and in a sense he must make a nothingness or that indeed is part of the picture.

I am not fond of microtubles but am of the glia cells, save the structure of them- but as we can dream and watch ourselves in the dream or from outside the dream we find one place of such effects, A sort of null compass as in the dreams Jung interpreted for Pauli based on the systems of 32. Let us not forget also that in mammalian embryonic development the reaching of 32 cells is the point of individuation of the totality, not the cloning. I am fond of Wolfe's idea of NH3 between synapses for the origin of the virulent quantum flux but am not sure it is fundamental.

In the DNA stacking models, Crick and Watson's and the other way here suggested including another explanation than say Fuller's and recent biochemistry for the unzipping angle- perhaps both things may apply- I mean for terms of evolution of systems the U C triple bonds tend to persist once part of the genome as a measure of evolving, and if not so as a measure of possibility in the other system. If we try to see it as accidental which is also part of the picture as evolving systems we cannot claim these outside algebras apply on any or all levels or at all.

Let us not forget the wobble hypothesis and the idea that we see directly as 2 and 1;2 dimensional and thus in a sense 2 and 1/2 codon code. The idea of privileged units of the algebra to expand the scope of systems (orientable or not) from a quasic view and not just symmetry and conservation laws sorted out, suggest that in some projections of the generations of information form we can describe a possibility realized of the various behind the seen three spaces of which we perceive but one at a personal time- that there can be, unto 256 and beyond, a history established and maybe somewhere in the evolving as mixed, of at least three projective possibilities of our own genome reading. What might this mean for the idea of virulence of identical viral sequences? What might it mean say for cancers?

* * *

A short note later this day:
In a way after feeling pretty sure I have the gist of the system and the philosophy under the book I lost interest- which is a good thing because it means there should be a whole new frontier to explore, but I am not sure what. MCPT and maybe X or more, quixotic or perhaps qalyptic physics but not perhaps a sixth- this sort of intuition can stir us wrong if not done on a general enough scale- I mean on a smaller scale I once briefly thought the tauons in a sense could not exist and that was an instance where the evidence proved me wrong on that level of generalization.

So, On a random visit to the puter in the coffee shop I did not find much going on, news or chat or what have you. A girl on the next puter wants to talk with me as I met her the other day as I was on the spur of the moment looking for the girl on line I knew who posed with me a kiss for the picture obverse of my Otto symbol. For some reason she looks a little like my friend looked then. I gave her the talisman of the symbol and the reverse in leather and hadn't talked to her in 15 yrs nor seen her in 30. I found her first try on google images! Well, she did get a good job in a far away place. My how different she looked after all these years. How amazing it seemed at the time that she seemed like the one and the only true love possible in all of time past and future- yeah, we start out that way of thinking and some of us get pretty messed up and vulnerable if things do not go that way. But our relationship was never requited and her memory haunted me a long time as if I made such a mistake somehow.

Our minds, as to the theme here today, seem to see time much like the fanciful ray from our eyes or local viewing of the quasar light speculation. I mean whatever is the arrow of time or thermodynamics it does involve memory and a progress of sorts or flow somewhere continuous or not or abstractly quasicontinuous (both). In a way we need this subjective element which may have hidden or calyptic things or spurious things to which such a logical formalism, algebra or what have you, real or quioxtic (the terms also on one level the same thing) should apply to the mind and heart to in that emptiness that may in a sense be absolute after all and not just a minimum place as Rowlands interprets somewhere among the weak force fermions.

* * *


Perhaps the further divisions even going beyond the cardinality of possible spaces as our progress in life does seem to go through discrete events of import can reach some absolute end decisively and permanently after all. Her image does not age in my mind any more than that of my lost brother (the subject of the poem Purple Foxglove- see the spheresend.blogspot . We see from our localized perspective. And that great analog of the 24 4-D scale to the rhombihedron of Bergson and his bees perhaps his sense of a more vital cause for the angle than pressure for their hive combs- Of course her memory like the light is unmodified and eternal, timeless.
This idea of what to do with that outside of all reality and things and views that define their identity by all the rest of the universe so to speak will take more thought if I get the wind again. The young girl comes out and talks to me by the coffee shop door I on the bench. I admire her tattoo of a mountain and pedals and a flower and a name- yes, it is Japanese where I taught English there once summer and I got it because my friend loved that mountain and she died.

Love is tattooed like that sometimes on our skin and thus our hearts may drink of its organic fifth force- but realistically time does have restraints in our encounter with the experience of the world. While I might not resist the young lady's friendship there is a realism or reality that of whom do I see, she who sees the dawning and slowly awakening light or the timeless girl of long ago whose kiss started a great deal and was the center of my universe? And you sweetness who says I really do not know you are you not moved by the light to any life buoy that comes your way in the storm of your loss of love and brilliance of your art? If he lived near knowing him but yesterday you would marry him? You are the kiss before the kiss at the beginning of worlds and would our clocks as well as hearts synchronous and would our choices and our paths fulfilled of them endure everlastingly if not eternally in a multiverse you suggest that there in not just one soul mate as you now try to adjust to? All such new yet timeless realities would work if we so commit and have the time, well reasonably so, what is left in isolation but blindless?

An Autopsy of the Pleiadian Mind

An Autopsy of the Pleiadian Mind

Perhaps a true measure of creativity in a scientific theory, in particular those scientists who have to work inductively to explore and confirm an hypothesis or observation for the shear joy of curiosity and speculation toward some future- almost science fiction as a possibility; in order to bring some unity in knowing and a reasonable guarantee by our cautious methods of breakthroughs pursued or stumbled upon at the frontier of anomalies, for example to have a standard that simplifies and makes sense at least for its era of dominance, of the particle zoo; is just how far we can find novel originality, the stuff of our more modern sci-fi, rather than the space opera of rehashing the learned familiar models for those in the know and who enjoy at least entertainment for the the most of us where doubt meets dreams suspended in disbelief. Also, we seem entertained by agendas that summarize and conclude the story with an authors moral message.

