The outcome was an article in which l summarize briefly the vision about generalized Feynman diagrams, introduce the notion of algebraic knot, and after than discuss in more detail how the notion of algebraic knot could be applied to generalized Feynman diagrams. The algebraic structrures kei, quandle, rack, and biquandle and their algebraic modifications as such are not enough. The lines of Feynman graphs are replaced by braids and in vertices braid strands redistribute. This poses several challenges: the crossing associated with braiding and crossing occurring in non-planar Feynman diagrams should be integrated to a more general notion; braids are replaced with sub-manifold braids; braids of braids ....of braids are possible; the redistribution of braid strands in vertices should be algebraized. In the following I try to abstract the basic operations which should be algebraized in the case of generalized Feynman diagrams.
One should be also able to concretely identify braids and 2-braids (string world sheets) as well as partonic 2-surfaces and I have discussed several identifications during last years. Legendrian braids turn out to be very natural candidates for braids and their duals for the partonic 2-surfaces. String world sheets in turn could correspond to the analogs of Lagrangian sub-manifolds or to minimal surfaces of space-time surface satisfying the weak form of electric-magnetic duality. The latter option turns out to be more plausible. Finite measurement resolution would be realized as symplectic invariance with respect to the subgroup of the symplectic group leaving the end points of braid strands invariant. In accordance with the general vision TGD as almost topological QFT would mean symplectic QFT. The identification of braids, partonic 2-surfaces and string world sheets - if correct - would solve quantum TGD explicitly at string world sheet level in other words in finite measurement resolution.
Irrespective of whether the algebraic knots are needed, the natural question is what generalized Feynman diagrams are. It seems that the basic building bricks can be identified so that one can write rather explicit Feynman rules already now. Of course, the rules are still far from something to be burned into the spine of the first year graduate student.
For details and background see the article Algebraic braids, sub-manifold braid theory, and generalized Feynman diagrams or the new chapter Generalized Feynman Diagrams as Generalized Braids of "Towards M-matrix".
41 comments:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/03/sexual-network.html
follow the link.
see the Feynmans diagrams in this way used.
Matti,
I have not posted for awhile but beyond the philosophic issues and with still a little better understanding of braid and p-adic theory I have to disagree or accept alternative axioms at the heart of things. The disconnect between the physics and the mathematics.
But most of the ideas are sound. I do not see how things can be explicitly hyperbolic with the use of e^x which is not a p-adic number nor that in such systems we cannot have an order as they say.
The connection to braids or any generalized model of Feymann diagrams uses the same ideas that exceeds standard physics although both are breakthroughs that try to get around these formula limitations.
I may just have time post the photos of the pages but the main article is Quasics Resolve the Physics and Mathematical Disconnect.
It is clear to me also that p-adics is not as complete as the complex numbers- we need a higher level of numbers still.
Everything I see seems to point into the direction of a quasic space of which we have to show not just assert braids in braids and so on. Also to a great degree all is linear to wide areas- what is not is the very stuff that may pull light from the vacuum in pairs at c of which we imagine the differences in forces as a sort of exponentiation- say between branes and black holes.
The algebra of the sub-manifolds is in the cracks of the limits of our total standard theories and in the low dimensions, as Kea points also also, there is a Pythagorean relation- for me the 6 inside that triality triangle thus 24 is the hidden subspaces tangled or not.
2-braids? your term? original idea? Only in planes we have of course enumeration in quadratic time so to speak. These of course are in the cracks also as such early simple ideas as 24 dimensional lattices. But the reverse compliments and need for so many zeros in the assumed one dimensionality of a p-adic number as if the decimal reversed (and for some reason the composites dismissed as if primes can casually be taken or added to or subtracted from some power of 2 the even one) is an essential idea that tends to shift the ground, that is becomes a wider universe and its forces.
As for the philosophy part maybe you can tell me if I had a relapse in reductionism.
The PeSla
Gerard t'Hooft (http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000400.html)
and Lee Smolin ([hep-th/0201031] Matrix models as non-local hidden variables theories) figures string gives a phenomenology of surfaces, and the Big Thing is now to chase hidden variable volumetric determinism.
If vacuum is energy, space is entropy. And Legendre functions give the field perturbations of the quantum atom (l, m quanta).
