
Content count
838 
Joined

Last visited

Days Won
2

The idea of antimatter being on the "other side" of the Big Bang, going the "opposite" direction in time, is not mine, I mean my reason for supposing that might have happened was mine (to the extent that I vaguely recalled the thing about antimatter going backward in time being the same as matter moving forward, somehow), but some other physicist (a real one!) came up with the notion already. I found that out from a YouTube video today.
Anyway, if this is all some (admittedly very weird) attempt to solve Hilbert's sixth problem, one thing I had not achieved as of yet was a "deduction" of the intrinsically probabilistic nature of the quantum manifold. I had handwaved the problem in my head by squaring the probability waves with the requirement that space be perfectly occupied, and it was for this reason I characterized the socalled Higgs/fractal filling of space, below the Planck threshold (sort of), in my theory, as a "quantum fractal threshold." However, I can't say that I am sure there's an inherently probabilistic geometry in my system, not clearly anyway.
However...
There IS an easy deduction from deontic logicsort ofbasically, if free will requires a nondeterministic reality in some way, then the fundamental manifold of the quantum world will be nondeterministic, which in this case translates to probabilistic. Unfortunately, the only deeper application of this notion I have, is difficult for me to process: the "trick" is to think, "For the mathematical pattern of the universe to correspond to a 'fair gem' requires a metrodynamic form of 'fairness,' which can be analogically computed via the concept of the Platonic dice." Now, it is not just any of the dice that we get to roll, though. Only those computed already by the transequent order of the kairogenetic axioplex, are given. So, we have the 4sided and 8sided dice, in 3space; we have the 5sided, 16sided, and 600sided dice, in 4space [this is mostly because of tetrahelical correspondence, which is fitting, after all, as tetrahelical motion is "ideal" rolling motion for simplectic structures as such]; we have no 5dimensional dice at all, as far as I know (though we do get a set of "marbles," haha!the universe as a game of dice and marbles together...). So, the encoding of the Platonic dice, through the sequence of genesis, amounts to the imposition of a probabilistic structure on the rolling of the dice, and so in turn the changes in their corresponding particle sets.
More specifically, though, it seems as though maybe knoticalgraphical correspondence can do the "trick."
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2011/REUPapers/Hoberg.pdf
Basically (I'm not saying this is in the above .pdf, I'm saying this is how I'm applying the stuff in general), if you can compute braids and knots simultaneously, you can get braids from knots if given the latter. Now, my theory does seem to give us the latter: when the 5dimensional crystalscape collapses, it (more or less literally) compresses its massenergy "downwards" into the other crystalscapes of the lower dimensions, causing all the strict lines of the gemstone architecture to resonate, i.e. spheration adverts to them as their curvature, and due to the axioplex (as a metrodynamic graphtheoretic function), we have the firmament upon which to build the quantum starscape (so to speak) as the axioplex has a relation of special equivalence with a knottheoretic geometry, which is infused into the axioplex itself (apparently?). That is, the knots that emerge from spheration allow us to compute the braids required for braid statistics, i.e. the superlanguage of plektons.
Now, this might very well falsify my idea [actually, my idea also involves "predicting" that gravity waves can induce deja vu, which if already known to be false, well... or, setting that aside, the deeper parts of the idea involve the "prediction" that certain specific alephnumbers will be involved in the full equation that states the axiom of physics]. At least, it seems to mean that my idea requires the universe, during the Big Bang, to have been plektonic. So somehow, we'd have to show you could decompose a bosonicfermionic universe, out of a plektonic one...

Now, my theory goes off "space is never totally empty anywhere," but is this true of time? I was thinking it might be, but in the more exotic sense that there is never a period of time that is always empty. So, if an infinite linear tetrahelix is flowing horizontally while spinning, it will implicitly trace an infinite set of overlapping spheres (out perfectly from the linear horizon). So if all "space" was compacted in a possible cylinder at the edges of the tetrahelix, the flow of time could "fill up" all time over all intervals combined while leaving some regions temporarily(!) empty, timewise, so to say.
But, the other idea I had was that the three logic functions that give rise to sigmaactuation, could be mapped to the front of the tetrahedron on the edge of a helix (even if there was an infinite helix, it might have an edge, as a ray, so to say), so that as it spun and moved horizontally, it would by this means compute the transequent order of modality, i.e. the +/ infinite sums, and the possibility/actually infinite sums (two for which direction is "read from"). And the quantity of sigmaactuation at each point would map to the angle of each of the infinite tetrahedra, so it would never repeat exactly, unless the entire system were folded into the fourth dimension of space and somehow transformed into a tetraplex or something (600cell, otherwise to say!).
[Note: using [] as possible and () as actual, and going from
 () goes to []()
 [] goes to ()[]
 () goes to ()()
 [] goes to [][]
we could start with pure possibility, and get an infinite string of actuality bounded by pure possibility:
 []
 [][]
 []()[]
 []()()[]
 []()()()[]
 []()()()()[]
 []()() ... ()()[]
So if we summed up this entire manifold, we could extract an infinite "amount" of ()ity from []ity, thus circumventing part of the problem of how there is something instead of nothing, so to say...
But, at any rate, since the []/() alternations would be mapped to the different orientations of the tetrahelix, we can imagine an infinite succession of these alternations that is "not a rational fraction of the circle" traced by the spirals, as such, or whatever, so rather than following some preformed repeating sequence (just as in the synthesis of (7) above?), we would add in either []'s or ()'s, at whichever interval (from whichever intervals are available at each subsequent stage) was relevant(!).]
NOW, though, I also had a weird and/or storyish idea, namely, let's say the Planck incident actually represents a "damaged" stage of reality, and the expansion of space is a recrystallization of a lifelike manifold, i.e. what if the greater universe is "healing" and this is causing the continued, and accelerated, expansion of space? Granted, this depends on a complex parametaphorical interpretation of the terms, to even be remotely possible: if the Planck incident resulted from a collision of particles in a pure timeverse, which left an objective vacuum in a (3dimensional) timespace, and so the "essence of reality" (so to speak?) rushed in to fill the vacuum, like a liquid, and the strands of the liquid were these little "realitarian"(!) tetrahelix sigmaactuators...
This would have to be relevant to one character in one story I came up with re: these quasiphysics lectures, to be sure...

