Pi: PHYSICS AS CREATION AND GIVING OF GIFTS
Consider: Two potential participants in discussion meet; they are two so are counted already by Existence; they meet in freedom and give gifts of each other's perspective to create a new common overlap region of view.
So started with: new creation possibility that 2 will meet and exchange gifts of perspective. They both give of themselves to create the 'brainchild' of their giving: the child might be called "minus a third" as is the third party, a new, mutual, perspective, that appears from the gifts to mutual ground given by the 'parents'. So in the meeting of 2, 2 gifts offered: pi/4 becomes 1 - 1/3 new creation.
Suppose this new "child of discussion" were to meet, in a new discussion, the parent-perspectives from whence it was born; and all three parties gave gifts of their own perspectives to a new common ground, giving birth to a new creation from their considerations. From the point of view of the 'parents' of the original 'brain-child' of their debate; this "minus 1/3" has given something of themselves back to them in any new creative discussions: there are now 5 perspectives: the 'brain-child's gift (i) to new common ground (d), the gifts (ii)(iii) to the 'parents'(a)(b) from the 'brain-child' (c), and the gifts (iii, iv) from the parents (a)(b) to the new common ground (d).
The newly created common ground (d) is 1 meeting of meeting, pi/4 = 1 -1/3 (from 'child' and 'parents' to this new creation( d)), + 1/5 as follows: looking backwards in time we see a 1/5 in the new creation, a 1/5 given back to the earlier created 'child of discussions', a 1/5 given back to first 'parent', a 1/5 given back to second 'parent', and a 1/5 given back from original 'child' to it's parents along original path that gave birth to original 'child' when 'parents' met. (Maybe this is what "Feynman path integral" is about.)
Now suppose a new conference: participants are the two original 'parents'(a)(b), the 'brain-child' (c) of their discussion, and the new common ground (d) from a debate all three attended. These four give gifts to create a new perspective. This 'new perspective' partially receives back the previous back-in-time +1/5 that comes due to the participation of the 'new common ground' (d); but is now 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 -1/7.
You have seven 1/7ths come from the +1/5 as you have partial minus (five + two) gifts:
-1/7th: original parents (a)(b) to first 'child' (c);
-1/7th, -1/7th: 'child' to the 2 parents;
-1/7th, -1/7th: 'first child'(c) to new common ground (d) via those gifts to two parents (so 2 gifts parents to new common ground);
-1/7th: new common ground (d) gift to new perspective (e);
-1/7th: and 'new perspective'.
I think it may be that Dr. Stafford's discovery of the mapping of physics laws via his 4-space and his partial differential equation; may be seen via the Leibnitz equation pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 -1/7 + 1/9 -1/11 and so on. Although a lot of chemistry and physics seems implicit here; the use of numbers like 1/7th in what I've done here is really just as "possibility shells"; which are potential paths but to what extent paths are filled (the size of the gifts) is optional. To some extent our very presence on this Earth means we are already gifts to each other, we are children of God. What is being described is the possibilities to listen/ communicate with others, and to create through mutual consideration. Beyond math where counting is voluntary and not imprisoning; a glimpse might be seen that God is love; being and letting be; creation by mutual agreement. QED, Feynman path integrals, sum-of-histories, virtual-particle exchanges associated with creation in a 4th dimension, seem implicit in these patterns. The pattern pi/4= 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 -1/7 +1/9 -1/11 and so on appears to map a situation where "every way agreement can happen" is considered, where every perspective is taken into consideration in producing an agreement; where everyone has their say on any proposed changes anyone makes at any level of the discussion. The whole "draft agreement" can be re-juggled at each level with the arrival of a new participant; nothing is determined it seems until agreed to, it is all open to discussion with any voice free to be heard and how much each contributes is not restricted
ANOTHER SAMPLE FROM PHYSICS INVESTIGATIONS PAPER:
Russ suggested an idea of a damped oscillation and that does seem a very good idea re: understanding what is going on in physics. Chris Langan's idea of "conspansive duality" may fit the idea of a cycle of oscillation, a cycle of use of a pattern-template where two uses of the template give a potentially expanded view of each other's use. "As you judge, so you are judged".
Chris talks of the idea of "question and answer" appearing together, that looks like "the beam in your eye" and "the mote" in what you look at, being related. This looks like Dr. Richard Stafford's idea of "the data transmission" being "part of the explanation". In "The New Physics" edited by Paul Davies; there is a Chapter 8: "Critical point phenomena: universal physics at large length scales" by Alastair Bruce and David Wallace. On pages 266-267 there is an idea about "gauge theories can exhibit different phases..." and that "Quantum electrodynamics is one possible phase"...."the Coulomb phase". "The integration of the electromagnetic and weak forces in the Glashow, Salam, Weinberg model is achieved by the weak sector of the theory existing in a different phase, now called the Higgs phase, because the only way we can realise this phase theoretically necessitates the existence also of a spinless particle, the Higgs boson."
QED may involve: basic: two parties meet, reach agreement; this agreement and the two parties meet; reach new common ground. (Like the two parties reconsider their ideas and their draft-document when a new party arrives at the talks; all perspectives taken into consideration to create a draft they are all happy with).
Or: two patterns (a) (b) are compared (c) now meet a new comparison (d). Now, QED seems to deal with the "oscillation" of this basic pattern template as more and more people arrive at the conference and every way agreement can happen is considered. All perspectives and group possibilities taken into consideration. Essentially a shell-type of approach where physicists predict their potential to predict without actually predicting anything?
