Scientific Forums


Pages: (39) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> MATHEMATIC/NUMBER-THEORY INSIGHTS from TOE project, Discuss TOE implications for maths/geom.
jal
Posted: Dec 4 2005, 02:32 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1459
Joined: 23-October 05

Positive Feedback: 64.29%
Feedback Score: -15


Can someone send me the instructions on how to post pictures, by e-mail?
jal


--------------------
Moved 10 June 2008
JAL'S BLOG
http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2
Top
Guest_jal
Posted: Dec 7 2005, 09:07 PM


Unregistered









Without any comments... I do believe that I got it!!! biggrin.gif
user posted image
jal
Top
fivedoughnut
  Posted: Dec 9 2005, 01:45 PM


Member of the "forum mafia"
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1667
Joined: 13-November 05

Positive Feedback: 57.14%
Feedback Score: 32


To start a G.U.T/T.O.E from scratch we really ought to discover inter-relationships between pi, phi and all other basic ratio's/constants etc, in context with the observable "reality"in which we exist.

I've a G.U.T feeling the answer is "staring us in the face"

However, because we as individuals are unfortunately limited to certain aspects of the"obvious" this neat idea of pooling resources together is great!

I wish I could help with the math.....fivedoughnut's skullnumbingly "blind" in this area, although if it's anything to do with "common sense" assumptions based upon inter-linking measureable phenomina... I'll be happy to assist.
Top
Layman Steve
Posted: Dec 10 2005, 01:21 AM


Unregistered









QUOTE (fivedoughnut @ Dec 9 2005, 01:45 PM)
To start a G.U.T/T.O.E from scratch we really ought to discover inter-relationships between pi, phi and all other basic ratio's/constants etc, in context with the observable "reality"in which we exist.

I've a G.U.T feeling the answer is "staring us in the face"

I think you're on to something. smile.gif

I hope and believe a TOE will come back to this. There is something special about irrational numbers. Numbers have such a wonderful way of describing nature. Irrational numbers shouldn't be left out.

Imaginary numbers have shown themselves to have a profound place in nature. So to, will irrational numbers - I mean to imply much more than the ratio of a circumference to a diameter and such. Of course. I can't prove anything - too weak with the hard math...

I have other outrageous instincts about the cosmos. I'm not a scientist, but I appreciate what they've done and how they've done it.

<OT>
Have you ever calculated Pi in base2 (binary)? You stretch out the digits, but have fewer symbos to work with (0, 1).
</OT>

PS: I still check in once and a while - few posts obviously. Good job RC. I'm sure this can't be easy.
Top
philip347
Posted: Dec 10 2005, 02:14 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2069
Joined: 23-January 05

Positive Feedback: 39.13%
Feedback Score: -132


The theory of everything, will not surfice, as it is given.

This has to do with the passage of time and how time relates to mass as an active quantity, dealing with how mass time is realized in situ.

X Saying for today:I don't like humans.They are over controlled robots, that jump to other's demands and influences.

I don't necessarily care for you, who you are, nor what you represent.

Your first mistake, is in the thinking that all other beings off the surface of this planet, either like Earth humans, or deems them important to talk to.
Top
jal
Posted: Jan 14 2006, 04:32 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1459
Joined: 23-October 05

Positive Feedback: 64.29%
Feedback Score: -15


SYMMETRY
someone from an other thread wink.gif
QUOTE
Err~ to put that last statement more clearly, its like all these different scientific fields each have a corner of a Rather large jigsaw Puzzle put together Err~ perhaps lacking a few interlocking pieces and all that is needed is the amalgamation of these corners via these crucial missing pieces so that the bigger picture really stands out to every one who chooses to drool over it.


I would like to see a review on this page of what people understand of symmetry.
I do not mean all the different kinds of symmetry just/only "symmetry."
Most of the confusion would be resolved if we really understood and agreed on what is symmetry.
See this page,
symmetry
QUOTE
Two objects are symmetric to each other with respect to a given group of operations if one is obtained from the other by one of the operations.

Let's find the hidden presumptions that are affecting out thinking.
Once an agreement is agreed, then there are few interesting questions.
1. What is the real meaning of " operations"?
2. What is really happening when the process is happening?

