Category: Uncertain Geometry

K Ring Technologies Unlimited and MOND Galactic Equivalence

Due to the facinating non-working companies house service for email notification for upcomming filings which are needed not working in the COVID period I have miss the accounting date and K Ring Technologies Ltd, is to be struck off the companies register. All business is therefore to become sole trader until such time as sense resumes.

But apart from that I’ve extending the quantum uncertainty in a gravitational field idea and come up with

1/(r-r^2.dr)^2-1/(r+r^2.dr)^2

As a dipole expansive explination for dark matter and thruough the singularity of the first term an eventual repulsive dark energy kind of force. In the dipole limit in a galaxy for example the force will aproximate 1/r and so is effectively a MOND on the small galactic scale.

9+4+1+1+3*4=27 and a 9th Gluon for 26 Not

It still comes to mind that the “Tits Group gluon” might be a real thing, as although there seem to be eight, the ninth one is in the symmetry of self attraction, perhaps causing a shift in the physical inertia from a predicted instead of filled in constant of nature.

There would appear to be only two types of self dual coloured gluons needed in the strong nuclear force. As though the cube roots of unity were entering into the complex analysis that is within the equations of the universe.

9+4+1+1+3*4=27

The 3*4 is the fermionic 12 while the relativistic observational deviation from the abstract conceptual observation frame versus the actual moving observation particle provides for the cyclotomic 9+4+1+1 = 15 one of which is not existential within itself but just kind of a sub factor of one of the other essentials. Also it does point out a 3*5 that may also be somewhere.

Given the Tits Gluon, the number of bosons would be 14, which removing 8 for gluons, leaves 6, and removing 4 for the electrowek boson set would leave 2, and removing the Higgs, would leave 1 boson left to discover for that amount of complexity in the bosonic cyclotomic groups.

The fantastic implications of the 26 group of particles and the undelying fundementals which lead to strong complex rooted pairs, and leptonic pair set separation. Well, that’s another future.

Roll on the Plankon as good a name as any. The extension of any GUT beyond it would either be some higher bosonic cyclotomy or a higher order effect of fermions leading to deviation from Heisenburg uncertainty.

Up Charm Top
Down Strange Bottom
Electron Muon Tau
E Neutrino M Neutrino T Neutrino
H Photon W+
? Z0 W–
Gluon Gluon Gluon
Gluon Tits Gluon Gluon
Gluon Gluon Gluon

Dimensions of Manifolds

The Lorentz manifold is 7 dimensional with 3 space like 1 time like and 3 velocity like, while the other connected manifold is 2 space like 1 time like, 2 velocity like and a dimensionless “unitless” dimension. So the 6 dimensional “charge” manifold has properties of perhaps 2 toroids and 2 closed path lines in a topological product.

Metres to the 4th power per second. Rate of change of a 4D spacial object perhaps. The Lorentz manifold having a similar metres to the 6th power per second squared measure of dimensional product. Or area per kilogram and area per kilogram squared respectively. This links well with the idea of an invariant gravitational constant for a dimensionless “force” measure, and a mass “charge” in the non Lorentz manifold of root kilogram.

Root seconds per metre? Would this  be the Uncertain Geometry secondary “quantum mass per length field” and the “relativistic invariant Newtonian mass per length field”. To put it another way the constant G maps the kg squared per unit area into a force, but the dimensionless quantity (not in units of force) becomes a projector through the dimensionless to force map.

GF*GD = G and only GF is responsible for mapping to units of force with relativistic corrections. GD maps to a dimensionless quantity and hence would be invariant. In the non Lorentz manifold the GMM/r^2 eqivalent would have M in units of root kilogram ((root seconds) per metre), and GD would have different units too. Another option is for M to be quantized and of the form GM/r^2 as both the “charge” masses could be the same quantized quantity.

The reason the second way is more inconsistent with the the use of the product of field energies as the linear projection of force would give an M^2 over an r^2, and it would remove some logical mappings or symmetries. In terms of moment of inertia thinking, GMM/Mr^2 springs to mind, but has little form beyond an extra idea to test out the maths with.

W Baryogenisis Asymmetrical Charge

The split of W plus and minus into separate particle slots takes the idea that the charge mass asymmetry between electrons and protons can come from a tiny mass half life asymmetry. Charge cancellation of antiparticle WW pairs may still hold but momentum cancellation does not have to be exact, leading to a net dielectric momentum. Who knows an experiment to test this? A slight induced photon to Z imbalance on the charge gradient, with a neutrino emission. The cause of the W plus to minus mass ratio being a consequence of the sporadic group orders and some twist in very taught space versus some not as taught space or dimensionless expression of a symmetrically broken balance of exacts.