EQUAL-SPACED NUMBER UNITS AS SHELLS ONLY PARTIALLY AND RELATIVELY DEFINED
QED seems to be about what is logically possible without contradicting oneself, seen from a 4-D oscillating math-counting shell approach. The math uses equal-spaced-numbers where numbers are seen as built of equal units. The basic pattern template about which the math, the rulers, and the clocks, seem to oscillate is: 1 + 1 = 2. The 2 is defined as relatively equally divided among the ones because 2 + 1 = 3 and "every way 3 can happen" is defined as superposed into the definition of 3. So "3" has the effect of defining 2 as either order of ones in 3: if 3 is a1 + b1 + c1; "2" can be a1 + b1; or a1 + c1; or b1 + c1.
Our math seems to involve four catalogues that sort each other:
"1a" sorts "1b" as " COULD be same difference"
"1b" sorts "1a" as "COULD be same difference"
"2" sorts "3" as the "1c" COULD be same difference as "1a" , "1b".
"3" sorts "2" as the "1a" , "1b" COULD be same difference as "1c".
Here we have comparisons (photons!?) "backwards and forwards" in "time", in "self-referent reference" in the number system we use to compare things with. The structure of physics seems to be implicit in the equal-spaced -number way we define our official mathematics. By replacing numbers with sets of numbers; Dr. Stafford appears to have allowed the gaps between numbers to be varied and not necessarily equal-spaced. Dr. Stafford's system seems to involve instead of "3", "2" and "1" as above; "a set of numbers", a "subset", and an "examined set".
Returning to "The New Physics", if QED is in one possible phase; which seems to be an oscillation about the pattern template: "2 patterns compared, meet a new comparison (so every way agreement can happen)"; what is the Higgs phase about?
Maybe the Higgs phase is about a re-juggling of original two patterns via their comparison meeting the new comparison. The weak force may be representing the path back to re-juggling in the original patterns. That is, a re-appearance of orignal pattern-structure lost in the first juggling (comparison?) of patterns, now re-appearing, looking apparently as it was in one of the original patterns.
The book "The New Physics" mentions integration of electromagnetic forces in the Glashow, Salam, Weinberg model", and mentions a spinless Higgs boson, and massive W and Z gauge bosons. Well it would seem that from a "time" point of view, that is a "self-referent reference" point of view; the boson (or I call: comparison) is spinless as it is undoing a "spin" (or juggling) the same amount as that particular bit of juggling was juggled?
With "mass" as "uncertainty", the very massive W would (as on page 140 of "QED. The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter" by Richard Feynman) take away the charge of a quark (take away the bias-away- from-old-pattern arrangement, seen in a new bit of pattern) and change its flavour (change it back to representing a different (and earlier) source-pattern from the source it had represented). This doesn't change the quark's colour, writes R. Feynman: may translate to: this may occur within the limits permitted by the uncertainty of what pattern the quark has, so its immediate bias to its three neighbours (its 'colour charge' polarization) may be unaffected. Of course this involves the very uncertain (massive) W, and maybe the very uncertain (massive) Zo (which is a rejuggled W, that is as if a W meets a W going in the opposite 'time' (pattern pattern comparison compared) direction.)
A 'W' and its anti-particle 'W' can couple to give a neutral 'W', the 'Zo'.
"Electro-magnetic" may be translated it seems as "generalization-specification"; "force" as "freedom surface" (a constant background for activity?); "weak force" as the freedom for rejuggling original patterns, which may look weak when described in terms of a cumulated pattern shells framework described by numbers (the weakness may be defined by the system of analysing).
As the "Higgs phase" seems to involve looking back in pattern pattern comparison comparison (looking back in time) to describe a current re-appearance of an earlier juggled-out pattern; it I guess involves a comparison (a boson) (meeting of meeting) that is spin-less (that occurs within the zone of uncertainty that gives a back-in-time linkage between a current 'uncertainty cell' and an earlier such cell. So by definition such a boson is not spun or biased towards either cell as it refers to groups that can be formed from both cells.
Also on pages 266-7 of "The New Physics" one learns that "the strong nuclear force is realised in yet another phase of a gauge theory (quantum chromo-dynamics), called the confining phase." Also one learns that in the confining phase quarks and gluons cannot be isolated, and that this is the most natural phase of the gauge theories, and that 4-D space-time is its lowest critical dimension. Well, if you go: pattern, pattern; make a comparison; meet a new comparison: you are confining your first comparison by the new comparison, as opposed to un-confining it by referring back to its two parent patterns? (Not necessarily need to be confining it, but from a math-shell number perspective confining it by repeatedly re-using the same comparison-comparison template and just counting the repeats or oscillations, so confining may be consequence of imposing an assumed equal-spaced numbering.)
The strong force is apparently to do with repeated oscillations of a division-template (this template: the going forwards from 2 patterns, to a comparison, to a new comparison). Why is the confining phase considered the most natural phase for a gauge theory? How about: because "time" is self-referent reference; is pattern pattern compared, meet new comparison; which is the process of gauging or measuring one comparison with another. Self-reference per reference: "how do I look before and after meeting something?". The repeating application of a 4D space-time math-numbers-assumed-equal template may give an illusion of confinement.
Of course the lower critical dimension of oscillating a 4-D space-time template ("a pattern, pattern, compared; meet new comparison", template) will be the template itself.
The weak force is apparently to do with repeated oscillations of a multiplication-template (template: the going from a new comparison back to a previous comparison back to two patterns (so weak force is strong-force going back in time).