So HB Nielsen at Copenhagen would rather randomize the vacuum, with field degrees of freedom. Meanwhile Thomas Meisner and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems (http:/remss.com) (OMG the private sector) have the complex (!) dielectric of seawater.
The game is up for real-valued positivism. But only in the private sector.
Dear Pesla,
some comments.
a) e^x is p-adic number if x has p-adic norm larger than one: that is is p-adic integer divisible by p. If x has norm 1 or larger, one must extend p-adics to include e or its some root with finite number of its powers. Extension is finite-D but not algebraic anymore.
b) That p-adic numbers are not algebraically complete is the essence of p-adic mass calculations and much of p-adic physics: this gives rise to number theoretical quantization rules. For instance, p-adic temperature is quantized 1/t= 1,2,3,...
Entire hierarchy of p-adics is allowed and interpretation is as number theoretical representation for what evolution is. This is seen also in the evolution of mathematical consciousness. Rationals, algebraics, reals, complex numbers, quaternions, octonions, p-adics..
c) n-knots, n-braids, n-tangles and n-whatever are variants of the same theme. This is a general mathematical notion.
d) To me this talk of Kea about 24-D lattices, magic matrices, and Koide mass formula does not give much. I am simply unable to comprehend what is the point and big picture. In politically incorrect mood I would call it numerology;-).
To Orwin:
For few years ago I developed a model of quantum atom to possibly explain the claim published in Applied Physics Journal that hydrogen atom has exotic state with ground state binding energy which is by factor n^2 larger than for ordinary hydrogen atom (do I remember correctly?).
It involved a quantum variant of Laguerre polynomials descrbing the dependence of wave functions on the radial coordinate. See <a href="http://tgd.wippiespace.com/public_html/freenergy/freenergy.html#freenergy>this</a>.
Well, if you don't understand Kea, how would I then? I have the same feeling, that her cosmology fails. But she uses the same numbers, the same structure as everyone else, how can then her construction need another type of Universe? Also her claim that neutrinos, that are non-interactive, make up the interactive DM (which is invisible ordinary matter in the cosmology of today) seems odd. That would mean that leptons are building stones for fermions (3-quarks), and that we think is wrong. Quarks have the triality seen in her figures, though, but when she use them for neutrinos????
And why cannot she explain this in a coarse manner? I really don't understand her. She spit out harsch text, but when she meets a simple question she gets silent. Her 24-figure inside the triangle is fascinating, but then she refers to Pythagoras!!!! Is she a nut? I am astonished. Kea, if you read this, start talking.
I would rather think that neutrinos are in the non-Euclidean space (= outside GR) with a very small interaction with matter (GR). How would that interaction be seen in space with all the cosmic rays? And how do they interact with light? Orwen raid they pull out light from vacuum, but how? Annihilation is the opposite process? Can neutrinos be made interactive through a change of spin?
Matti,
Thank you for the information and reply. It does seem to make for a dynamic meaning to the membranes as hyperbolic even if the numbers do not quite find them yet. I still need more to think about and learn on this.
Now, these "wormholes" can the mouths close so that these make a loop or a link, or maybe a knot? What happens to space and time and say photons in such a continuous space?
Do they almost intersect and make a sort of spiral inside itself? I asked this today on And there were Stars. I imagined we had this discussion in a dreams and knots and all that (now you see them as part of the picture?)
Still, Ulla, I had to make the challenges to the ideas of both Kea and Matti for I see them to have the same general concepts as we all should in a unified theory- but this means they have inherited the same weaknesses from existing mathematical concepts even if it is all we now have.
Kea's matrices suggest such transformations, Ulla, but is cautious as to if we can pin down this as a dogma for new physics. The leptons are fundamental. But if we use the quantum theory we also invite the finite- of which I think Matti could be original in this. Lubos seems confused and not quite there yet.
Of course if either Kea or Matti are wrong my model would take a very large hit of which the fall of the standard model makes no difference.
So Matti, I merely have suggested we extend that evolution of numbers a little further- and maybe ground what is really on the frontier of the new physics as that species not here before.
Ulla, todays post also gives me a sense of why the light from the vacuum thing is there creatively. to put it into coarse popular terms. But we should know that in quantum theory there can be an absolute annihilation to nothingness- but is this not an assertion of p-adic ways to see an alternate way to deal with absolute numbers and singularities?
The PeSla, Happy Harvest!
