An Idea

[SteveA]

Hi Max and Steve;

Indeed there is a 3 body problem and a Pauli exclusion principle at work, which essentially says 3 quarks should not be confined within the same space, rather they should scatter. But lo and behold, they don't. They also have problems with asymptotic freedom. Again I think the Borromean ring structure explains how this can occur. In fact it's the only model that I'm aware of that meets those descriptions.

Best,

Pat

P.S. Good joke Max.

Along similar lines, notice that a computer using binary representations could compute a logarithm base 2 as a single unit shift in its space, but that if it had to compute a logarithm of 3, in theory it could never compute it precisely - binary symmetries can only approach and approximate 3 way symmetries on large scales.

Nothing in the infinite sequence 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, ... is equal to anything in the sequence 3, 9, 27, 81, 243, ... So you can imagine two spectrums in which none of the wavelengths are equal - they'd act in a manner neutral to each other and effectively not even exist within the same space because there would be no correlation across these systems (we could imagine they lay as independent dimensions of a space, but this would be a space of non-interaction and there wouldn't appear to be a way to view the two dimensions as two components of a single space - much like we do not see thoughts correlating with physical actions, except for the narrow channel by which the body connects between these two spaces and as an analogy there with quantity describing things, the body would then be something constructed with a minimum multiple of 6, in order that it allow multiples of both 2 and 3 to be represented simultaineously in a correlated/synchronized/stationary space).

Another interesting observation is that something that is physically small can appear quite complex relative to something else that may appear to be much larger, but if the larger system is incapable of constructing the symmetry that described the "smaller" object, then it can appear complex and uncorrelated.

For example, let's just say that some forms of turbulence in the air cause the equivalent of 13 way symmetries and that a bee models 8*13=104 states in their flight. They can then describe 8 contexts in which this 13 way symmetry exists. In a sense, this turbulence could be perceived as practically non-existent and instead the motion is perceived in 1 of 8 directions.

On the other hand, let's say that a person has 1000 such (I admit these numbers would be much much larger, but this is just as an example) states. We normally would assume that means that they could "see" 999 things, but that's not really true if we're talking about something more physically fundamental and tied to fundamental units of time, and these could be analogized with two frequencies near each other on a radio station, but still in different channels - the phase shift over time would end up "blurring" the 999 things across the space of the 1000 unit window, whereas something like 500 units would exactly repeat twice every 1000 cycles and the "signal" would appear to be stationary and unmoving as two identical things describable as quantities of 500 each.

If we tried to describe something that was a multiple of 13, using 1000 fundamental units, it would never match precisely because 1000/13=76.923 (there's a remainder of 12/13 or -1/13), though from some fundamental sense a group of 13 people could potentially describe the property in common.

My analogies above are imprecise in some cases and to be very accurate we'd really need to hold precise the exact "layer" of interaction that's being referred to.

In more general terms, particles or properties that appear to be neutral, orthogonal or independent relative to each other can be similar to two relatively prime factors in the volume of the space that they appear to exist. (For example, if we had a space of 1000 fundamental units and we had some particle within it as a quantity of 5 (1000/5 = 200, hence that particle could appear to be in 200 different states or positions in space) and another stable particle as a quantity of 4 (1000/4 = 250), then these can both appear to exist in a common space, yet not have any properties that interact between themselves (the space is the area in which the interaction is occurring, and in a sense they only share 1 dimension in common)

Again, these are just ideas to whet the appetite, but these types of properties appear to be at least near the roots of most any complex subject in science or number theory.

[Profpat]

I was reading the June issue of Discover Magazine today. In it they had this article called "Physicist Discovers Hidden Dimensions of String Theory"

Well needless to say I read it with great interest. It was an interview with Dr. Yau of the Calibi-Yau Conjecture. Another rehash of their complex manifold. BIG DISAPPOINTMENT. My manifold is much simpler and easy to understand.
Dr. Yau concluded that their manifold may not be right, but it is beautiful. I agree it's not right but it is beautiful.

[Max™]

The Calabi-yau shape is neat, but hard to appreciate without the proper dimensional representation.

It should be moving through itself in a non-intersecting manner.



Btw, 2^3 = 8, if you represented each multiple of 8 as 3, you can compute a log of 3 by adjusting the log tables, though if you are strictly speaking of binary computation, that is a fault of binary being so useful for cheap number crunching.

[Profpat]

I am definately a proponent of the binary numbers of 0/1, and indeed I use it to convert the I Ching trigrams into whole numbers of 0-7 which then can be used to number the 8 directions of the octant, and the sets in a Venn Diagram. 0/1, closed/open, can be used to represent any number, letter, image, movment, holograph, you and I. I believe it is the math of our universe. So simple, first introduced by Leibniz, later developed by Boole, to be further adopted into Boolean Algebra, which is the software of our computers.

[Profpat]

One of the great books.

[austintorn@aol.com]

You're really on a roll, Prof. You had the most number of posts last week, like 120 or more, winning the honors.

The turning 10-dimensional thing was even better than a post of a lady's picture.

By the way, there is a big flap about all the Miss USA contestant's sexy photos submitted by them.

[Profpat]

Deep Throat; Very interesting.

[Profpat]

You're really on a roll, Prof. You had the most number of posts last week, like 120 or more, winning the honors.

The turning 10-dimensional thing was even better than a post of a lady's picture.

By the way, there is a big flap about all the Miss USA contestant's sexy photos submitted by them.

It can never be too sexy as far as I'm concerned Austin.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Another good and sexy picture, Prof

Maybe our female members will start posting women pictures to compete or so that we don't forget about them here with all this great scientific stuff going on.


And belatedly, the answer to why life seems to have some amount of know-how to forming could be—if consciousness is not reducible and is a fundamental mechanic of portraying information—that atoms and molecules maybe have to their small extent some kind of notion of awareness of what's going on.

[Profpat]

Another good and sexy picture, Prof

Maybe our female members will start posting women pictures to compete or so that we don't forget about them here with all this great scientific stuff going on.


And belatedly, the answer to why life seems to have some amount of know-how to forming could be—if consciousness is not reducible and is a fundamental mechanic of portraying information—that atoms and molecules maybe have to their small extent some kind of notion of awareness of what's going on.

Yes, my money is on the proton/neutron having stored information, and developed some form of awareness and perhaps intelligence. Hold on Austin there are some men with white suits on and what appears to be holding a straight jacket.