Electro-magnetic force involving QED is apparently to do with allowing any grouping of assorted directions for time; about any way that: pattern, pattern, comparison; new comparison (that is: time) can happen.
Gravitational forces apparently are about the apparent coming together of earlier patterns when they are seen from the perspective of a comparison of those original patterns meeting a new comparison. It looks extremely weak compared to the other forces when you look at it from a 4-space oscillating generalisation point of view. This is because the only way you are going to see beyond the confinement of that 4-space generalisation is to see the uncertainty oscillations within it.
MASS AS 'UNCERTAINTY-CELLS', CELLULAR AUTOMATA, E/c squared = m
When you repeatedly apply a 4-space look at a changing situation, you may find certain bounded undefined regions that are conserved and interact like cellular automata through your 4-space template oscillations. These "uncertainty-cells" might be called "masses". So gravity would be "electro-magnetism going backwards in electro-magnetism", that is un-juggling these alternatives (E) via comparison-comparison (c squared) to give matter (m).
Consider: two general categories: "car", "wheels". From a "car" perspective, "wheels" is a generalisation that specifies "car" as something with wheels, when you intersect the categories. From a "wheels" perspective, "car" is something that specifies "wheels" as part of car, when you intersect categories. Suppose further detail was involved: Suppose "roof" category was added, and you juggled this with both alternative orders of looking at "car" and "wheels".
The alternatives for grouping generalisation-specification (call alternatives: energy E) divided by comparisons of comparisons (c squared or re-grouping) gives an oscillation of the grouping possibilities (an internal self-referent view that grouping possibilities have of themselves) giving the uncertainty (mass) associated with "roof" seen in "cars, wheels". If "fermion" refers to "unit meets group" then this is characterised as fermions. ("c" regarded as "speed of light" regarded as "speed of speed" or "light of light" or "comparison of comparison"). Fermions here might be oscillations of "roof" as cells of uncertainty linking one "car, wheels" group with another "car, wheels" group. Fermions exchange bosons (boson as "comparison", as "group meets group") when you compare fermions.
Electro-magnetism involves "back and forth in every way time can happen, that is, time-groups (photons). I call "electro": "generalisation, and "magnetism": "specification. "Time" I call "self-referent reference", or "pattern, pattern; compared; meet new comparison" or "generalisation, specification" (which to the "hidden patterns" in the new comparison looks like (specification, generalisation). (Re: QED: See pages 27 and 28 of longer CTMU paper by Chris Langan under "Conspansive duality" where he talks of Venn diagrams as light-cone cross-sections; he seems to be talking about the same thing there).
WHY IS HIGGS BOSON SPINLESS?
Why is the Higgs boson spinless? The weak force seems to refer to the "force", or "freedom surface' associated with cells of: uncertainty of finding remnants of pattern A (or B) still present in a comparison "D" after it was met by comparison "C" where "C" was formed from pattern A and pattern B. Possibly it is only the minimal definition of it by an oscillating 4-space template that seems to define it as weak: it looks weak from that perspective. By counting each oscillaton as if they were equal-sized units, the weak force is defined as weak by that type of counting, it seems. If "spin" refers to bias towards initial or final conditions; as the weak force links initial (say pattern A) with final (possibility of A-remnant being found in an uncertainty-cell in D), then the Higgs boson (I call "boson": "comparison") has no such bias as it is defined as a common cell of uncertainty linking intial and final conditions. (Note: A and B were compared: C: then C met comparison D).
You might say that we are Higgs bosons in that a common uncertainty linking our science ideas is the ability we have to communicate to each other.
PHASES, FORCES, COUNTING AND ENTROPY
Consider two patterns A and B compared C; meet new comparison D.
Strong Force: pattern A then pattern B then comparison C then new comparison D. Repeat this template without accounting for expansion of possibilities in all directions; and you get a directional layering associated with an expanding number-shell description where only template-repeats are counted. This confines the force by definition into a strong division force, it seems. (As you are counting cycles of division).
Weak Force: new comparison D then comparison C then original pattern B then original pattern A (so: re-juggling that brings re-appearance of earlier parent pattern cells). Repeat this template without accounting for expansion of possibilities in all directions over repeat cycles; and you get a directional layering associated with an expanding number-shell description where only template repeats are counted. This keeps the phase spin-less as "first pattern - last comparison mixing is expanded through the layers by definition without spin towards first or last).You are counting cycles of multiplication.
Electro-magnetic force: plus , minus: give and take either way. Generalisation-specification: any way of grouping the 4 (pattern A, pattern B, comparison C, new comparison D) as 4. Any combination. Repeat this generalising-specifying template without accounting for CONTRACTION of possibilities in SPECIFIC directions due to new patterns coming on board; and you need the rules of QED to compensate for the possiblity of interference effects when counting cycles that as shells may interfere. You are counting commutative-law frames but need to allow for anti-commutating structures. (Seems this might explain anti-commute aspect in Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.)
Cellular Phase: "Convergence mode" (an idea) Gravitational force:
Looking at new-comparison D and comparison C together as a cell; the parents of C that is patterns A and B may appear to converge. Repeat this template without accounting for neutralising of this convergence by new weak forces making A and B re-appear apart; and you need perhaps a QED-like system to account for weak force-gravity interference effects?
Cellular Phase: Expansion mode: Negative-gravity force:
Looking at original pattern A and original pattern B together as a cell; from this cell the comparison C may appear to diverge from new comparison D in their C,D cell. Repeat this template without accounting for interference possibilities from earlier confining effect of strong force and may need a QED-like system for accounting for neutralising by the strong force of this expansion. Interference may occur between negative-gravity (universe expansion?) and the strong force.
