pairing excellence

[AntonioLao]

According to the statistics of demographical analyses, everything comes in pair is not a true statement for the human race, implying that every male has a female as a sexual partner. This person is a soul mate. Ideally, everyone can believe his or her soul mate exists but not everyone can honestly say they found such a person in life. However, the list of all unpaired singles must be less by two each time a soul mate is found. Realistically, complications arise where and when the soul mate is born among a different race or separated by great distance or age difference or born of the same sex. Fortunately, some modern societies allow interracial or February- November marriages. Unfortunately, many societies still cannot condone same sex marriages.

According to the statistics of quantum field theory, everything comes in pair is not a true statements for the elementary particles, which are classified as fermions and bosons, each with its antiparticle (soul mate). The meeting of an electron with its soul mate the positron results in complete annihilation of each other. The product is pair creation of two photons. Each photon is its own soul mate. In this sense, a photon’s pair excellence is simply to be alone by itself. If each photon is considered as a pairing excellence by itself, there must still be certain attributes within it that can distinguish this excellence. This excellence can only be determined if and only if the photon is a composite particle made of 4 H-pluses and 4 H-minuses and a pair of H-plus and H-minus becomes the unit of fundamental pairing excellence for all elementary particles.

[SteveA]

Your comment reminded me of a post I put up here regarding how trying to merge state machines in time can create superpositions:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/metaph...tml#post127992

How about multiple n-way symmetrical relationships? (It's fundamentally the same thing but just on a larger scale - in a physical sense, space itself could be considered to be symmetrical everywhere - matter provides the asymmetries).

[Graybeard]

This excellence can only be determined if and only if the photon is a composite particle made of 4 H-pluses and 4 H-minuses and a pair of H-plus and H-minus becomes the unit of fundamental pairing excellence for all elementary particles.

Hi Antonio ... What is a H-Plus or H-Minus ??

greg

[AntonioLao]

Steve, the unit of pair excellence is a one to one functional correspondence but there can be no inverses. Therefore, pair excellence does not form a group although it forms a topological ring like a Hopf link shown by this image. The second image would represent n-way symmetries.







Greg, if the orange of the first image represents an H-plus then the blue represents an H-minus, vice versa.

[AntonioLao]

This is a more complicated symmetry of H-pluses and H-minuses of different sizes and superpositions.


Based on the two distinct 2-fold and 3-fold symmetry

[SteveA]

Steve, the unit of pair excellence is a one to one functional correspondence but there can be no inverses. Therefore, pair excellence does not form a group although it forms a topological ring like a Hopf link shown by this image. The second image would represent n-way symmetries.







Greg, if the orange of the first image represents an H-plus then the blue represents an H-minus, vice versa.

You're referencing the controlled components though. That's rational ... but we have time to work on it and time doesn't appear precisely rational Though we might have a rational manner to map this all out and the irrational, paradoxical and creative etc. may have precise locations within Everything. You into topology?

http://www.toequest.com/forum/altern...tml#post128027

Also, at a fundamental level, any event of causation in time needs to remain otherwise it's an indeterminant event because there could exist no record forcing the causation in one direction - if you bring the cause, it never happened and nothing leaves the cause remaining.

In other words, the complexity of representation for the specific non-commutative pairing of A(t)->A(t+1) or A(t)->B(0) requires an addition of information to cause the selection of B(0) instead of proceeding as A(t)->A(t+1).

That would appear to remove at least something ... then again, a few other things to consider:

Specifying a precise value for t could require a lot of information as well as the relative contrast between systems A and B, but we can work a bit more efficiently and realistically than that. If we're not working with fundamental units of time, then we can just target A(Now + n) -> X(unknown), where n is simply an unspecified finite quanty (now we're working with a quantity that is technically "infinite", but is an infinitesimal relative to the Infinite, and X is an unspecified collection of an infinite number of systems at any point in time with just a single maximally inclusive (yet tolerable ) constraint.

In effect, we could place this all in a single dimension as A(Now+n) -> A(Now+n+d+1), where d=f(t)>0 and f is a function selected from some appropriate (and hopefully including orthogonal properties to the present) set.

We would then have "infinitely" reduced the quantity of information for a selection of f (it now becomes an infinitesimal function of t), though the reduction for is only finite for a selection of n, and maybe we could do better. "Now" could be a very efficient manner to reference time and using very non-specific windows for constraints could also be very time efficient. I assume you could improve this in the long run by layering a lot independent functions, each with greater than linear efficiency in terms of benefit relative to the information/energy utilized to construct it.

For example, given this set of 3 events, what's the most efficient ordering in time?

1) Working toward or accomplishing some goal

2) Knowledge of repercussions.

3) Acquiring tools specific to that goal that allow it to be done efficiently.

It would appear #2 should be first, as there may be little need to do any of the rest without this.

Obviously, there would be no need for #3 if #1 had already been accomplished, so after #2 we should consider either the sequences #3 followed by #1 or just #1 directly.

The desirability of #3 is not inherent in itself, though it could be seen relative to and dependent upon #1. The larger the scope of #1, generally the more valueable #3 becomes.