"But we should know that in quantum theory there can be an absolute annihilation to nothingness- but is this not an assertion of p-adic ways to see an alternate way to deal with absolute numbers and singularities?"
So you neglect the conservation laws? I thought that if anything would change the energy would grow, not vanish. That you mention p-adics together with this event is maybe that you realize it has to go somewhere (as p-adic hierarchial event?).
Singularity is problematic, because it doesn't feed forward. The One in ancient teachings is almost nothing, a 1D point, but not zero. Maybe a virtual One. The step to a real One in 3D is huge. Is the real One a particle you must also have the wave there, and the string. Even singularity as a knot is problematic, because it is no real singularity? A monopole is a 'seemingly' singularity. But in so short distances the question of singularity is meaningless? Maybe a better way would be to divide between 'nothing' and 'something'? A digital world? Also the singularity is 'something'?
Matrices tells nothing at all of these circumstances. Remember that Kea mostly talk of abstract (= virtual, DM) braidings, and there is reason to suspect she travels at deep water. There is the entanglement, some kind of pressure, or heat, as environment etc. Is there any real 'structure' at all to do all those matrices with? Or are there just a quantum field as a 'soup' of numbers. Environment? So in fact she plays God. I would want to know what she thinks about this. No fairy fields, but she works in the fairy field? I have asked her many times, but as long as I cannot answer these questions her figures are just curiosa. And she wonders why nobody uses her works?
But it is interesting, if only the foundations would be seen.
Inflation is maybe exactly this kind of event, that we see as annihilation? Annihilation is ad hoc?
Can you imagine our Universe as a 1D point in another bigger Universum etc. You know that this 1D point is utterly complex, but the inhibitors in the bigger universe talk of a point that is almost nothing, without structure. A wormhole of black/white holes?
Ulla, Ulla,
I do not understand what you have against Pythagoras (and for that matter Kea's take on things).
She mentions him today as well points out the prime 19, of which you can find that in my postings and of which Matti finds useful.
p-adics does seem, if we limit things to membranes of 2D, to utilize e^x values as a negative (therefore reduced attractive force).
Matrices tell us of physical stability and concrete matter. You can find Lubos post today on the quantum view but it reads a little dated to me.
We all can play God for we have the attribute of creativity- if God creates is that not the final conservation law, the last such one in question not broken and patched up ad hoc like the idea of mass?
Monopoles are obvious and ground the idea of a point electron.
If you want a very good picture and honest comments on the standard picture and its problems and first relations to genetics I refer again to you Peter Rowlands and his book Zero to Infinity.
Consider the configuration space idea for these 1D (usually continuous values are such).
Does p-adics not exclude a certain ideal point from the plane?
Pythagoras is a sort of ground or zero point flat space (but curvature is relative in such natural motions we imagine) and as Riemann said it approaches Euclidean there (not as Lubos says for a deeper probability system is a step or two beyond the quantum world- or the p-adic world where we do discuss absolute values and these points that are singularities that can jump between them. What is relativity but a millennium of a little further modification of Pythagoras- and mystical or not it does seem to relate to current ideas on symmetry breaking?
Some meaningless questions like the division of zero cautions and dynamics are really rather meaning-free.
A string has no dimension or is a very thing 1D yes? Is zero positive or negative on the line that divides a plane by the y axis.
128 or 2^7 is everywhere and Kea refers to an old paper by Professor Dolan that treats a triality of these.
Does the strange distances in p-adic space result in the same proximity as in utterly complex space?
The >c neutrino results will be verified but not so much and anomaly in some hierarchy when they realize they have indeed found a form of super symmetry and new physics and that the exciting achievement over the last century.
The limits of physics conspires to adjust our vision and experiments but science should be the bringing out of knowledge not the detailed attempt to reduce it to uselessness or pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy.
No one uses Kea's advancing work because they simply do not get it.
I post today zed point rather than zero point ideas but it is very hard to read or see even. But I assure you it is on the sea frontier of all real and deep waters.
The knitted cosy keeps the heat in a bit both for the tea and the real emperor(ess) of the day the Emperor Penguins down under and caught up in this spill of lust for oil and other wasteful energy sources.
Since I have been blogging I must say - you and I - "We have come a long way, baby."
The PeSla
Ulla,
http://www.newscientist.com/special/nothingness
PeSla,
I have absolutely nothing against Pythagoras. He was a genious. I reacted on Keas way to refer to him as some kind of great insight. As if she was not aware of what she was doing?