From an oscillating of this template by counting the cycles with assumed-equal-spaced numbers, you get expanding number-shells giving expansion of the ways the template can happen within the template. This may give the impression of multiple divergence of past patterns in the future, that is "so-called tendency towards disorder" that is "entropy". Locally, entropy may be seen as apparent tendency to disorder, to stay diverged; on large distance scales this apparent divergence tendency might be seen as universe expansion?
Locally, interference with entropy by the strong force might be seen as atomic nucleus stability; globally interference with universe expansion might be seen as cells of strong force, as black holes, as galactic nucleus stability? Maybe there is an analogy between atomic beta-decay via weak force; and black hole decay via Hawking radiation? Weak force does seem to involve appearance of virtual particle/anti-particle pairs either side of the atomic "event horizon". The re-appearance of an earlier juggled-out bit of pattern A in the D comparison of C (C made from compare A and B) may look like a virtual bit of A (the memory of A) and its anti-particle (a bit of A going backwards in time). That is, in an uncertainty cell that links A with D, a virtual pair of unit meet group (fermion) arrangements might appear at high frequency of counting (so expansion of number-shells interferes with uncertainty-cell to make appear like two virtual fermions). I wonder if neutron-stars are multiple layers of neutron-type templates; and I wonder if black-holes are effectively virtual-proton-stars and if black-hole decay is virtual-proton decay?
INTEGRATING FORCES, DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY?
Gravity: holding together (converging) new comparison D and comparison C; patterns A and B may seem to converge (especially over cycles of counting with expanding number-shells).
Entropy: holding apart new comparison D and comparison C; the patterns A and B may seem to diverge (especially over cycles of counting with expanding number-shells).
Speculation: perhaps if you combine the left-to-right direction of pattern A, pattern B, comparison C, D from the strong force; with the right-to-left direction D,C,B,A from the weak force; you could through counting oscillations see virtual held-together cells of AB.
Similarly one might obtain virtual cells of CD from the left-to-right of CD in the strong force and the right-to-left direction of CD in the weak force. Then from the CD cell perspective you would have a strong-weak, weak-strong version of gravity. Looking at ways cell-template-groups could happen might give a QED-like version of gravity. Dark matter? (When seen from counting by expanding number-shells cycles of template oscillation)
Leaving out the cells, you could just look at interference possibilities between weak and strong forces to give a QED style look at them. Dark energy?(When seen from counting by expanding number-shells cycles of template oscillation).
REGARDING "QED. THE STRANGE THEORY OF LIGHT AND MATTER" BY RICHARD
Pattern A meets pattern B; from which comparison C emerges; which meets a new comparison D. I could look at an exchange of gifts idea as mapped in Leibnitz equation for pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 -1/7 + 1/9 -1/11 and so on.
Suppose A gives, B gives, C is born; then C gives to A, B, and to D; and A, B give to D: D is born; you get:
C gives cabd; A receives ca gives ad; B receives cb gives bd; D is born from the little d's.
A proton in D is formed from:
its re-juggling of gifts ad and bd (so have new groupings distributed from gifts received from A and B, so have at least two types of ad, bd pairs giving two upquarks of +2/3 charge; and its gift from C of cd: one downquark of charge -1/3. Charges are seen as relative biases; so have -1/3 bias to C source and two sortings of +2/3 bias to A,B sources.
A neutron in D is formed from:
The a bias and b bias to A and B in gifts ad and bd: so two downquarks each -1/3 bias; and one upquark of +2/3 being a pair of versions of 'a' bias and 'b' bias given back to A and B in the ca and cb gifts A and B received while giving D ad and bd gifts. (Assumes that this model didn't differentiate detail in A and B receiving and giving).
Suppose a similar pattern gives birth to E. The way physics treats any further developments seems to be to re-apply the framework so far, as oscillations between two frameworks; one up to "D" stage, the other starting later and finishing at "E" stage so looking like a variation on first framework. In reality much elaborate structure can be created by adding F, G, H, etc. but modern physics seems to keep generalising its template to look like oscillations of just the type-of-framework that gave D. However Dr. Stafford appears to have demonstrated the idea of new structure in a 4th dimension.
The oscillating of an ever generalising yet broadly same-form template seems to be like how when you count "1, 2, 3, 4...." the assumption of unit-spacing of the numbers doesn't take into account the rapidly expanding variety of ways a unit can happen inside a bigger number. In Existence, in freedom within the law of non-contradiction, the past and future seem connected and the past-potential can be fulfilled in an increasing variety of detailed ways in the future it would seem.
The framework where I go from "D" to "E" allows the gluon interactions (pages 134 - 139 'QED' By R. Feynman) to apparently be mapped. D gives de to E, and da to A, and db to B, and dc to C; A receives, and gives ae to E; B receives, and gives be to E; C receives, and gives ce to E. E is born from gifts ce, ae, be, and de. It is noticeable that distance is foreshortened in certain photographs taken with a telephoto lens. Or looking at a scene through binoculars, a reasonably nearby tree and distant fence may seem to be not as far apart when viewed through the binoculars in one scene.
Perhaps one could think of this phenomenon in terms of "dark" distance or maybe a "distance black-hole" that evaporates across the space between two surfaces depositing virtual distance "charge" on each of the parallel surfaces (plates). Kind of a "distance capacitor" with distance "charge" pumped on to the two "plates" (tree plane and fence plane) by a distance-battery (the telephoto lens).
