Curiosity Over Pride (FYI: To comment, send an e-mail to scifidink@gmail.com)

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Condensates Part I

An endless student of cooperation’s art forms, I simply love watching teamwork in action. The fractals of cooperation are truly breathtaking to behold once you latch on. As I watched my oldest play basketball the other day (he was having a great game) I was reminded yet again of this simple truth.

Dividing the whole into its respective parts is probably the ultimate rabbit hole exercise; there are simply an infinite variety of ways to slice a pie so to speak. Yet our high priests of science, our physicists, attempted just this when they created an elaborate division classification system for what they think is most atomic (the word atom derives from the Greek ἄτομος/átomos, α-τεμνω, meaning uncuttable, indivisible, or something which cannot be divided further).

They classified some of these atomic constituents as fermions, which you can think of as the “real” or “substantial” stuff of the atomic world- e.g. electrons, protons and neutrons, etc... And they have classified other atomic building blocks as Bosons, which you can think of as the “unreal” or force-like stuff that builds the atom.

My own pop physics mentality tends to imagine a macro analogy where fermions are the players on a basketball team and Bozons are the big salaries which creates the condensate or the team itself. I’m split on how to actually classify the team. Thoughts would be appreciated…

Anyway it should come as no surprise that others soon realized even fermions might have their own building blocks, e.g. quarks and Leptons. And even quarks and leptons might still have their own building blocks, etc…

And don’t get me going on the Boson building block theory physicists have proposed as I simply don’t understand it… Though I will add some have created cool songs on the subject while others still have made a fortune selling us thrillers on the mysteries of the Higgs-Boson, a.k.a ”the god particle”.

And so it will be interesting to see if physicists ever do reach ground floor of this rabbit hole in division. As far I’m aware, they are not there and I’m skeptical they will ever be- time will obviously tell. Yet I too enjoy playing their game: shifting views from one aspect of one building block to another aspect of another as I “see” the endless fractal structures inherent in “things”. And it is these fractal appellations in the cooperation of teams that circles me back to the original point of my post: fractals, teams, and cooperation.

In the interest of brevity, I'll commence this in part II

46 comments:

Thai said...

For comments

JP said...

Energy is condensed spirit.

I got that one from Meditations on the Tarot.

JP said...

Oh, and here's another thought regardining "negative gravity" vs. dark matter/dark energy.

If masses create gravity wells by deforming space-time, shouldn't that also create gravity bumps by deforming space time in the opposite direction somewhere else?

Mabye that's a feature of the fabric of space-time.

Thai said...

What would a gravity bump look like?

Negative gravity to you and I, e.g. a repulsive weak force?

JP said...

And here's a though that's more on point.

Just figure out how the two Calabi-Yau manifolds created the 3-dimensional world that we created.

You can only get so small. Once you get smaller than that, the total amount of energy in the universe prohibits the formation of anything smaller.

That is to say that I believe that the total amount of energy in the universe dictates the size smallest "particle" possible, in conjunction with the overarching fractal of the universe itself.

If this doesn't make sense, I can rephrase it using other words. It's just an idea I came up with 2 minutes ago.

JP said...

Thai says: "What would a gravity bump look like?

Negative gravity to you and I, e.g. a repulsive weak force?"

Yes, a repulsive weak force. It would be the "mirror" of gravity. However, I don't think it would necessarily be the linear opposite of gravity, but rather would be gravity as seen through a mathematical "mirror manifold".

I'm trying to explain "dark matter" and "dark energy" in terms of gravity rather than in terms of something "exotic".

JP said...

I'm also trying to develop a theory of geometric computation (as opposed to binary computation).

So far, I have had no luck there. Mabye I should think of fractal computation instead. ;)

Thai said...

Doesn't make sense

And how would you classify the basketball team itself?

Is the team the Bosonic "force" or "attractor"?

From some perspectives I suspect it is (say from the loyalty to team perspective 3:20-4:20), yet from others I think it is not.

Or is it an outside force (ignoring the team loyalty perspective as per prior example) which is the Boson (like $)?

???

And is the team the condensate?

My own perspective tends to say yes but I can see other perspectives where "no" is just as valid.