If we work with a larger picture, then having a variety of #2s could be valuable and these could address a larger range of #1s and we begin to need to add a #4 as creativity to the mix, compute the relationships between #1s in providing #2 and then as the size of #1 increases, construct a growing and efficiently layered set of #3 to accomplish those.

It all begins with information though - and then a bias to values sets it all in motion as we then have a #1 for which #2s gain value and then so does #3 and #4 etc. etc. etc.

[AntonioLao]

Steve, I'm hoping that infinitesimal local motion of spacetime can be used to define macroscopic time as an asymmetric separation between space and time. At the microscopic region, space and time are symmetrical and both describe local infinitesimal motion for the existence of spatial frequency and temporal frequency.

[SteveA]

That's an interesting idea and I've had some related thoughts.

Let's assume for a second that the speed of light was slowed in some area of space (for example, if the density of the theoretical Higg's field could vary). Any bending of light outside this could allow light to potentially circumnavigate this area and leave in one location, but enter from some other.

If this field decayed toward 0 at some infinite distance, it could be possible to embed an unlimited number of such systems within each other. The determinable limit of that space would be the largest constructable distance. The diversity of motions within that space would appear to be related to the specific manners/forms/dimensions used in that construction and each of these should be unique/distinguishable in order to avoid superpositions in the dimensions of that space.

Consider Euler's "constant" (and I use that term loosely ):

e=lim(1+1/n)^n as n->infinity

Now let's construct an imaginary version of this similar to a complex rotation by a unit radian. Of course we have:

1=i^4=i^(4*n/n)=(i^(4/n))^n

Though similarly a vector for a radian rotation, could be raised to the 2pi exponent to construct 1 as well:

r=lim(1+i/n)^n as n->infinity

and

1=r^2pi

So we might even have some fun and say that:

1=r^2pi=i^4
log(1)=log(r^2pi)=log(i^4)
0=log(r)*2pi=log(i)*4

If we ignored the undefined 0 and retained a bit of infinitesimal precision we could assume that:

log(i)/log(r)=pi/2

Looks strange in that form, though in terms of rotations it's a simple ratio of arc lengths.

i^(1/r)=pi/2

Wierd - what unit is the reciprocal of a radian? If we analogized this with physical concepts, a radian is a segment of a periodic function, or similar to an irrational fraction of a wavelength or distance. The reciprocal of a (irrational) wavelength is an ((likely) irrational) energy - an irrational energy should encompass a long period of time to construct and could not be present in a single discrete event.

It would be interesting to move this into a less abstract representation and see it as a higher dimensional process, though we have 2 irrational quantities (r and pi) and these infinities need to be tied together if they're to have a specific form. It would appear we'd begin with 1, construct i as a separate property (which could be a dynamic quantity growing in time). In fact if said the unit quantity was instead n as n->infinity, with i^4=n, then i could be a discrete quantity as well.

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

With regard to Euler's "constant":

e=lim((1+1/n)^n) as n->infinity

Notice that for finite n, this describes an outward spiraling by discrete steps tangent to the current angle and the relative magnitude of this growth per unit n is:

|1+i/n|=1^2+1/n^2=1+n^-2

If we were to construct a set of regular polygonals that didn't simply approach a circle, but remained closed, we could rescale this by:

lim((1+i/n)/(1+n^2))^n as n->infinity

Now the magnitude does not have an infinitesimal divergence and n described a sequence of polygonals nested within a unit circle (though it takes a much larger "space" to compute n^2 - n is "infinite" and n^2 would be greater than "infinite", though we could rescale this to help get it closer to something realistic:

lim((1+i/ceil(sqrt(n)))/(1+n))^n as n->infinity

I used ceil instead of floor to allow n=0, though we should really be working with integers. It would be interesting to see what form(s) of discrete structures could generate this manner of growth - the possible forms of quantum spaces capable of generating a chaotic spectrum contained within a recursively subdivisble and cyclic unit - what complexity would it take to generate all rational roots of unity and line then all up in a linear sequence? That's appears a fun problem, though it might actually be very simple:



But we do have superpositions in the ratios of these. The Farey Series is related (many relationships here with primes and chaotic functions) and so the perimeter of this space could appear non-uniform and a chaotic fractal.

http://alphard.ethz.ch/Hafner/Diverses/r-fract.htm

It would be interesting to look at roots of rotations in more than a single dimension as well. You could potentially have an interesting set of constellations, though in 1 dimension we have a lot of complexity and similar to the issue of infinitesimal divergences possible in Euler's "constant", we have the same irrational uncertainty present in Riemann's Hypothesis ... resolving that issue on a point by point basis could take a lot of time and decision making ... hmmm, another interesting idea http://www.dhushara.com/DarkHeart/RH2/RH.htm

Sorry about all the rambling there but you stimulated a few thoughts with your comments. Thanks. I've got to run for now ... until later.

[AntonioLao]

Steve, I'm simplifying things a bit by theorizing the infinitely many phase factors that can associate with each wave function. See attached document of a new thread in math forum "zero mass of double spin axes."