A similar concept may be the "dark matter" that is thought to explain the unexpectedly high velocity of the spiral arms in galaxies.
Perhaps the velocity of a galaxies arms is foreshortened due to its spread-ness relative the rest of the galaxy. The velocity of the outer arms may appear to be higher and closer to the velocity of the inner arms due to the foreshortening of such a spread space-time object when perceived as "deposited" on a small space-time surface.
Perhaps the "plates" of space and time are close together in perspective of a distant galaxy; a velocity Casimir effect may cause the velocities of outer and inner parts of the galaxy to seem pressed together. A "velocity black hole" evaporating over big distance giving unexpected divergence in velocity readings for inner and outer arms? Anti-velocity "deposited" on the inner galaxy and velocity "deposited" on the outer rim?
Perhaps a telescope is a kind of worm-hole; connecting two distance-blackholes (scene foreshortening and image focussing)? The lenses supply "negative distance energy), re-sorting distance inernally? Star images as star-gates? Windows on another space?
Referring to "The New Physics" edited by Paul Davies, chap 18 by Abdus Salam, pages 486 to 487 on "supersymmetry":
Consider that supersymmetry's new quantum number of +1, -1 may be supplied by math number counting steps.
The "lowest mass stable neutral object" of say scalar neutrino or spin 1/2 photino or spin 3/2 gravitino may be options visible in 1 + 1 = 2.
Here count of "2" is a step where the two ones are muddled together as a group not biased either way in the definition so far of 2 so neutral.
Or the internal comparison (photino) is defined as 1/2 in a math-shell way the spin in a divided 2.
Or the spin 3/2 gravitino may refer to the coming together of the 1 + 1 in a new 1 group (called 2) as seen from yet another 1 group (called 3); the bias of this coming together (gravitino) is 2 out of 3.
The supersymmetry would be broken by the act of counting. Repeat cycles of templates of counting give the spin 1/2 and spin 0 multiplets.
The "shadow matter" of virtually undetectable gravitons and gravitinos might be "math meets math in math perspective"; since physicists count with math maybe the re-normalisation process is where the shadow of mathematics can be seen.
A "super Higgs effect" would be "Higgs effect as uncertainty about physicist's talking about the same definition" coupled to "uncertainty about physicists counting with the same math".The "new superfield" would be shared mathematics among the physicists involving supermultiplets of spin 0 (agreements on definition of 2) and spin 1/2 (agreements on definition of the 1 + 1 in 2).
The new potential energy (potential alternatives) this field gives rise to would be the possibilities in multi-view mathematics. Multi-view math gives instability say; with two possible ways of spacing "1+1 = 2, + 1 = 3" the spin 3/2 gravitino of coming together of first version of 1 + 1 = 2 with another view (generating a new group 1 thus a projected 3 say) thus absorbing a spin 1/2 member (1/2 spin on meta-math) of the supersymmetry multiplet. (Not sure if sorted this attempt out right.) Quoting: "thereby endowing the gravitino with rest mass' may be because rest-mass = rest-uncertainty; the shell structure of this math-counting meets math-counting rests in the basic uncertainty pattern described above between two views of "1 + 1 = 2".
If the two "ones" are not defined as to what size (e,g, one car versus one bus); the minimal shell and self-referential Zeno's arrow scenario-type structure of number-counting in math leaves open the possibility of different interpretations of "1 + 1 = 2" it seems.
Superstrings may refer to "number lines". Curiously the idea of "fractionally charged dyons (particles with both magnetic and electrical charges) seems to work in maths as numbers can be partially biased generalisation (electric charge) and partially biased specification (magnetic charge). "10" in base 10 is maybe a fractional generalisation of 100 and yet a fractional specification of 100?
SUMMARY: PARTICLES AND FORCES
From freedom and consciousness in Existence; people involved in math-physics partake in discussion, exchange of views, self-referencing, comparison and matching of patterns, measurement and types of counting.
Taking the math style of counting: A,B: C (1+1=2)
The W- and W+ particles fit the roles of the A, B ; they have spin 1 towards C which can be the Zo (neutral version of spin in C terms; the Zo can be complementary juggling of W- and W+.
Now (A,B: C) is like "pattern, pattern: comparison" or "to and fro goes a pendulum". A,B can be thought of potentially exchanging information between each other via C to give a C bracket of two views of (A,B) giving:
B-influenced uncertainty in conservation of "A" definition would be "W+" particle (spin 1 in C); A-influenced uncertainty in conservation of "B" definition would be "W-" particle (spin 1 in C); C-perspective on the potential juggling among A,B to new A,B would be Zo particle (spin neutral in C).
A meeting B generates a point of discussion you might say; so one-D space unit. Noting the C perspective gives a line along which exchanges of views between A and B can occur; A and B can juggle ideas along the C line: so have 2D space unit: one exchange and juggle of views.
In talks, A and B might re-arrange their views again in reference to original views and their first re-arrangement. This gives a "D" spin on the discussion they are having. The earlier unit-linear 2-D space has become able to be polarised in A, B, or C directions within the D-perspective; giving a three-dimension space of three axis. Exchanges of opinion occur in the floating unit-bracketing or quantized bracketing of this 3-space.
Further, A and B might juggle their 3-dimensional discussion again; generating a unit of E-perspective on the three dimensional conversation.
Now the 3-space can self-refer via the E perspective; which gives space-time (unit juggling of 3-space)
A series of templates of the discussion between A and B is established; here physicists seem to group further spins on the discussion into broad versions of the previous templates. This may be a consequence of their assuming numbers in mathematics to be equally spaced.