Geometry itself is bounded by hysteresis.

Thai said...

PS- would love a Ceasarism post ;-)

JP said...

I have to check the Oswald Spengler book out of the library again before I can give you a good Cesearism post.

Without that, I only have Wikipedia.

Thai said...

This is blog land, not the New England Journal

Thai said...

PPS- Toby (whom I sense is a good soul) thinks particles are an illusion created from the wave itself.

JP said...

I'll think of something.

I'm pretty busy advocating right now.

Thai said...

Understand

Best of luck in trial or wherever

JP said...

Administrative agency. Paper only. No oral argument on my part required.

Dr John said...

I find all of this and the dialogue fascinating. I love trying to learn about this. Sadly I missed my physics curve. Much like a language I think you have a period of time in your life where your brain is most open to these concepts and mine is long gone so I struggle despite my enthusiasm.

In my attempt to learn I recently purchased and read "Six Easy Pieces" by Richard Feynman the great physicist and father of Quantum Electrodynamics. My God what a treat it must have been to know him. I so want to go to a strip joint with him. He sounds like a blast. Perhaps one of the best quotes I have ever read about what we "know" and science and what constitutes knowledge came from him.

Feynman was once asked by a CalTech faculty member to explain why spin 1/2 particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. He replied "I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it". A few days latter he returned and said "You know I couldn't do it.I could not reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it"

That quote almost made me cry. Really, I almost cried. I understand nothing too!

Thai said...

LOL!!! and amen

Does it sound so different from psychiatry after all? ;-)

Dr John said...

It seems much more noble Thai. Most days I want to come home from work and shower with a wire brush. I doubt Feynman or Dirac ever felt like that?

Thai said...

I think I understand

Perhaps remembering that we are all connected and helping the person in front of you be more functional in the world in the context of their own world view and abilities (I can hear Deb squirming in her chair) frees up resources for Feynman.

To balance your Ayn Rand frustrations, remember that it is equally true that it took a village to produce Dirac.

We are a team

Dr John said...

It makes me feel better that in some way I could contribute just a little to creating the next Dirac.

You always cheer me up. Thanks

Thai said...

We got your blindside my friend, honest.

Be well

Dr John said...

Also Thai, I have to think in the end someone is going to come along with something much simpler than all of this that makes so much more sense and maybe even I will understand.At the core of all of this must be simpler "stuff".

Thai said...

Even if they do, I'll still see be looking at the fractals. They are simply too enjoyable to avoid ;-)

Dink said...

"You know I couldn't do it.I could not reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it"

It reeks of truth!! I read a story from Feynman's youth. As a young teen he had a reputation of being handy with radios. When a neighbor's radio went on the fritz they asked him to come over. He tried a few things and then just sat and thought for a while. The solution came and he repaired the radio. The neighbor later told others "that kid can fix things with his mind. As if he were a warlock.

"Most days I want to come home from work and shower with a wire brush."

So there are certain behaviors I just can't see as compatible with a functional society. Drugs, alcohol, and similar self-indulgences rank among these behaviors. So if instead of disability, why not spend the cash on a hotel in some isolated part of the country where your wire-brush patients get their own rooms with room service that will bring them food, beverages, and any substances that they desire. They can have TV and internet. Only rule is that they have to be physically away from other people. They'll be happy because they'll self-indulge until they expire (at a very early age) or get "scared straight" and become viable citizens. We'll be happy because for the same amount of money (or likely less) our cooperative will function better. Win-win, yes?

"We got your blindside my friend, honest."

That's right. We got your back. Let me know when you need a quote from Caddyshack or an 80s song YouTube link and I'm on it!

"Energy is condensed spirit.

I got that one from Meditations on the Tarot."


"Last night I stayed up late playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died." (Steven Wright )

Thai said...

Re: "why not spend the cash on a hotel in some isolated part of the country where your wire-brush patients get their own rooms with room service that will bring them food, beverages, and any substances that they desire."

Seems like the most logical thing in the world, alas it won't work

1. You are spending the money that is still leading to your eventual bankruptcy
2. If you spend it, even in remote areas, you will simply encourage more of the same.

It's the reason EDs don't won't give Methadone to patients who have lost theirs, even if they really have lost it.