I seriously believe that we are not all on the same page.
Let's do a SYMMETRY 101.
JAL
I will be absent next week, to take care of bread and butter issues.
Go ahead.... start without me... cool.gif


--------------------
Moved 10 June 2008
JAL'S BLOG
http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2
Top
TRoc
Posted: Feb 16 2006, 08:19 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 913
Joined: 5-October 04

Positive Feedback: 80.77%
Feedback Score: 26


Everyone,


OK. If I may add GEOMETRY (based on the mathematics involved) to this thread, and use jal's last comment as the segway, let's continue this discussion.


What are the FORMS of symmetry, and broken symmetry?

What quantities do they embody?

How does RESONANCE fit into these ideas?


Just to get it rolling again.

T.Roc



--------------------

I know Nothing. I looked all over to find it, but found it Nowhere. The funny thing is, it was right between 2 things, that I knew Everything about. It felt like forever, but really, it was no Time at all.

Top
jal
Posted: Feb 16 2006, 05:35 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1459
Joined: 23-October 05

Positive Feedback: 64.29%
Feedback Score: -15


Hi TRoc!
I must say that from reading your posting, that your perceptions are different. As a result, I think that your are a good one to explain that perhaps, I repeat, perhaps, the information that we receive and send out to our environment may be blinding us to the "reality" of what is out there. It is causing us to make wrong presumptions and assumptions.
QUOTE
Let's find the hidden presumptions that are affecting out thinking.

In other postings I have alluded to the fact that Mrs. Susy, Mr. Slim and Mr. Slinky are up against the wall and cannot find out why particles have mass.
I think that the only way out is first , to investigate how/if there is a new way of looking at the problems. Not with different theories but by examining the way that our mind is wired.
As a re-enforcing point, our senses tell us... the earth is flat.... the sun is going around the earth...
However, our calculating/logical mind has figured out that those observations are false.
To me, that would be the first step to investigate. (We might not find anything)
smile.gif
jal


--------------------
Moved 10 June 2008
JAL'S BLOG
http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2
Top
TRoc
Posted: Feb 17 2006, 06:12 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 913
Joined: 5-October 04

Positive Feedback: 80.77%
Feedback Score: 26


Hi jal,


Yes, our perceptions need to be included, and by de facto, are. All "observations" are filtered through our "senses" in some way or another. All of modern Science began with explanation attempts to the colors emitted from heated, or energized bodies. This was the foundation for spectral analysis, etc. and is still used.

Technology (even "advanced") can mislead us. My "old school" 8' carpenters level says I am on flat ground, as does my "newfangled" laser level; yet both are wrong in the big picture because I am indeed on a sphere. The speedometer says I have zero velocity, yet I know that can never actually happen. Measurements are too linear to capture reality from any perspective, only the one we were just in. (point A to B, or time A to B )


T.Roc



--------------------

I know Nothing. I looked all over to find it, but found it Nowhere. The funny thing is, it was right between 2 things, that I knew Everything about. It felt like forever, but really, it was no Time at all.

Top
jal
Posted: Feb 17 2006, 06:28 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1459
Joined: 23-October 05

Positive Feedback: 64.29%
Feedback Score: -15


TRoc....
you are definitely to the point... smile.gif this time smile.gif
Would it be helpful/fruitfull to look for or find a way to get to a theoretical ZERO...Would it help us or reveal something new about symmetry?
jal


--------------------
Moved 10 June 2008
JAL'S BLOG
http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2
Top
TRoc
Posted: Feb 17 2006, 08:33 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 913
Joined: 5-October 04

Positive Feedback: 80.77%
Feedback Score: 26


jal,


Yes, and no. Getting down to the smallest size/scale possible, yes. Reducing to the quantity of zero, no. Zero is a quantity that stems from labels: when we "name" something, and separate it from everything else, we enable the concept of zero. However, since everything is interconnected, and built from the same basic elements, in the same pattern, zero is not a real quantity. Where one thing "ends", and another one "begins" is filled with space that is still defined by the terms of the 2 bodies. "Full time" (no limit to distance, or lessening by time alone) communication (ie. gravity), and conservation of mass, energy, etc., demands this.