The observation of a dimensionless “unitless*” dimension being invariant to spacetime and mass density dilation. My brain is doing a little parallel axis theorem on the side, and saying 3D conservation of energy as an emerging construction with torsion being a dialative observable in taught spacetime.

Recent experiment of inertia of spin in neutrons provides a wave induction mechanism. Amplified remote observation of non EM radio maybe possible. Lenz’s law of counter EM cancellation may not apply. It is interesting. Mass aperture flux density per bit might be ok depending on S/N ratio. That reminds me of nV/root Hz. So root seconds is per root Hz, and nV or scaled Volts is Joules per mol charge, Z integer scale */ Joules, or just Joules or in Uncertain Geometry house units Hz. So Hz per root Hz, or just root Hz (per mol).

So root seconds per metre is per root Hz metre. As the “kilogram equivalent but for a kind of hypercharge” in the non Lorentz manifold perhaps. The equivalent of GD (HD) projecting the invariant to an actual force. By moving the dialative into GF and HF use can be made of invariant analysis. Mols per root Hz metre is also a possible QH in FHI = HDQHQH/R^2 the manifold disconnect being of a radius calculated norm in nature. A “charge” in per noise energy metre?

Beyond the Particles to the 18n of Space with a Tits Connection

Why I lad, it’s sure been a beginning. The 26 sporadic groups and the Tits group as a connection to the 18n infinite families of simple groups. What is the impedance of free space (Google), and does water become an increase or decrease on that number of ohms. Inside the nature of the speed of light at a refractory boundary, what shape is the bend of a deflection and what ohm expectations on the impedance to the progress of light?

Boltzmann Statistics in the Conduction of Noise Energy as Dark Energy

Just like ohm metres is a resistivity of the medium, it’s inverse being a conductivity in the medium, a united quantity relating to “noise energy or intensity” with a metres extra maybe an area over length transform of a bulk property of a thing. The idea a “charge” can be a bulk noise conductivity makes for an interesting question or two. Is entanglement conducted? Can qubits be shielded? Can noise be removed from a volume of space?

If noise pushes on spacetime is it dark energy? Is the Tits gluon connection an axion with extras conducting into the spacetime field at a particular cycle size of the double cover of the from 18n singular group which shall be known as the flux origin. 2F4(2)′, maybe the biggest communication opportunity this side of the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A*. 

The Outer Manifold Multiverse Time Advantage Hypothesis

Assuming conductivity, and locations of the dimensionally reduced holographic manifold, plus time relativistic dilation, what is the speed of light to entanglement conduction ratio possibilities?

As noise from entanglement comes from everywhere, then any noise directionality control implies focus and control of noisy amounts from differential noise shaped sources. Information is therefore not in the bit state, but in the error spectrums of the bits.

The inner (or Lorentz) manifold is inside the horizon, and maybe the holographic principal is in error in that both manifolds project onto each other, and what is inside a growing black remains inside, and when growth happens does the outer manifold completely get pushed further out?

A note on dimensionfull invariants such as velocities is that although they are invariant they become susceptible to environmental density manipulation where as dimensionless invariants are truly invariant in that there is no metre or second that will ever alter the scalar value. For example Planck’s constant is dimensionless in Uncertain Geometry house units.

So even though the decode may take a while due to the distance of the environmental entanglement and its influence on statistics, (is it a radius or radius square effect), the isolation of transmission via a vacuum could in principal be detected. Is there a relationship between distance, time of decode for relevance of data causality?

If the spectrum of the “noise” is detectable then it must have properties different from other environmental noise, such as being the answer to a non binary question and hopefully degenerative pressure eventually forces the projection of the counter solutions in the noise, allowing detection by statistical absence.

Of course you could see it as a way of the sender just knowing what had not been received, from basic entanglement ideas, and you might be right. As the speed of temperature conduction is limited by the speed of light and non “cool packed” atomic orbital occupancy as in the bulk controlled by photon exchange and not degenerative limits imposed by Pauli exclusion. A quantum qubit system not under vacuum of cooling does not produce the right answer, but does it statistically very slightly produce it more often? Is the calculation drive of the gating applying a calculative pressure to the system of qubits, such that other qubits under a different calculation pressure can either unite or compete for the honour of the results?