No one understand her work, so why doesn't she write about her wiev. I want her 'Higgs mechanism' even if she has no fairy fields she have something instead. I want her cosmology, when she says she will make everything new, just a drawing is enough. Her matrices are exactly what you say, but you forget she works on the negative side of reality, abstract geometry (I wonder how it looks like, because I doubt it can have any matrices). Antimatter is annihilated, so those matrices must be very otherwise. The only reasonable thing she can use the matrices for is DM, but she says it is not there. She claims leptons (neutrinos) make up the 3-quarks. I have not seen any model for how she makes the bridge between leptons and quarks (the triality is not enough). She talks of l-adic braids but cannot get the unification, although Matti has done it for p-adic hadrons. I suppose you can read what I wrote.
I have absolutely nothing against Keas as person, on the contrary I wanted to help her. She reacted negatively when I tried to have her make peace with Matti, after their controversy. She should have defended her ideas, that's how this world works. You cannot sit like a child and spit out ugly words when someone asks something, even if it is just a stupid biologist.
I have quarrelled at Matti too over this stupidity, so the situation is quit. It doesn't matter if Kea says she owns something. It is her statement and future will tell. If there are two controversial scientists so near each other as Kea and Matti, it is very idiotic they cannot talk to each other because of that small controversy.
Maybe I am impatient, but I have followed her so long, and I waited she would come up with something now when the superluminal neutrinos are actual, but instead she start everything all over again. More than anything I want to give her a kick :) to get further.
Zero positive or zero negative, what is that? What exactly is zero? What is a string in no dimension? Words, words...
And don't call me baby. I am very far from that.
radial coordinate
Scattering statistics found to distribute as 1/r: arXiv:hep-th/0303.028v1.
If I can venture some philosophical counsel for ThePeSla, popular Pythagorean numerology ran from Tuscany in North Italy through the Levant into Medieval popular culture. The mathematical tradition focused on the Golden Ratio:
http://www.seri-worldwide.org/id591.html
Kea swims in the New Wave of category theory, which is good at the analogies the Medievals loved. But that's proper to language/Logos, not Nous, and hence the Romance gender-typing.
The New Wave take on a kind of computational proceduralism, as if to upgrade MATLAB for AI. Matti's with the new graphene hardware, in physics. But dialogue remains possible on Ulla's question of signals.
Dear Ulla,
it is difficult for a layperson to see what is (or what is not) behind scientific terms and formulas.
Kea and me could not be farther from each other. Really. The only thing in common that we both have the label of crackpot but that's all.
Just look our ways of writing. I always give sequences of arguments and do analysis. Represents counter arguments and objections.
Kea gives some standard math formulas found from some source and not a slightest hint how this numerology might relate to her theory or physics in general.
Ye, Matti, This is not my business in any way. I just get so frustrated when I read her small texts, where she swims on the same place year after year. When I write something to her she gets silent, and delete my comments.
And this PeSla is very successful in that too, of some reason. I must think thoroughly on why. I mean, this is your blog, and I cannot come here and chritizise your commenters. You know, my harsch tongue...
After all I am just a small creep, hardly visible in this world of yours. I must calm down. yeah.
I wish I could reverse time a couple of years or so. Maybe I would be stronger? Forgive me, pls.
Thank you Owen,
I think it has to do with "psyche" more than logos or nous in that traditional triality of which Russel once saw things.
That time in Tuscany and the great and declared traditions of NeoPlatonism (as Kea pointed out before her short not on philosophic precedence to the diagrams- and have we determined if modern physics is Platonic now, I want a third way.
In the intuitions of that time, a reflection of our human psychology and perhaps our ability to count the Tarot was found with art used for the core of book covers- and yet these ways of seeing things not only fulfill our need for archetypes but have solid number relationships to higher space geometry (of which I doubt those then understood even without the projective era and the golden ratio, at least consciously.)
Yet one can go beyond the standard Tarot deck (regardless if some are scammers selling faulty divination or entertainment for the leaders and masses) This level of symmetry is simply still far from our common grasp beyond the standard although we can reduce the deck to the 4 x 13 of the suits of the seasons (it is not accident the gene code is sometimes represented by the suits of cards and we can add two more by the way.)