Example: the definition of "skin" ends where those parameters stop, but skin is a part of "me", and "I" don't start, or stop there. My body heat is radiating out in infra-red quantities, and communicating past the traditional "end" of my body. Also note (pun rolleyes.gif ), if I am making sound, that will travel past the "zero point" of my skin (body end), as will "photons" reflecting off of me and DEFINING me to someone else's view. Now the "me" is in someone else's head! (yikes) huh.gif

The location "HERE" is as temporal as the time "NOW", or the action "TO BE".

However, BE HERE NOW is still the best instructions for happiness. biggrin.gif


T.Roc


--------------------

I know Nothing. I looked all over to find it, but found it Nowhere. The funny thing is, it was right between 2 things, that I knew Everything about. It felt like forever, but really, it was no Time at all.

Top
TRoc
Posted: Feb 17 2006, 10:08 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 913
Joined: 5-October 04

Positive Feedback: 80.77%
Feedback Score: 26


All,


“re-routed” questions from other threads:

ktwong (from “Quantum Unreality becomes Quantum Reality”)

“So basically a Wave man with a twist in the plot to duality. So everything starts with wave... How does the plot end with particle duality?

Where's the maths for this Music Theory Guide to the Galaxy. Is it a variant to Schrodinger's. Pray tell.”


Density is the answer to “wave particle” duality. First, the term “duality” is a misnomer for something that is always EITHER/OR, but never BOTH. A simple example is a coin: when measured (flipped) it can be either heads or tails. However, when not being measured, and just being “observed” by consciousness, it is BOTH. The experiments & equations that work for the “particle” definition NEVER are solved for the wave term, and vice versa.

Waves are the true nature; when they are interacting in large enough numbers in a given area, that area is dense with vibration. That is measured as “mass”; it has intrinsic resistance to the velocity of ©, due to broken symmetry. Waves communicate with Beat Frequency (BF), the BF is, indeed, another vibration itself. Only frequencies within ~ 1.5 “octaves” of quantity to the resonant frequency of the “body” being measured will act upon it. The background radiation of the Universe is RESONANT with that of the electron, to the degree that, the interaction BF is CONTINUOUS (steady, stable “particle”).

Other than that, the different perspectives are PRODUCED by the method, not intrinsic to it. If we determine a “wave” perspective” to the photo electric effect, and QM basis, we can do away with the “particle” approach, making the demarcation of wave to particle line where mass begins to be measured in situ (not “rest mass”).


jjac (from “ENERGY/MATTER/MASS Discussions”)
“I must ask, do you see that the SGS phases or states between the plane and the vertical to the plane correspond with all possible frequencies and wavelengths. Sort of like each scale (size)of the system, from the smallest possible to the largest, is a set that corresponds with an octave?”

Absolutely! The pure, natural mathematics of resonant quantities produces “octaves” of quantities, that will line up with your geometrical model. The center lines (vertical and horizontal; x,y axis) of this “matrix”, as I have been calling it, twist in the same way as in SGS. This produces the “inverse” relationship between frequency and wavelength, and produces problems when viewed (or computed) with traditional “plus one” mathematics. From the center (x,y = 0), the product of any two rotationally symmetrical quantities = ~299,792,457.8 . You have to love that! Not ad hoc; naturally, logically PRODUCED.

This same system produces the visible spectrum of colors, as agreed upon by “us”, as well as the A-440 tuning of sound EXACTLY. It puts “red & yellow” and “cyan & violet” together, as they are experimentally shown to be, in dualistic sub-groups. Green and magenta lie on “hinge points” near the y axis “twist”. This also geometrically/numerically explains the lack of “half step” between B & C, and E & F in the musical scales. (where there is no gradient of color change; magenta & green)

Historically, the “octave” has been based on 8 steps of 7 points. The problem was, the steps were not equal. With 13 steps of 12 points, you get equal steps ie. DISCREET, QUANTA. Everybody in the “physics book” has tried this approach at one time or another, but failed to completely solve it. Balmer and Schrodinger’s integer set “n=1,2,3,4..” does not mimic the set that produces resonance. It will approximate it though (especially in limited, or simple cases). Planck’s quanta is not scalable. These things are resolved with my system.

