Do the icosatedrahedral tessellation of H3 and icosahedral H2O supercluster correspond to each other?

One of the oldest ideas of TGD inspired quantum biology and consciousness theory is that that sensory representations realized both at the level of the biological body and magnetic body and closely related to each other are central in the understanding of for instance EEG and nerve pulse (see this, this, this, this, and this).

Pollack effect (see this) is assumed to transform ordinary protons and also alkali ions to dark particles with a large value of effective Planck constant h_eff at the field body. The TGD inspired generalization of Pollack effect is in the central role in the realization of the representations at the level of the field body (see this, this this, this, this, this). The "dark" protons at the field body of DNA are assumed to give rise to a dark variant of the genetic code relying on icosa tetrahedral tessellation (ITT) of hyperbolic 3-space identified asw the light-cone proper time constant surface of causal diamond (cd).

The article by Thomas Brown (I am grateful to Esa-Juhani Ruoho for the link and also for inspiring discussions) discusses critically the interpretation of the Pollack effect. The vertex figure of ITT (IVF) (see this and this) is rhombicosidodecahedron (RID). I have proposed that the ITT is behind the genetic code and to be associated also with the hydrogen bonded water molecule clusters. Surprisingly, RID is identical with the third shell of the so-called icosahedral supercluster (ISC). This inspired the proposal about the duality between sensory representations realized by ISC at the level of the water and ITT realized at the level of the field body of the ISC.

The challenge is to understand how the complement of IVF, which should be outside RID, can correspond to the first and second shell of the ISC which are below the third shell. The obvious guess is ITT-ISC correspondences stating that the ITT realized at the field body of the ISC is related by inversion to ISC. M⁸-H duality, as the TGD counterpart of the momentum position duality, involves inversion in M⁴⊂ M⁸, having interpretation as momentum space, mapping it to M⁴ × CP₂. Is M⁸-H duality involved?

This question led to completely unexpected developments suggesting deep connections between fundamental physics (M⁸-H duality and the notions of gravitational and electric Planck constant as implications of number theoretic vision), physics of water (hydrogen bonded water clusters), consciousness theory (field body as controller of biological body forming sensory representations of biological body), biology (ITT view of the genetic code) and cosmology (generalization of Hubble's law to all scales).

In particular, a prediction for the ordinary Planck Hubble constant implies a predictions for the mass density of the Universe and prediction is consistent with the observed mass density including contributions of dark matter and energy if the value of the velocity parameter β₀≤ 1 appearing in the formula for the gravitational Planck constant is equal to β₀∼ 1 and the very large system containing observable Universe as quantum coherence region with Hubble radius L_H is a blackhole-like object with Schwartschild radius r_s= 2β₀L_H∼ 2L_H for β₀∼ 1. Hubble tension means that the value of the Hubble length L_H= 1/H₀ in short scales is roughly 10 percent smaller than its value in long length scales.

Since L_H is proportional to 1/β₀ this can be understood if β₀ in the early universe (long scales) is roughly 10 per cent larger than in the long scales. This would imply that β₀∼ .92 in long length scales β₀∼ 1 in short scales. The predictions for the fraction of baryons would be about 5 percent in short length scales and 6.1 percent in long length scales. The difference could perhaps be understood in terms of transfer of baryons to dark baryons with large h_eff predicted by the number theoretic vision of evolution.

The article by Brown summarizes basic information about the Pollack effect. Pollack effect requires only the presence of hydrophilic polymer as a catalyst at the boundary of the water. I had erratically assumed that the gel phase is necessary. Concerning the TGD based notion of Pollack battery (see here) this finding was good news. Brown discusses Pollack's interpretation of EZs critically and this led to a more precise TGD inspired view about the realization of EZs and the genetic code at the level of water clusters to be discussed in this article.

See the article Do the icosatedrahedral tessellation of H³ and icosahedral H₂O supercluster correspond to each other? or the chapter with the same title.

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

For the lists of articles (most of them published in journals founded by Huping Hu) and books about TGD see this.