We kept the Joker and the four horsemen knight went to the four winds of space and time.
Is this hype and drama or trivialities wasting our light?
Or you can believe we got our wisdom from ancient aliens or something who put symbols into the heads of our engineers who had a rather advanced pigment and symbol system for thousands of years even as cave men.
Anyway, I posted today very much some answers Ulla may just about knows she wants to understand.
I am sorry if the duality of things (the Boolean logic of which Matti admires) can be seen as He and Kea opposites when I asserted a common new ground.
I am really neutral on gender issues as a principle of objectivity and axiology in science. (Ironically I have put the old idea of gender back in our numbers). See Lubos post today that starts with matters of science then rants against the women- I wonder what Conway made of him- Conway who sees 24 dimensions.
Ulla, in that we do try dialog and scold the two geniuses who some see as "crackpots" as Matti said is a common ground- we both have wanted to jump start them to share better their visions or words and shake up the physics community too to comprehend the implications of what they are doing and do it better.
Sorry, I forget the language barrier or cultural one, Ulla, the expression "you come a long way baby" is in the culture here that praises the new hopes or achievements of women. I did not call you "baby" as I have been told I am overly careful in my writing by logic professors.
You are doing fine Ulla, and are capable of great things if you want. After all, we were the generation forever young and the promises for the next generation was perhaps over estimated. And, as Kea said : It is a great time to be a young physicists.
I just find it a little annoying that more than the hysteria on the internet where 30% of people lie more- that our expensive good books grow obsolete in our hands if we have time to read them.
Matti and Kea, their best work is yet to come- if we are lucky.
ThePeSla
It is a bit peculiar that both Kea and Matti use numerology as one of the main tools, both look at primes etc. And the path can differ so. Keas mirror neutrinos can well fit into TGD as a Susy? Keas cosmology as seen in Vixra doesn't say me much. I guess the guidance of symmetry is important for both.
But I shall not talk more of this now.
The PeSla,
I am incapable of finding exactly what I react on in your writings. Some kind of ignorance blended with an attitude of besserwisser, maybe. Consciousness is another stumbling stone. On the other hand you may very well be more advanced than me, so I must train my flexibility and acceptance. Sry. If Matti accept it, it should be good for me too. Maybe I am just as irritating?
The 'best before' date has long since expired, so the name 'baby' feels as an insult and degradation, absolutely not as any good achievement.
Usch for me and my long nose.
Orwen,
The link arXiv:hep-th/0303.028v1 is wrong and cannot be found.
Nielsen Holger? Link?
http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/1105.6286
A hidden sector? Seems interesting? Nielsen.
To me the best one can expect of New Wave math is to incorporate fuzzy logic, which is better than assuming classical probabilities when approaching quantum theory. Here the philosopher to watch is Florentin Samandarache - he's like the guru of viXra. But ethnocentric, like Derrida.
Higher dimensions were known in the ancient world - Otherworld of the Celts; the higher self as 5th dimension; animal magnetism. But to piece together the evidence is very hard.
The 1/r distribution: the smaller a particle, the more it scatters: the length-scale of a Feynman diagram. So the soft microwave background is the scatter-grain of reality.
The hard part is to realize that reality acts through such appearances: special relativity, dressed charges, scattered signals. The appearance/essence distinction is not causal! Take mathematical form as an essence and you miss that!
Dear Ulla,
you have managed to monumentally misunderstand me if you think that I am some kind of numerologist. God grief! I cannot imagine anything more disgusting than random numerical considerations. Numbers predicted by TGD are the outcome of a refined conceptual models not just combinations of some magic matrices taken from sleeve without absolutely any connections to physics.
Koide mass matrix stuff is excellent example of numerology which makes me sick. It begins from an observation that a sum for square roots of charged lepton masses is near to 1/2 in suitable units. There is of course always some rational number to which it would be very near to. Only if it were exactly 1/2, the mass formula might have possibility to make some deeper meaning.
Then one feeds in magic matrices and starts to play with their sums and products. Hopeless. Hopeless because there are no physical principles involves, just random numerology getting more and more complicated.
I have developed totally different model for CKM matrices starting from physical and mathematical principles of TGD. Same applies to p-adic mass calculations. That the model predicts numbers as an outcome, does not mean it is numerology!
If some-one thinks highly of numerology, I can accept it. That someone thinks that I belong to the cast of numerologists, I cannot accept.