The again some of us seem born with an idea of a Platonic given whole a priori to deduce the workings of the world. Perhaps the most unifying archetype for physics is that primitive distinction between potential and kinetic. Yet, some have said that the idea of "beam me up, Scotty" ever becomes a reality (which it apparently has) that induction and deduction are pushed aside for "abduction" and this relates more than ever to questions of locality and non-locality. To quasars in particular as something I believe much richer in themselves that the idea of black holes or such vaporous structures of final and initial places as universal creation.

My roommate, drawn to meditation and medication, seems convinced I am a Plaiedian. I do not know that much about them save they are rather Nordic and far above the gray lesser demons in the outer space bestiary continuum. But the poet in me will try to reach for novel metaphors. Yet in the flux of the blogosphere- chaos may be constrained but I suspect it can never reach artificial collective consciousness and certainly not outrun our dreams. I told my roommate this morning not to tell anyone that because they will think him crazy- and well, I don't want them to know!
Imagine then the scandal of the two men on the net and national radio who are modern new age sacred geometers. Two sides of an interesting coin and each in his way addressing some issue of our thinking concerns.

The first in what seems reasonable geometry writes of the application to theory beyond our resolution of scale of DNA structure, that the Plaiedians from the center of our galaxy affect our emotions by the mechanism of variably stacked and influenced dodecahedra in the double helix strands. He writes as if a textbook of facts without a hint of caveats.

The other stumbles upon a truth of alphabets and language, for me a deeper geometry that can explain this exists, for him a driving mystical experience. The two working once together now fight over who was the owner and prior in the discovery of their various ghostly dreams.

I think I might conclude that if in a sense the foundations of space has codes similar to DNA for physics and cosmology then we can imagine stereotypes and archetypal ghosts within or beyond our minds current architecture. But if we take that step surely we might find more perfect or something a little beyond and new to the familiar model structures of our spirit and souls- at least we can consider this intellectually.

Perhaps a measure or confirmation to myself at least of the intelligibility of my own work is not so much the books and people I have given as reference- but the very things not in the general literature where I cite my own work.

I came across a line in Peter Rowland's book which I did not understand. When I did I imagined original and new speculative implications I style the Plaiedian Mind. Surely, some years back, if indeed there were physical grays found- the claims made for their anatomy at an alien autopsy could be empirically intelligible. Some even suggest it seems like they could be a future version of us and this could have been staged and the documentation forged. On the other hand as posted in the sciencechatforum yesterday I find the claim that the quantum theory has little to do with the workings of biology as rather mystical statement of faith- chemistry is at least the quantum theory. But I do not doubt that faith intelligible and reasonable to some minds. How can we see beyond our own epistemology and sincere sense of sanity?

The logical presentation in books such as Rowland's and indeed some say we do return to a more classical logic eventually, admits a wide view of a calculus of many views. It looks at the design of our axioms and logic systems. I came tho the question for now my extension and labeling of quasic binary notation as maybe loading the dice for the conclusions I made. It could be intuitively right. The holonistic holograms and fractal kinetics and potentials meet somewhere independently and in nil spaces for consideration. Yet the Plaiedian mind suggested here is not a ultimate architecture for the idea of spirit and soul proper but one consequence is some further generalization and complexity between here and that possible there through the long string plateau.

But to the point! The line states (and I must mention here I understand by way of computation numerically and quasically, that five fold patterns within patterns are an informational distinction for living things- but as space considered topologicallly and in the whole I could not have seen the our hearts as a more than miraculous pump as the authors suggest it more as a little locality in our organic systems)that in the Quasicrystals the icosahedral symmetry is not periodic in three space but is so in six dimensions of a three space and a complex mirror three space. (I am not that fond of the level anyway of the periodic wave analysis as less than fundamental physics or what can be told using it in some Fourier division of cosmic space scales.) Do we not intuit this looking at Escher's drawings of water cycling up hill? Maybe the accounting of just two three spaces in a two player duality game is not enough.

The quasic grid of 64 codons, 2 to the 6th in a sense can be seen as six dimensional. I certainly discretely understand such geometry when we say make the 32 cubes of the 8 tetracubes and the imaginary mirror to make 64 and all the other sensible group numbers of cubes not spinning diagonally to suggest we dig deeper in the structure. Consider also the pentacubles made of cuboid shapes 2 x 2 x 3 that form the 12 x 5 or sixty of twelve pentacubes. When we consider the Rubiks cube as suggestive of the fractional charges of quarks a 6 cubed systems of 216 is useful and symmetrical for such symmetry study of five foldness that reduces structurally to flattened symmetries of solids based on the square root of two from phi.

So what topological structure (note here distance is not preserved as an axiom nor can as the brane universe two spaces of the same dimension said to intersect at a point a the axiom) allows for a higher frame of envisioning beyond several shapes, polytopes, in the higher dimensions. I imagine as analogs to them with such things simply connected, Euclidean and not so, "Regular super- or ultra-topes without holes- not supersymmetry necessarily but the whole range of dimensions beyond our enumerated groups and maybe we can construct new material things from space itself but by this I do not mean drawing in four space can make a real three space materiality. Thus we can imagine even further shapes and evolutions for our mental spaces.