tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post1945990480349762351..comments2024-01-22T11:26:37.599-08:00Comments on TGD diary: Congruence subgroups of SL(2,R), Monster Moonshine, Gaussian Mersennes, and p-adic physicsMatti Pitkänenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-10563604946532320282015-07-22T09:09:25.435-07:002015-07-22T09:09:25.435-07:00Matti,
I agree that this view can be a quantitati...Matti,<br /><br />I agree that this view can be a quantitative or calculable measure. The idea of Branes as such, as embedded or as multiple sheets is part of a wider interpretation ( which I think Lubos for example is coming around to a more general view which does resemble string theory where it soberly does not claim to be the total picture.) In the simulations and disconnections of implied or deeper space structures of the say vacuum or so called dark issues I do appreciate your qualitative intuitions including what happens at the brain stem... my concern is at the physics of higher brain regions where we seem born with a sense of space yet our personal orientation comes from something within. I would say off hand that what is happening here and in connection to the brain stem, and the right and left brain parity issues supports the standard theory in the string or loopy landscape... but it is in a more general level than say Lie groups which is to say that it is a topological dynamic view thus even in the superimposition of branes by group theory and issues of scale we have to reach a little higher than interpretations of Gaussian Prime ideas or any simply limited complex space structures (such particles may have been seen already as you said.) So it seems we must know the more general theory to show explicit calculations or explain why we can imagine some things or sense some things by which we do understand diverse representations of what is consciousness. I think a lot of this could be calculated more as arithmetic rather than abstract algebra. Keep up the good thinking.L. Edgar Ottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00525169618204198073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-65046461148587590702015-07-20T18:34:43.852-07:002015-07-20T18:34:43.852-07:00The point concerning monster was that the number ...<br />The point concerning monster was that the number N of its elements have primes associated with the definition of Gaussian Mersennes (1+i)^k-1, up to k=47 as prime factors. Why this is the case is mystery. <br /><br />What makes this so funny is that in these primes happen to correspond to possible copies of hadron physics definitely outside the reach of LHC;-). k=73 might have been already discovered: there is 3.5 sigma evidence for 2.2 TeV bump: something completely unexpected, it could be M_{G,73} pion. Even more amusing, I realised the possibility of k=73 hadron physics besides k=89 only recently. <br /><br />Deeper understanding of dark matter is the key problem of physics now. I am convinced that it requires going beyond the reductionistic view and number theoretical vision/quantum criticality having as its satellite concepts fractality, h_eff hierarchy, p-adic length scale hierarchy, adelic physics, ZEO, etc… is to my opinion sufficiently general approach. <br /><br />This is deeply conceptual problem, not about hypothesising some new exotic particle. It will not be solved by master symbol manipulator but real thinker.<br /><br />Varying Newton's constants, oscillating acceleration of cosmic expansion, as also recent progress in condensed matter physics suggesting that condensed matter physicists are already "seeing" many sheeted physics without knowing that this is the case, are extremely welcome empirical inputs helping to bind this picture with empirical reality.<br /><br />This is like solving a huge modern crossword with some overall hidden theme and full of jokes: once you discover it, everything becomes suddenly very easy. <br />Matpitka@luukku.comhttp://tgdtheory.fi/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-84473489808813094682015-07-20T14:46:00.313-07:002015-07-20T14:46:00.313-07:00Matti, very good post with many deeper issues in t...Matti, very good post with many deeper issues in the mathematics that can lead to variations on our emphases for speculative models. He seems to be suggesting your emphasis in particular may fit into the idea that primes are subsets of the monsters. But like string theory it is not clear in the details that we can say just what measures can be made. I thought your idea was a better generalization extending the idea of particle high numbers to low ones as well. So without a deeper understanding of the dark stuff (and the transcendental's as he mentions) we can only intuit vague questions of things like cosmic expansion oscillation or Newton's constant varying. There is also Surreal Calculus principles (Conway). Pi as a ten fold symmetry base looks rather stringy with structural gaps such as the primes show rather than issues of binary dualities. Consciousness adds to the complexity of the problem. What does it take to convey such ideas? We are at the beginning of a whole new physics and evidently mathematics. I see it as a very small part of what is to come. But it was nice to see articles with thoughts like our own that may find a wider truth of things in such detail narrow as it was as a looking back at our great theoreticians modest achievements. A good summary of our ongoing bottleneck to wider theories of everything.L. Edgar Ottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00525169618204198073noreply@blogger.com