I have been discussing TGD in small scale with some physicists and astrophysicists. They claimed TGD was based on numerology, and you say TGD is partly a number theory, so... I thought they knew what they talked of.
They made me start the blog lessons. Good that I was informed now. I should have realized that they were wrong, and controlled it. I claimed rightly that they didn't really have studied TGD in any big depth, just scattered notices. They got struck at the expanding earth and other esoteric stuff.
Orwin,
Yes, I like the fuzzy logic. The smaller particle, the more it scatters is exactly about carbon and small molecule biology.
Now I get caught out because even if things act as they appear in the field, they react as they are. Passion in this way lies deeper than action! And in this way the pure action theories - Hamilton, Mie, Schroedinger - are seen to be not enough.
It is artists who have long spoken for passion, and ThePeSla's nous is nous poetikos. From Aristotle to Kant, referred to teleology, then intelligent design or Wilber's cosmic creativity. But by Pythagoras to immortal soul! And I see much of language in fine art, lifting it above kitch.
To call TGD numerology is unfair: temperature has no dimension, it is a number, and rheology or fluid dynamics has several 'dimensionless ratios' as parameters (Reynolds number, etc). To make particles components of temperature is consistent thermodynamics.
Dear Ulla,
one thing I can tell that colleagues lie unashamedly when they talk about TGD, especially so if they are talking to a layman with no ability control the truth of what they are saying.
Homeopathy in many-sheeted space-time, crop circles, water memory, cold fusion, expanding earth: these are the favorite topics with which to debunk TGD. If you are a little bit analytic you indeed soon find that they *never* say anything about *contents of TGD*. What are the basic assumptions of TGD, how they criticize these. Never a single word. They use only simple emotional key words to induce negative emotions. This is how propaganda works in all dictatorships. By just looking any "criticism" of TGD you find that there is not a single word about what I am really saying: isn't this strange?
In analytic mood you might also notice they *never* mention that I just always emphasize that I am not believer or non-believer but am just asing: What if these phenomena are real, what TGD can say in this case? They just the claim that I am a fanatic believer. Again an enormous lie but represented with clear purpose.
These fellows might call themselves astro-physicists, physicists or whatever but they call themselves, but they are not scientists in the sense as I understand scientist. They are opportunistic career builders and ready to lie without hesitation if this helps them to develop their career or defend their position.
The hegemony, in particular the hegemony of finnish science, has excellent motivations for giving me a label of crackpot- a blind believer on all possible "bad science" and this what they have tried to do for all these years. Now the experimental results from LHC are flowing and it is becoming more and more obvious that I have been right all the time. Neutrino superluminality might turn out to be single experimental discovery demonstrating that TGD is the theory. No one in his right mind can anymore deny that am a top physicists and have been 34 years without human rights in a country in which most people can read. This is an incredible scandal and solely due to the enormous stupidity and arrogance of the academic power hegemony. Einstein in the patent office is nothing as compared to what these idiots have managed to do.
It is understandable that these fellows are fighting desperately to get rid of me before the bubble bursts. Revenge is also a deep motivation. They might quite well be able to prevent me from seeing the breakthrough, my health is not good. This does not however help them: the bubble will burst and the collective shame will be even deeper and these fellows will be regarded as criminals. And for full reason.
To Ulla:
this claim that TGD is numerology is probably the silliest claim that any scientists have made after the birth of Newton.
There is entire book -about 1000 pages- devoted to Physics as generalized number theory and second book to particle physics applications of p-adic physics. And then some empty head comes and claims that TGD is numerology!! God grief.
It is incredible what kind of idiots can receive monthly salary as physicists and astrophysicists.
These are not as you say, they are thinkers, just a bit lazy. They too are passionate. The R/2 earth, crop circles etc, was a bit too much for them, no matter what I said. If I would listen to them I would not be here :)
I guess I missed the meaning of what is numerology. I should have looked it out. I propose you write a post about this. I think it is a general misunderstanding. Thanks Orwin.
Yes, Einstein in the patient office was luxuary. Indeed, I know.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.2919
Ha! People who throw bad vibes throw good ideas with them.
I'm pretty sure the microtubules in Hameroff-Penrose theory of consciousness serve a homeodynamic response in the cell wall adapting to turbulence in the water. With the Reynolds number defining the optimum 'on the edge of chaos' as Stuart Kauffman put it (turbulence stirs food particles from the sediment but poses mechanical hazard).