Mathematics does not state if this 1 is an apple and that 1 is an orange. But it does treat them as plural, so different. So how are the differences coped with in mathematics? Perhaps by what Dr.Richard Stafford calls "adding unknown data": for example "52" is defined in maths as "every way the sum 52 can happen", that is, "the history of the sum" including such history as "1+789-800+62" or "26 + 26".
What about when you add "20" to "52"? The history of "20" (every way "20" can be the sum) and the history of "52" (every way "52" can be the sum) are merged as the history of "72". If the "20" was "20 apples" and the "52" was "52 cards"; this is superposed in "72" as apple-cards.
"72 apple-cards" is 72 "generalisation"; may call this "electric". Add say "10" and you have three numbers "20" + "52" + "10"; any two can be called "apple" + "card" giving a generalisation quantized by the other number which divides the generalisation in an unspecified way (except in a shell-math way). Can call the three-in-one of a math-perspective on the meeting (quantum) of two math numbers: electric field.
Looking at this field in a linear way (group meets new number) gives a linear electric field or electric current. Combine a further new number perspective and these two new numbers can form their own generalisation. So may have "20" + "52" + "10" + "40" + "35": any two pairs can be given labels and share a same number-background. Any two generalisations can meet and be divided by the fifth number: gives a math-meeting background to two generalisations; so quantized specification field (magnetic field).
(Magnetism can be thought of as electricity going backwards in time; re-discovering specification potential in a generalisation by meeting it with a new generalisation? Or may say time-layers are generated from beyond time? Time is self-referent reference (as in a pendulum swing or atom vibration or rotating clock-hand. Seems to involve idea of "specific generalisation" or "difference-same" (Chris Langan's "syntho-diffeoensis" or "same-difference" concepts might be viewable as involving "specific-generalisation", another phrase for "difference-same" ("same-difference") it would seem.)
Two generalisations specify each other: "car" and "wheels" are categories that partially define each other.
When numbers are multiplied the category designations can survive: "apple x card" labelled as "20" x "52" gives a choice of view of "apple x 52" or "card x 20". Such choice of views is built into addition in so far as common factors are involved (e.g. a "2" view of "52 + 20" survives as options within "72"). Multiplication dilutes or weakens "20" by "52"; both are together weakly generalised (they met once, so one way they can be as groups diluted re: each other). Multiplication weakly specifies "20" by "52": there a lots of ways (dilution) of finding "20" or "52" in "20 x 52". So multiplication provides a weak force (weak freedom of definition surface) coming together of generalisation-specification (i.e. of electro-magnetism).
Division involves a strong force of generalisation and specification
"20 x 52" divided by "20" generalises 52 strongly as in one step "52" can be 52 almost anything from a math-shell perspective. Multiplying then dividing 20 by 52 seems to curl the 52 around the 20 like the 52 were a passing comet momentarily attracted to the 20. Division has also diverged "20" and "52" into separate specified categories, strongly distinct. Division seems to be a coming together of electro-magnetic under the strong force.
Alternating cycles of multiplication and division seems to involve plus variations and minus variations in the extent of the electro-magnetic (generalisation-specification) comings together. A cycle of a pair of (division or multiplication) involves four allocations of relative weak or strong impact on previous cycles.
So you can have "coming together" as gravity (often caught up in math-numbering); possible coming together of electro-magnetic in weak; in strong, or coming together of weak and strong; so supergravity; and possible: divergence or curl, of weak and strong re: each other (electro-magnetic weak-strong).
Mathematics seems to be about "history of a sum" and the "ways that counting can happen"; physics seems to be about "sum of a history" and the ways that "happen" can be counted. If physics is "math meets math" or two-dimensional math template; then seems to explain the role of 2-D numbers in math versions of physics.
A,B: C. Two versions of (A,B) from juggling in C. "A" perspective in "C" of change in "B": W+ particle. "B" perspective in "C" of change in "A": W- particle. "C" perspective on (A,B) in "C": spin neutral Zo particle (cancelling out of W+ and W-).
Now: D view of group. This view gives a floating bracket that can sort any pair from (A,B,C). Any pair will leave one of A,B,C designated in role of "C" perspective as potential Zo for any allocation of W+ and W- roles. (A "floating bracket" seems similar concept to "partial differentiation").
Now, the "D" perspective on juggling A,B,C roles allows an uncertainty between "C" role and "D" role.
From an "E" perspective on juggle A,B,C,D roles, one gets quark definition. But the role swap possibility between C and D gives a space-time uncertainty in quark definition. If C and D decide who will swap with E, that leaves two places where C and D were for one of them. This deal allows three sympathetic roles of A,B,C to be filled while D and E are filed by folk from C and D.
The D,E uncertainty gives the "gluon" binding of quark definition in space-time ; the C,D uncertainty gives the "colour" force in polarising quark definition. A cycle of E-viewed juggling where occupiers of A role, B role, C role are conserved gives three colours; any role swapping gives anti-colours.
Taking the E perspective where "E" role can be juggled amongst, as a group, the A,B,C,D roles ("E" is like a 5th dimension viewpoint on space-time juggling in cycles (in math-counting).
Taking A,B,C,D from E;
any pair in A,B,C,D roles in E perspective, where that pair is conserved but re-juggled (so say A,B swap ideas giving new A,B) is: "upquark".
Any single that remains single (say A stays A; or B stays B) is "downquark".
