spin fusion

[AntonioLao]

What do you mean by "brain eigenstates?" I know what eigenstate in relation to QM. My definition of energy is simply the product of a primary force and its local metric. This force is connected to absolute acceleration derived from Noether's theorem invariance of the Lagrangian under local infinitesimal motion equivalent to angular motion of spacetime charges. In classical mechanics, the vector product of force and its radius vector is defined as a torque while the difference of two scalar products of force and linear displacement is defined as work or kinetic energy. The scalar product of acceleration and linear displacement given unit mass is defined as potential energy. All these presume the validity of Newton's 2nd law of motion.

What Einstein did is to equate the inertial force of Newton's 2nd law of motion to his universal gravitational force and called it the principle of equivalence, implying that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass. These two are the main concepts of mass in classical mechanics. However, in modern physics incorporating special and general relativity, there is the 3rd form of mass called relativistic mass. As far as I'm concern, there is no need of defining a 4th kind of mass as implied by the Higgs mechanism. IMO, the Higgs boson does not exist and CERN's LHC projects to search for it is a waste of time, money, and human resources.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

What do you mean by "brain eigenstates?" I know what eigenstate in relation to QM. My definition of energy is simply the product of a primary force and its local metric. This force is connected to absolute acceleration derived from Noether's theorem invariance of the Lagrangian under local infinitesimal motion equivalent to angular motion of spacetime charges. In classical mechanics, the vector product of force and its radius vector is defined as a torque while the difference of two scalar products of force and linear displacement is defined as work or kinetic energy. The scalar product of acceleration and linear displacement given unit mass is defined as potential energy. All these presume the validity of Newton's 2nd law of motion.[Fine, but there's no real explanation here]

,
If you haven't read the two links I posted, you're probably not going to understand this. Also, since you say you're not adhering to Planck volumes__which I do use, after I realized it was much easier to process my model, from accepting DaveW's and Tim's use of volumes__our views won't be compatible...

Within the brain's volume are all mathematical vector, algebra and matrix states you speak of, but of course I'm using volume to represent all brain essence agents and state spaces, whether perception, cognition, will, memory, conceptualism or whatever. We know the brain processes concepts of smaller concepts into larger concepts. We know perception views this process. In order for one brain state to view another, it is required to have multiple processing systems, within one system, just as our heart is a system with other systems. When perception sees and cognizes complex concepts, of say an older world view, into an new one, especially one that may be influenced by a new epiphany, the complexities involved can only be represented by very complex logics, from geometric, to algebraic, to non-linear algebras, to matrix logics and even your favorite topological algebras and matrixes__the matrix maths and logics being the highest states of maths and logics. These complex systems, being within the innate internal continuum's volume, are also volumes within their own essence action spaces. All the actions taking place by nature, is one smooth process, as is witnessed by recalling our many memory states__but in order to use maths to represent all this complexity, the math change states of the real wave-motion states must be represented by the eigenspaces/eingenstates between the changes required to transition isomorphically from one math system to the next higher complexity of another, say from geometry/algebra to non-linear algebra and matrix maths and logics__all while respecting the realities of real wave-motions, within all brain state volumes' actions__or as you're figuring of the external continuum, which I also see as the largest Planck volume, with all her volumes within, called galaxies, black holes, stars and solar/planet systems, etc....

You're using what you understand of vector mechanics, matrix mechanics, topological mechanics and possibly non-linear algebras__and you are familiar with the eigenvectors and eigenstate spaces within your maths__but I'm talking about far more complex maths, that must handle arbitrary decisions, and highly complex integrations of say intuitions to logics, and epiphanies to concepts, to even higher concepts. You're far better at handling all these maths, but I have a general understanding of what is required to do these complex maths than I, but I'm always demanding they apply to real world volumes and spaces, within other spaces and volumes__acting within each other, on and on... I'm not going to explain this deeper, because I think you realize how complex it is to go from algebras to matrix algebras, especially if non-linearity is involved__which it is within brain state algebras and matrix logics, as used by the people I've studied, like Herbart, Vasiliev, Lebebvre and Stern, etc. I'm not saying I'm proficient at these maths, as I'm not__but I can certainly understand and respect how they function and inter-relate from one system to another...

It's just our differences are between real volumes, real masses and real states, as far as I can see... Here's the link at Wiki on eigenspace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenstate It's close enough to show the complexities I'm referring to, even in the standard quantum maths... "These concepts cannot be formally defined without prerequisites, including an understanding of matrices, vectors, and linear transformations."

What Einstein did is to equate the inertial force of Newton's 2nd law of motion to his universal gravitational force and called it the principle of equivalence, implying that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass. These two are the main concepts of mass in classical mechanics. However, in modern physics incorporating special and general relativity, there is the 3rd form of mass called relativistic mass. As far as I'm concern, there is no need of defining a 4th kind of mass as implied by the Higgs mechanism. IMO, the Higgs boson does not exist and CERN's LHC projects to search for it is a waste of time, money, and human resources.

Well Antonio, you have two choices here__either wait for the Hadron to find the Higg's boson, to restore real mass to the present models of physics__or find real mass in your system, as without mass in your system, you have no system__yet...

Einstein's mechanics does not define mass. It defines itself__SR and GR... Newtons system does not define mass... It defines its mathematical function unto itself... These are all circular syllogisms__not explanations... Mass and gravity are undefined, except to what Tim and I are working on...

[AntonioLao]

I am working on a quantum theory of spacetime which requires a physical concept of double intrinsic spin. Although the domain of its applicability is the Planck regions of time, space, and energy, using concepts such as closed physical volume is counterproductive. In physics, volume is considered as an extensive variable while the Planck region necessarily uses effective intensive variables and the ideal intensive variables I'm using are the equal magnitude primary forces and their local infinitesimal gauges.