There would be a derived response in animals mediating vasodilation - you were onto that earlier, Ulla. AND since temperature affects viscocity and thereby elasticity, thermoregulation through pores would be a second line of response.
The logic at play here runs through viscosity to the methylation/acetylation polarity, so they get a bad aftertaste and we get the science of homeodynamics. I would laugh if they weren't so bad for the economy.
Dear Ulla:
People at the top of power pyramid are indeed thinkers but they think with their elbows.
The Reynolds result generalizes: voluntary action requires thought to overtake the signal-train of experience to 'plot' an intervention - that's a Mach number (sonic boom) scaled for the relativity of experience, noted by Eagleton but earlier by Dennet and Kinsborne.
http://cogprints.org/7661/
I can see a third fit related to updraft and flight - and there's the tension-sensor, in flight muscles and again in heart muscle! Yes, heart consciousness depends on stringiness itself!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111117081341.htm
Orwin,
sorry. I do not see the point.
Homeostasy as entropy? Sum over paths? Least reaction? Microtubulis as entropy-balancing organs? Are microtubulis computing the difference between outer and inner environment/DNA?
Cool idea? What is thought?
Intention, choise/jump, free will? Depending on stringiness? You mean emergent because of complexity/degrees of freedom? What tells us the knots about this?
Heart has the highest EMG. Does it tell something? At least about the noise/need for computations?
I'm exhausted, Ulla, as you were earlier. Tension is not a classical variable, but is attribute of superstring, and triggers lignin production in trees, wing beat and heart pulse, in pairs of muscles that contract alternately and trigger each other.
Matti, Mersenne's only scientific paper was on the harmonics of a vibrating string. But how the primes might relate I don't know. Viscocity follows in Huygens' wave equation and Newton's 4th law which is only noticed by engineers, but introduces stress as in field theories. More.
Yes, Ulla, I guess cellular consciousness does distinguish pressure (touch) outside and volume (fullness) within. These two form a conjugate pair in thermodynamics, mediating microscopic and macroscopic. In his Faraday lectures Bohr described conjugates as the classical analogue of complementaries. Dimesions of a conjugate product are energy: QM drops a frequency for action - from time to eternity as they say in Platonism. But computation - I don't see it - just things participating in natural law, as Socrates says in Plato. The Reynolds number is a dimensionless ratio, so to take it as a regulator or norm is to entertain an idea, a spark of mind, if you like. What appears is a capacity or level of consciousness marked as by a quantum number.
Dear Orwin and Ulla,
I have adopted the principle that discussion is free even if it would not have even remotest connection with the topic of the posting (usually it does not).
However, I - as probably anyone- have been completely dropped out from your conversation with Ulla. Optimistically I hope your discussion represents the divergent phase of a creative process followed by a moment of enlightment when all pieces find their places and beautiful mathematical formulas emerge;-).
Here are some clarifications, which might help this moment to arrive soon.
a) Mersenne primes are completely standard stuff in number theory. There is even global effort to find Mersenne primes in which any one can participate using his or her own computer. About Mersennes you find text in Wikipedia or by just writing "Mersenne prime" in Google. "Gaussian Mersenne" gives info about Gaussian Mersennes.
b) Tension is completely classical variable and tells the energy density (energy per length unit). It appears in superstring model and characterizes the energy density of string per unit length.
And once more: TGD is not random "creative" word salad. It is precise mathematical theory of physics.
Sorry, Matti. I know. Orwin, follow the link if you want discuss with mail.
Does Mersienne prime has a trigger, what, or what pair does it have?
Remember the membrane is only a fluid of fat, hold together by tension.
Nerve system is to have a tool to disperse this tension, (by computating?, what is to 'computate'? we use that word so easily for brain). Heat, pressure, movements etc. also regulates (see the nerve function). The emotions are drives (energy) that creates other emotions and certain actions, but how are emotions born? They are linked to consciousness and memory, but in an inverse way? To get rid of an influence from a bad memory it must be made aware, so awareness and consciousness are pairs too?
Muscular dystrofy is one result of failing microtubulis. EMG tells about this tension, operating the body. It must be quite precise.
Now I have looked the numerology up, and how could I ever fall in that? I trusted those more educated. Sic!
Post a Comment