Cycles of counting "E" perspectives gives juggling of mathematics with (A,B,C,D,E) group:
A new D,E from previous D,E swapping ideas:
If D,E cancel: neutron. (space-space-time) (space-bias)(head in the clouds)
If D,E not cancel: proton. (space-time-time)(time-bias)(talking)
If D,E uncertain: electron (space-time uncertain)(listening)
Two cycles of "who is in D role"?:
Double D cancel (D-role occupier re-juggles thoughts): electron (as double D makes D uncertain in E?)
Double D not cancel: muon (heavy electron: uncertain electron as now have double E from conserved D!)
Double D uncertain: tau (very heavy electron: not sure if have double D from E, or double E from D.
Two cycles of "who is in E role"?:
Double E cancel (E-role occupier re-juggles thoughts): neutrino (thinking about the subject, so not totally head in the clouds)
Double E not cancel: muon neutrino (more massive (uncertain) neutrality (as did some thinking, some head in the clouds, but which was when?)
Double E uncertain: tau neutrino (very massive (uncertain) neutrality (as who was that, who could have done some thinking or could have had their head in the clouds?)
Looking at the D view of (A,B,C):
C,D cancel: neutrino (potential discussion that A and B reserved each other common space for in D)
C,D not cancel: anti-neutrino (potential discussion that A and B reserved space for each other at different times (common space going back in time
C,D uncertain: photonino? (uncertainty in space-time (is there a possibility of talking?)
Looking at A,B,C:
Two cycles of "who is in A,B role?":
(A,B)(A,B) cancel: upquark (Charged + 2/3 bias to A,B in A,B,C)
(A,B)(A,B) not cancel: charm (room for reappearance of old A,B content)
(A,B)(A,B) uncertain: top (you decide: are you A or B?)
Two cycles of "who is in C role?":
C:C cancel: downquark (charge - 1/3 bias to C in C (C reconsidered ideas!)
C:C not cancel: strange (C keeping quiet but still there)
C:C uncertain: beauty (A and B may meet again, don't know where, don't know when; beauty of heaven shines through)
From "The Force Of Symmetry: by Vincent Icke (Cambridge University Press), page 220: "a neutron changes into a proton while emitting an electron and an antineutron!"
This in the above is seen as: a neutron (D,E cancel) changes into a proton (D,E not cancel) via D,E uncertainty (electron) and an anti-neutrino (C,D not cancel because the D,E uncertainty must I guess involve some difference or certainty at least broadly distinguishing C and D perspectives?)
An idea that comes to mind: everyone tells the truth one way or another.
Looking at page 240 "The Force Of Symmetry":
"When you see a particle with right-handed polarization coming straight at you, its spin rotation looks like the positively mock charged particle above and left-handed spin is like the negative mock charge. This allows us the following way of undermining weak charge conservation: we stipulate that only particles with one particular handedness carry weak charge; others have weak charge zero."
"As it happens, it is observed that only particles with left-handed (L) helicity and anti-particles with R-helicity carry weak charge. All others have weak charge zero, and therefore do not feel the weak force."
This could be explained:
A meets B; they exchange opinions in creating common ground C; and re-juggle ideas again in consultation with C creating D. (call old A,B ideas-exchange to newly juggled A,B ideas, an upquark in creating D; as seen from A,B,C,D,E (E-cycle of 4-D space-time).
A proton (promoted viewpoint) from their discussion, seen in an 'atom' of space-time, contains two upquarks (two versions of (A,B) combined viewpoint. Generalisation-bias (electric charge) of the upquark is +2/3 (two thirds of (A,B old views; A,B new views; A,B neutral views), of the A,B promoted view is 2/3 as involves 2 A,B aspects of three.
A downquark in the promoted view from A,B discussion is some neutral ground of A and B that is given to the A,B proton view by C.
Communication channels are open so what could happen in terms of contributions is what is being taken into consideration. The idea is a conversation where every view is heard, every group view and possibility of perspective and re-thinking is taken into account. A math-shell effect from counting with numbers defines various tendencies as strong, weak, electro-magnetic, and gravitational.
A neutron in D is formed by two downquarks (views of A unchanged still A-type given from C common ground; views of B unchanged still B-type given from C common ground (each -1/3 generalisation-bias (electric charge) as e.g. "A" unchanged over three sights of A gives -1/3); and one upquark shared neutrality of perspective in D view of A,B and C view of A,B so possible neutral re-juggling of A,B within bounds of C to D view of neutral ground (so +2/3 charge in the neutron).
Weak force involves re-appearance of earlier pattern that was in A meets B (so resides in their creation of common ground C) but juggled out with the re-juggling of A,B ideas (so resides in C to D uncertainty or grouped perspective) then re-juggled back in by third appearance of A,B ideas in E.
Looking at layers of repeat cycles of A,B,C in the expanding floating group definitions of A,B,C from D and E broadening perspectives:
Have cycles: A,B group; A,B,C (C group); A,B, (C in D group); A,B,C (E group). Here some of A,B was in their C juggling; juggled out in their D juggling to be possibly lost back to C in C-D uncertainty (C(D group perspective) (so may have mock negative charge as left-hand spin) or possibly lost forward to E in C-E uncertainty (coming at you at E it looks like has mock positive charge?).
The weak charge involves three steps: pattern was there; pattern juggled out; pattern juggled back in. A three-in-one view of this as group-meets-unit gives two-views-of-pattern meets one view (so fermion perspective). From this perspective the fermion could be bias to the left or to the right of the juggled-out phase.