If word gets out, there will be 10 people who need it tomorrow.

... And it always gets out

Debra said...

You guys must have figured out by now that I can be a very irritating person.
I thought that you would like to know that two days ago on my loony forum I shook things up a little bit after a period of relative calm and told one of my friends that it was not by fiddling with her medication on a daily basis that she was going to get rid of her mood swings.
I regularly tell people that exercise WILL improve their mood, and pull them out of a slump.
I regularly tell them that opening their mouths and waiting for the molecule to drop in to produce the desired effect : temporary distraction from the human condition WILL NOT SAVE THEM in the long run.

So... how and why can i say things like this which get their hackles up admittedly, but they accept me, and even BUDGE on their behavior (these people are chronics, you guys...) and an official doc most often will obtain zero effect ?
Because... I put myself on the same level with them, no better, no worse. We are all in our little democratic experiment together, for better or for worse, but mostly for better.
I tell them that I have been there before, and that through PATIENCE and EFFORT and DISCIPLINE, AND LOVE OF COURSE, THE MOST IMPORTANT... they can emerge from their despairing perception of their lives.
I tell them.. that they are BEAUTIFUL people, with great empathy, sensitivity, and capacities for love, and I BELIEVE THIS, BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.
They are... loyal, caring.
And.. I treat them, love them, and enjoy being with them THE SAME WAY THAT I DO YOU GUYS ON THIS BLOG.
I hope this doesn't.. disappoint or shock you.
And... TOO BAD if it does, I say.

JP said...

Here's a snippet from today's One Cosmos blog. www.onecosmos.com

Since it includes a reference to fractals, it belongs here. Specifically, it really belongs here as its own post. ;)

From Bob:

"Speaking of Gödel, now that I think about it, there were probably three or four singular intellectual developments in the 20th century that must be counted as being of the utmost importance to metaphysics, for they decisively undermined the entire metaphysical framework of reductionistic scientism.

In no particular order, these would be Gödel's theorems, which proved that any sufficiently complex logical system contains assumptions that cannot be justified by the system, but which are nevertheless true in the platonic sense (by extension, this means that a logical system can be consistent or complete, but not both).

Never forget Gödel.

Second, the nonlocality of the cosmos, as per the "experimental metaphysics" of Alain Aspect, which showed that subatomic particles are in instantaneous communion, irrespective of the distance involved.

Third, the emergence of chaos and complexity theories, revealing the deep fractal order of the cosmos at all levels, and how complex systems are governed by nonlocal attractors.

And fourth, the systematic mapping of the unconscious mind, showing that human thought results from a dialectical (or "bi-logical") synthesis of the asymmetrical conscious and the symmetrical unconscious mind.

Any attempt to comprehend the world without these deep truths will be feeble at best."

Debra said...

Um.. JP ? how about stating that in freshman physics terms ? Then I can understand. (I hope...)
And then... we can test if Bob really knows what he is talking about (and you too...).
Thanks. (I'm not saying this to be snide, I promise, but there are no good smileys hear that I can stick down to color these words a nice shade of pink.)

JP said...

Debra, I'm advocating with a deadline again today.

Cut and past is what you get for the moment.

Bob is a psychologist. He engages in theological blogging every day when he wakes up.

Thai said...

JP, thanks.

This is all new for me. I came across this today.

Good luck in adjudication

Thai said...

Deb re: $ and legitimacy

I completely agree

JP said...

Oh, and Debra, here Ilion has responded to Bob (who is not a Godel expert):

"That's not quite what Gödel showed.

First off, Gödel's theorems aren't so much about "sufficiently complex logical system[s]" as about 'robust' formal axiomatic systems ('robust' in the sense of being sufficient to perform arithmetic).

Secondly, importantly, by definition, any formal axiomatic system "contains assumptions that cannot be justified by the system" -- these are the axioms, after all. If that were all Gödel had shown, he'd be a yawner footnote.

RATHER, what Gödel showed is that for any consistent (i.e. non-contradictory) formal axiomatic system there exist true statements about the system and/or its subject matter which cannot derived from the system's axioms in conjunction with its rules/operations. These statements cannot be shown to be true from within the system precisely because they cannot be derived via the system.