Anyway, let's have the tetrahedron at the edge of the tetrahelix ray, propelling itself through the time manifold by increasing the size of the tetrahelix (let's say, the edgehedron undergoes Sierpinski action and the resultant net is strung out behind the pilot tetrahedron?). I.e. the pilothedron is displacing itself forward in time. Now, two timewaves collide. I have assumed that the "timeverse" contains particles of some sort, "kairons," and that in the timeverse, the statistics pertaining to the distribution of quantum numbers are randomized over the entire realm, so let's say every kairon has a speed, a direction, and a mass. So, when the waves collide, they convert their mass into spatial mass somehow, that is they have some index corresponding to what their mass yield is after collision. Now kairons aren't bound by general relativity so there could be ones traveling faster than 300,000 kilometers per second and equal in weight to 10tothepowerof1500 solar masses, so we can assume the massenergymass conversion of a collision incident involving kairons could encode enough spatially redistributed information to cover the 10^80something protons we have, supposedly, for instance.
Anyway, as per the rest of the theory so far, symmetry gives us equal matter and antimatter but the antileptons are deduced from a PlanckKleinert structure with less actuation to its name than the common leptons (and vectrons, for that matter). So, all the quarks and antiquarks cancel out and eject their energy not just outward in space but in time itself. Most of the primordial antileptons are folded around the timeorigin, raying "backwards" in time relative to the baryonic universe, because the past in this context is "less real" than the present (and the vectrinos/antileptons are "less real" overall, here, too), and is causally inaccessible versus the future (since the past is rendered necessary, in context, whereas the future is just what is to still be caused!). So, after an initial cancelout, there is another rebound of the superearly universe that accomplishes relative baryogenesis by pushing the cancellative weight of the symmetry into an inaccessible state.

How many particle correspondences do I have...
Tetrahedra/simplexes: vectrons/leptons/vectrinos/antileptons
Octahedra/rectified pentachoron/rectified hexateron: gluons/quarks/antiquarks
Spheration: gravitons
But there are also ways to virtually get:
 Cube/tesseract/etc. particle sets (simple monadic tessellations)
 Birectified hexatera: part of the vectrongluonX sequence (meaning: these = X in the sequence) in 5dimensional satisfactory tessellation.
 4D and 5Dparticle sets corresponding to the kissingnumber tessellations in 4D and 5Dspace.
And probably some others, I think. So, we could make up a story where the total number of universes was read off the complete sets of particle crystals as such...

Quote
Research using virtual reality finds that humans, in spite of living in a threedimensional world, can, without special practice, make spatial judgments about line segments, embedded in fourdimensional space, based on their length (one dimensional) and the angle (two dimensional) between them.^{[12]} The researchers noted that "the participants in our study had minimal practice in these tasks, and it remains an open question whether it is possible to obtain more sustainable, definitive, and richer 4D representations with increased perceptual experience in 4D virtual environments".^{[12]} In another study,^{[13]} the ability of humans to orient themselves in 2D, 3D and 4D mazes has been tested. Each maze consisted of four path segments of random length and connected with orthogonal random bends, but without branches or loops (i.e. actually labyrinths). The graphical interface was based on John McIntosh's free 4D Maze game.^{[14]} The participating persons had to navigate through the path and finally estimate the linear direction back to the starting point. The researchers found that some of the participants were able to mentally integrate their path after some practice in 4D (the lowerdimensional cases were for comparison and for the participants to learn the method).
That's from the Wikipedia article about fourdimensional spaces in general. It makes me wonder if my notion of a sort of "purpose" in the universe, consisting in the transformation of our physical perception into a geometrically (notquitemystically) higherdimensional form, is possible, at least in the sense that concrete understanding of 4Dspace would help with deontic logic, say.
Now, actually, I haven't mentioned it fully yet, but there's a cognitive argument for a 5dimensional limit on our physics theories, sort of. Namely, we can use dimensional analogies to "intuitively" compute 4dimensional structures, e.g. as by saying that the net of the tesseract is a layout of cubes just as the net of the cube is a layout of squares. We also have faithful rotational analogies (the gemlike imagery on Wikipedia, for example), stereographic projections, etc. We have some of these for 5Dspace, but they are intuitively weaker, depending more on abstract than tangible geometrical analogies. So, 5Dspace is the "cognitive limit" of analogical intuition, so (on Kant's scheme, say), it is the limit of what we can acquire empirical evidence of (for the time being!).