[AntonioLao]

I noted 1 of August Stern 2 by 2 matrices is an H-minus but I can't find its topological opposite H-plus. Since he uses more than what needed for a quantum theory of spacetime and yet less than what required with the added connection (or diversion) to consciousness, the brain, and the mind, I don't think his logical bio-neurophysics can help me in my research for a quantum theory of spacetime.

[AntonioLao]

I do get mass by multiplying square symmetric Hadamard matrices. These are, IMO, derived from first principle not by experiments as you would reluctantly say 'something from nothing.'

[Lloyd Gillespie]

So far Antonio, all I see in your words, signs and symbols are mathematical constructs, describing other mathematical constructs__unrelated to any particular Planck volumes of reality...

At least, the people I'm studying are relating their maths to exact particular Planck volumes of reality__whether QM, RM or the intuitive brain mechanics__which they are relating through correspondent spaces and maths back out to QM, RM and the newest Matrix Logics__in many fields of study...

I'm sure you're well aware of the fact many physicists and mathematicians have recognized the limits of academic and experimental physics and maths, based on the Standard Models of physics and maths__and that many physicists and mathematicians have struck out on alternative investigations of the 'Proton/Electron Mush QM' sitting atop our shoulders. Many others are working in neural-net maths, while others are working in AI maths, as related to these more complex QM maths, which all correspond back to the models you're more familiar with. This is all in an attempt to crack the deep hidden mechanics within the atoms__by using alternative routes, since realizing all the accelerators and deep cold physics many interpretations have created so many new avenues to explore. The school of thinking I have been investigating since the `70's is this 'Punkin on my shoulders' deep quantum mechanics__which really goes clear back to Socrates when he asked "How do we describe the wisdom of wisdom__or the science of science...?" These are the same questions philosophers and scientists have been asking ever since, especially Sina, Kant, Herbart, Peirce, Vasiliev, Pollock, Finn, Lefebvre, Stern and company... Many quantum physicists around the world have picked up on this train of investigative thought, physics and maths__full well realizing its true correspondence to the deep mysteries of QM and RM... The maths to describe both QM and Neural actions seem to be the same, and if this turns out to be true, it just might be the 'Internal Continuum School' who beats the 'External Continuum School' to the answers... The internal continuum school has already taken the quatum logic maths to much deeper levels than the QM and RM standard models schools...

So, you can investigate by your methods, and I'll investigate by my methods__and we'll race to the top of total ToE understanding__which may be close or far away__but I know one thing__It absolutely must pertain to real Planck volumes, from infinitesimal limits to finite limits__or it's no model at all...

It seems as though you'd be a bit more interested in models of 'The Mathematical Mechanics and Logic of Intuition...'

I see the standard models' maths and logics very limited in scope__especially as relates to a ToE__and your's seems to be a very limited model also, because it, imo, doesn't relate to any particular 3D volume of reality__by your own admissions... That's a problem...

Imo, the question that's got to be answered is: 'How does the mind/brain process its million concepts into the one__we attempt to relay to others...?'

[labelwench]

Imo, the question that's got to be answered is: 'How does the mind/brain process its million concepts into the one__we attempt to relay to others...?'

Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

The mind/brain is a fascinating mechanism. While we can program computers to perform an incredible amount of data processing and modeling along the lines of concepts we wish to investigate, would it even be possible to program in the intuition and human value judgments that we are able to utilize in problem solving and decision making, particularly when we venture into new territory and have nothing but our prior experience and a 'gut feeling' to navigate by?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The mind/brain is a fascinating mechanism. While we can program computers to perform an incredible amount of data processing and modeling along the lines of concepts we wish to investigate, would it even be possible to program in the intuition and human value judgments that we are able to utilize in problem solving and decision making, particularly when we venture into new territory and have nothing but our prior experience and a 'gut feeling' to navigate by?

I don't know Lorrina, but we've got to answer it, to solve Earth's vast problems...

We do have math and logic tools to assist our experience__and, much extra experience continues to come from outside our experience...

Imo, the question that's got to be answered is: 'How does the mind/brain process its million concepts into the one__we attempt to relay to others...?'

[labelwench]

I don't know Lorrina, but we've got to answer it, to solve Earth's vast problems...

We do have math and logic tools to assist our experience__and, much extra experience continues to come from outside our experience...

Imo, the question that's got to be answered is: 'How does the mind/brain process its million concepts into the one__we attempt to relay to others...?'

Perhaps the Earth has no problems save the superficial irritation that we humans are causing, and we shall reap exactly as we have sown.

For too long, we have been taking more than we have been giving back and not playing nicely with others, or sharing our bounty.

I was just catching up a bit on world news and the aftermath of the flooding in Pakistan with approximately 1/5th of that country flooded and millions homeless and without even access to potable water. Relief efforts are unable to meet the needs at present and I gather that the Taliban is hinting that it might impede or attack the aid efforts. Absolutely dreadful and very upsetting to think that those willing to risk their health to the unsanitary conditions need also to fear physical harm, merely for wishing to bring their energy and resources to the cause. My mother gets physically ill when she ponders on such circumstances.

The humane voice wants to send help, while the cold voice of reason suggests let nature do it's job. People must learn from past experience and this region has historically been prone to flood, yet ever do people resettle it. I caught an interesting radio dialogue with a citizen of Pakistan, a geologist, I believe, who indicated that most of the disastrous outcome relates to human activity in the region. Some interesting details regarding the agriculture methods and settlement construction in the wrong areas.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The academic communities of the entire world, are going to be rather embarrassed Lorrina, one day in the future__when they will be shown how simple the solution has always been...

I can hardly await that great day of__Total Academic Embarrassment...

The Science of Science...