But, yes, a formal axiomatic system "can be consistent or complete, but not both." Also, if a formal axiomatic system is inconsistent, then it is wholly inconsistent; that is, all the statements of the system ... and their denials .. can be derived via the system."

Debra said...

Well, JP, i am going to provide the freshman physics point of view...
you're talking about the axiomatic part being based on... FAITH.
No comment...

Thai said...

Deb, he was throwing you a bone

read the website

Dr John said...

JP said "the systematic mapping of the unconscious mind, showing that human thought results from a dialectical (or "bi-logical") synthesis of the asymmetrical conscious and the symmetrical unconscious mind."

This sounds like airy descriptions of substance dualism i.e. "and than a miracle happens".

I do not know at all what this means. The mapping of the unconscious mind? Mapping is for things we do that have physical form and substance. The "unconscious" is a term most often used to explain anything anyone wants to, by followers of a Viennese witch doctors.

Please specify what this refers to JP

Debra said...

Are we having communication problems again, Thai ?
I wasn't exactly pummeling him, in MY opinion at least... Are you suggesting I am, or it that just my... hypersensitivity again ?
If I read all the links that are on this site, I wouldn't get to check out Toby, or Joe Bageant, or all those other cool people that Edwardo has linked to..
I have decided that the Protestant work ethic must no longer be around...
On the basis of your Internet hang outs... WHEN do you guys work ?? ;-)

Thai said...

I'm as confused as you John

JP, what is "the systematic mapping of the unconscious mind, showing that human thought results from a dialectical (or "bi-logical") synthesis of the asymmetrical conscious and the symmetrical unconscious mind."???

Edwardo said...

I think the Boson is, in fact, Boston, as in the Boston Celtics, the gravitational center, sorry Laker fans, of the NBA. All hail Bill Russell.

Thai said...

Now those are fighting words ;-)

Go Lakers!

Debra said...

I AGREE WITH YOU 100% Edwardo....

JP said...

And here's more Godel from Ilion:

"G'Bob: "Just careless. Hey, it's blogging. My readers are my editors."

OK.

Now, a properly understanding of the implications of Gödel's theorems (which seems to me to require a proper phrasing of the implications) has important real-world consequences.

For instance: contrary to the hopes and sometime assertions of atheists/materialists, minds are not formal axiomatic systems and no computer program will ever be a mind.

The minds we are familiar with, our own and one another’s, clearly make mistakes, clearly generate inconsistencies. So, IF we are formal axiomatic systems, THEN we are inconsistent formal axiomatic systems. BUT, we are also able to recognize and correct the errors we make. HOWEVER, no inconsistent formal axiomatic system is able to decide which of any two mutually contradictory statements it generates it the correct one. ERGO, minds are not formal axiomatic systems.

At the same time, all computer programs *are* formal axiomatic systems, and since minds are not formal axiomatic systems, it follows inescapably that no computer program shall ever be a mind."

Thai said...

The hole in this argument is large enough to pilot the Titanic through.

Rubbish

Thai said...

It like seeing one said of two different coins and saying they are different.

JP said...

Thai says:

"JP, what is "the systematic mapping of the unconscious mind, showing that human thought results from a dialectical (or "bi-logical") synthesis of the asymmetrical conscious and the symmetrical unconscious mind."???"

I'm not sure. I just posted this for the fractal issue more than anything else.

I'm not sure whether he is using Bion here or what he is saying. If you want to know what he is saying, you will need to search the archive on his blog.

I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Much of my thinking in the past has revolved around general cosmology, physics, religion, and stock markets, not around psychology and human development.

I could provide a synoposis, but I still have a deadline.

JP said...

I'm not doing any active thinking here at the moment, I'm just throwing things from that blog onto this blog because of the fractal issue and the Godel issue.

This blog moves quickly, and I can't keep up at the moment.

Thai said...

No foul (the problem of aspect in blog chat again)

+ I tend to think out loud

The Most Fabulous Objects In The World

  • Hitchhiker's Guide To The Universe trilogy
  • Lord of the Rings trilogy
  • Flight of the Conchords
  • Time Bandits

Blog Archive

Followers