Where your SGS ties in to this most specifically is this: the math of resonance lies between 1 and 2. The math of resonant interaction is at 3; the triad or chord, and the triangle. The math (most simple) of the right angle triangle lie at 3,4,5. This is in Pythagoras’ ratio. In spherical geometry, the triangle shifts to 4,5,6, which is the ratio of the triad. The sequence that produces (most simply) 1, 1.25, 1.5 is 12 equal steps between 1 and 2 (12th root of 2 = 1.05946..). Those are the 3 necessary quantities (in frequency or wavelength) that will produce the chord (major). Very logical, efficient, and simple use of "quantity".

Geometrically speaking, the 3 lines come together at 45 deg. from 2 right angled legs. (90 deg & 45 deg harmonic relationship)

Resonantly speaking, the 3 values come together to produce a sum (Beat Sum, BS) of the BF’s that is equal to, or resonant (simple) with the tonic, or starting point. The dominant (1.5) and the tonic (1) mediated by the mediant (it’s really called that) of 1.25, joining the harmonic relationship with a “45 deg” line.

If everything has geometry, and everything has a frequency, then the underlying, fundamental nature common to both of them, can be applied to EVERYTHING.


T.Roc



--------------------

I know Nothing. I looked all over to find it, but found it Nowhere. The funny thing is, it was right between 2 things, that I knew Everything about. It felt like forever, but really, it was no Time at all.

Top
jal
Posted: Feb 18 2006, 08:37 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1459
Joined: 23-October 05

Positive Feedback: 64.29%
Feedback Score: -15


Hi!
Are we ready to leave the following stages? smile.gif
perception
QUOTE
Many cognitive psychologists hold that, as we move about in the world, we create a model of how the world works. That is, we sense the objective world, but our sensations map to percepts, and these percepts are provisional, in the same sense that scientific hypotheses are provisional (cf. in the scientific method). As we acquire new information, our percepts shift. Abraham Pais' biography refers to the 'esemplastic' nature of imagination. In the case of visual perception, some people can actually see the percept shift in their mind's eye. Others who are not picture thinkers, may not necessarily perceive the 'shape-shifting' as their world changes. The 'esemplastic' nature has been shown by experiment: an ambiguous image has multiple interpretations on the perceptual level.
Just as one object can give rise to multiple percepts, so an object may fail to give rise to any percept at all: if the percept has no grounding in a person's experience, the person may literally not perceive it.

QUOTE
4  given, presumption, precondition
an assumption that is taken for granted
QUOTE
The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.


So far, we have not probed very deep to find the hidden presumptions that are affecting out thinking about symmetry. smile.gif
Nevertheless your post should/could become relevant at a later stage.
jal


--------------------
Moved 10 June 2008
JAL'S BLOG
http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2
Top
TRoc
Posted: Feb 18 2006, 10:03 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 913
Joined: 5-October 04

Positive Feedback: 80.77%
Feedback Score: 26


jal,


I'm all "ears". wink.gif

(ok, some eyes too)


What are you mathematical insights regarding symmetry, and how it will help us develop a "TOE" from tabula rasa?


T.Roc



--------------------

I know Nothing. I looked all over to find it, but found it Nowhere. The funny thing is, it was right between 2 things, that I knew Everything about. It felt like forever, but really, it was no Time at all.

Top
jal
Posted: Feb 18 2006, 10:33 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1459
Joined: 23-October 05

Positive Feedback: 64.29%
Feedback Score: -15


TRoc....
You want me to reveal all... biggrin.gif
It's actually very small... it's
QUOTE
Just as one object can give rise to multiple percepts, so an object may fail to give rise to any percept at all: if the percept has no grounding in a person's experience, the person may literally not perceive it.
but it has a lot of meaning.
What can be added to this is that:
The stronger you belief, the stronger will be your objection to accepting an idea that could cause a domino effect which would bring you house of belief tumbling down.
That includes everyone, including me.
If there are assumptions clouding our perceptions.... it will be a very hard nut to crack....
All of this preliminary thinking is needed before we can go forward. Since I'm not into cognitive psychology.... maybe.... there is a "helper reader" that understand mathematic who can get help for this thread.
The examples that we used were excellent in illustrating the potential problem.
Does the problem exist????
Can we make any progress in identifying it?
It's a lot to think about.
jal

Yes, I have some ideas concerning the process of symmetry. smile.gif



--------------------
Moved 10 June 2008
JAL'S BLOG
http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2
Top

Topic Options Pages: (39) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use