Just A,B gives a point of contact. C perspective converts the point into a line of reasoning. D perspective spreads the line into a sheet (discussion surface) (m-brane theory?). E perspective allows 3 ways of seeing a sheet from a line (world-line theory of 3-D?)(e.g. three ways sheet can roll out as in A way, B way, C way seen from line of choose sheet-way,D,E).(Roll alternatives option may explain two curled up dimensions in 3-D world-line view)(They are curled up within the uncertainty region defined by mathematical counting with assumed equal-spaced numbers; and meeting of two localised views of that counting system.
The disappearance of some C perspective into C-D view uncertainty then re-juggling back some C perspective; gives a line of C perspective on D intersecting D's linear view of C; with left and right rotation possibilities of the C line around D.
WONDERING ABOUT MASS
Given an "E" cycle of 4-D space-time that is of A,B,C,D:
"D,E" uncertainty when you go (in "E") from your first A,B,C,D to your second A,B,C,D gives an uncertainty in space-time definition which allows the possibility of a bias (electron).
With many layers of A,B,C,D there are many ways the potential for bias to a particular voluntary structuring in the layers can be carried out.
It seems likely that what is called "mass" can be regarded as "uncertainty" associated with an interference pattern between the usual-math idea of "number" (which allows many ways a number can be constructed) and with the scaffolding-like structure of a particular particle in its freedom to build a structure over many cycles.
So an electron has the scaffolding of: "cycles of E" as each event of: go from one look of A,B,C,D to a new look of A,B,C,D.
Over many layers of A,B,C,D the electron could take many possible appearances, but still be an electron.
A single number (say 78) can be thought of as a "singularity" or "black-hole" from which light (comparisons with other numbers by common factors, such as "1") cannot escape.
One could suggest that the "mass" of the "black-hole" "78" is high; as its "uncertainty" is high when compared to other numbers as the actual way "78" was constructed (did you take 20 and add 5 then 32?) is not specified (except by "re-normalization", by comparing it with another number and a third number you can specify it "locally" by reference to the common factors from the "gauge" you got through referring to two other numbers.)
What about a smaller "mass", a smaller "uncertainty"? This would seem to imply a more blurred uncertainty that partially self-cancels giving a spread zone, which restricts the view of a possible structure (gives a blurry view).
Possibly the experimentally found mass of an electron is related to other such masses as follows:
The pattern "electron" as uncertainty in D,E when go from one A,B,C,D via an E cycle to another look A,B,C,D: with "A,B,C,D" as " 4-D space-time " an electron would be a potential bias or structure-building possibility in cycles of space-time. In other words: the possibility of someone creating something in freedom of association through free interactions in having the choice to make a choice. (Here is a thought: Looks like this is to do with "eternal life" in the kingdom of Heaven it seems?)
Maybe the definition of "electron" involving a certain specified freedom in 4-D to 4-D; effectively blurs the appearance of what numbers can look like in terms of how they are constructed.
An electron or other particle seems to partly specify a way of looking at a structure in freedom; so maybe its like picking some specified numbers to designate as "possible common factors" in looking at various big numbers.
Although the chosen numbers might not be exact common factors they might give an approximate comparison of bigger numbers within the limits of relative uncertainty the chosen "postulated common factors" have compared to each other?
Maybe the overlap in particle definitions when these are superposed on a number pyramid (which shows the increasing vagueness of number-definition in terms of internal order of potential building blocks of a number); maybe this overlap interference with number-overlap gives uncertainty or mass of the particles from a math assumed-equal-spaced number-perspective?
Going in E cycles from A,B,C,D to A,B,C,D gives "electron" as D,E uncertainty (potential structure building in ABCDE (space-time).
If you have C,E uncertainty: then seems this releases the D layer to be of uncertain order? So allows a D,E uncertainty to "go back in time"? An electron that can go back in time (but doesn't have to): a positron?
Three layers involving C,E would apparently allow one of the three D's to be more uncertain relative the other two D's, in E-group (3 E cycles) perspective; so would allow for an apparent D,E uncertainty (electron) to seem to be going back in time if you had four cycles. Other possible particles might be mapped with the many unlisted patterns (Like: "C,E cancel", "C,E not cancel", "BC, E uncertain" )
Consider any order say choose abcde for five items. Multiply by 5 to get 25 items and the original abcde sequence might be mixed up with varied spaces of other items between the originals.
But consider this 25 as the group of interest, whatever the way abcde (a particular five) are mixed in those 25. Going back to just the original abcde you may re-find they are in order abcde; going forward by x5 to get 125 items you ay find the abcde sequence still survives its order in the mixture. Perhaps the change in order of a sub-sequence of items in a set of items, when you re-find it in transforming back to a prior set or transforming in a following set; perhaps can think of that as "spin left", "spin right".
Running through a series of sets and repeatedly getting an internal sequence has the appearance of helicity, of the inner sequence having the series spiral around it?
Maybe any conserved sequence through a series of transformations of its surroundings can seem to be "spun" to the left or to the right of the series depending on if the sequence is more concentrated at one or other end of the series?
"Weak force" seems to involve the re-juggling in of a pattern previously juggled out. By definition above "helicity" seems involved; if a pattern potential is not fixed within a larger pattern; but appears before or after in a series of three views of the larger pattern; it might be thought of being spun to the left or to the right if the whole three-view series is repeated as a varying theme in a bigger pattern.
But it is only the shell math-assuming-equal-spaced-numbers counting system that makes helicity seem part of the weak force; in reality counting can be more varied and a more unpredictable structure can be created.