"One might wonder: it is all well and good that we can turn a triangle into a fractal that is also a net, which net can be folded into the tetrahedral foundationstone for a tessellation involving another structure as well, and that these can fold and unfold into other geodesics and spherical and helical forms, and so on and on: but what does this have to do with anything, ultimately? Would it not be possible to graph the concepts in question using other structures? It has to be the special requirements of the system that render the 'algebra' at issue, tractable, i.e. since the transconstruction of the axioplex and its 'halo' shapes follows a set parametric, the problem posed has a determinate and, hopefully, unique answer: and that answer is the objective physical universe."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logiccombining/ This points, albeit mostly just in my own mind, to the transconstruction of deontic logic from erotetic, assertoric, and imperative logic (with modal logic interwoven somehow).

These are relevant to the hosohedra I was considering as part of my "theory," although I haven't quite wrapped my head around them haha!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpiński_triangle Hmm, this indicates that the Sierpinski action can condense into/out of any other "parallel" shape (i.e. any isodimensional shape).

goes to [net]
This net of the tetrahedron is also the initial graph of the Sierpinski action of the unit triangle:
So, dimensionalization+ proceeds across the netvector (as Planck time passes, the nets produced by the HiggsSierpinski action are folded together into the unit of the nextdimensional manifold). Retrodimensionalization (of the spheration wave) compresses/rebounds all the energy, "downward," stereographically, maybe, i.e. maybe the octahedron at the 3dimensional stage is stereographed into 2space as the 3Venn diagram?

I think I have come up with the silliest neologism in my theory to date: "the quatrumvoidal redemptrixaxioplex." Actually, it appears in the foolish sentence, "The quatrumvoidal redemptrixaxioplex is the 3(?)kairoplex."


Well, at any rate, my model now appears, to me, to involve a phenomenon I will call "VennWheeler condensate" specifically (not KleinertWheeler condensate). The idea is that the universe can transcompute the manifold of tessellation from spheration. But now the 4 and 5dimensional kissingnumber tessellations are not the simplectic ones. The spheration wave has "nowhere to go" in actuated 5space, so the collapsing 5dimensional crystal transverts its energy into the 4dimensional space. This gravitationally condenses into a tessellation, that of the 16cell, that does not fit onto the alreadygiven tessellation of 4space. So the 4dimensional realm is wildly distorted. However, when the wave transverts upon the 3dimensional realm, it harmonically enfolds the alreadygiven tetrahedraloctahedral manifold, i.e. this manifold is now the Wheeler condensate production of the quarks, leptons, antiquarks, antileptons, gluons, vectrons, and vectrinos as such.
The gluonic crystal, moreover, can be produced at this stage as a Venn condensate (this being a more specific variation on the geontheme picked up from Wheeler, here). That is, a Venn 3circle space is transcomputed (via stereographic retrojection) into the gluonic octahedron; the Venn 3circle is assumed from spheration per se (as a form of the effect in general). So the gluons have a lot of "reality" to them, at this stage of the axioplex [axiomatic metroplex], and it seems, so far, that all the pieces of the axioplexity thence assembled, add up the degrees of their intrinsic virtual or actual reality, and give, more or less, the particles that have been discovered, if not yet an explanation of how they now interact (I need to learn A LOT more about QED and QCD to figure THIS out!).

*assumed from spheration per se and from triangulation per se, I think I should specify.
___________________________________________
There is a difference between (Simplicity + Tessellation) and (Simplicity + Enclosure + Tessellation). The former gives a triangle in 2space but a cube in 3space, whereas the latter gives a 2space triangle and a 3space tetrahedraoctahedron. This is because as a pure factor, simplicity would qualify tessellation such that the minimal tessellation involving one kind of shape is invoked. But enclosure qualifies simplicity insofar as the tetrahedron (for example) is simpler enclosurewise compared to the cube.

Also it appears I stumbled upon backgroundindependence as a condition of my system, i.e. I do not seem to presuppose that space has a specific form but deduce space's form from other principles. I wonder if that means I'm at all on the right track I don't want to end up with something like the CTMU that sounds fancy but is too difficult or empty to reliably apply (although I do want to emphasize that Langan's theory tipped me off to the notion of Venn condensate in particular, so to speak)...