Quantum noise plus thermal noise equals noise? 1/f? Shott noise for example is due to carrier conduction in PN junction semiconductors, in some instances. It could be considered a kind of particle observation by the current in the junction which gets (or can be) amplified. I’m not sure if it is independent of temperature in a limited (non plasma like) range, but it is not thermal noise.

The Lambda Outer Manifold Energy in a More General Relativity

The (inner of the horizon) manifold described by GR has a cosmological constant option associated with it. This could be filled by the “gravitation of quantum noise conduction” symmetrical outer manifold isomorphic field with a multiplicative force (dark energy?) Such that the total when viewed in an invariant force measure picture is not complicated by the horizon singularities of the infinities from division by zero. Most notably the Lorentz contraction of the outer manifold as it passed through the horizon on expansion or contraction of the radius.

The radius itself not being invariant can not be cast to other observers to make sense, only calculated invariants (and I’d go as far to say dimensionless invariants) have the required properties to be shared (or just agreed) between observers without questions of relativistic reshaping. Communication does not have to happen to agree on this knowledge of the entangled dimensionless measure.

CMB Focus History

With the CMB assume a temperature bends due to density and distance from a pixel as a back step in time then becomes a new picture with its own fluctuations in density and hence bend to sum an action on a pixel for a earlier accumulation over pixels drifting to a bent velocity. Motion in the direction of heat moved further back in time. Anything good show up? Does the moment weight of other things beside an inverse square bend look a little different?

So as the transparency emission happened over a time interval, the mass should allow a kind of focus back until the opacity happens. Then that is not so much as a problem as it appears or not, as it is a fractional absorbtion ratio, and the transparency balance passed or crosses through zero on an extrapolation of the expectation of continuation.

Then there maybe further crossings back as the down conversion of the red shift converts ulta gamma into the microwave band and lower. The fact the the IF stage of the CMB reciever has a frequency response curve and that a redshift function maybe defined by a function in variables might make for an interesting application of an end point integral as the swapping of a series in dx (Simpson’s rule) becomes a series in differentials of the function but with an exponetial kind of weighting better applicable to series acceleration.

Looking back via a kind of differential calculus induction of function, right back, and back. The size of the observation appature will greatly assist, as would effective interpolation in the size of the image with some knowledge of general relativity and 3D distance of the source of the CMB.

To the Manifold and Beyond

Always fun to end with a few jokes so the one about messing with your experiment from here in multiple ways, and taking one way home and not telling you if I switched it off seems a good one. There are likely more, but today has much thought in it, and there is quite a lot I can’t do. I can only suggest CERN keep the W+ and W- events in different buckets on the “half spin anti-matter opposite charge symmetry, full spin boson anti-matter same charge symmetry as could just be any” and “I wonder if the aliens in the outer universe drew a god on the outside of the black hole just for giggles.”

 

GEM Unification

The further result of adding in Coulomb force gradients into the theory of Uncertain Geometry. The GEM (Geometry/Gravity and Electro-Magnetism) Unification hints at the above table of particles. A mass genera of “Dark” matter (B), and some strange matter (A). The paper so far can be downloaded from Google Drive. I’m currently on the search for a suitable equation relating to the Weak force. I have no proof yet that it would be emergent, but the particle grid already includes a “dark matter” column (including a dark neutrino (yellow)), and a “not so dark” but very strange and heavy particles type A.

Winter is Coming!

Hi

Things are going real slow on the electronics front due to space constraints of capital. But the good news is that uncertain geometry is a good predictor of 12 fermions. The bosons will have to wait for some fancy 4 velocity put into a relativistic solution of the mass independent free space equation, so as to show how each velocity flow (up, down, electron, neutrino) interacts with mass flowing relative to it. This gives in a real sense the interaction of matter as it sees matter, and the deviation is bosonic.

Couldn’t help the topical title on this post. Weather proofing is moving slow, and is very cash restricted. As with these things almost always, having some cash help to obtain more. It’s a “bad listed” working “class” thing. They’ve got to make their paranoia pay you know.

The good news is the ides keep flowing. The dark matter telescope using atomically timed WC break door open/close sensing for example was such a laugh, and perhaps even app feasible.

Disection of the Roots of the Mass Independent Space Equation

(v^2) v ‘ ‘ ‘ −9v v ‘ v ‘ ‘ 12(v ‘ ^3) (1−v^2/c^2)v ‘ (wv)^2
3 Constants 2 Constants 1 Constant 1 Constant
Square Power Linear Power Cubic Power Square and Quartic Power
3 Root Pairs 2 Roots 1 Root and 1 Root Pair 1 Root Pair and 2 Root Pairs
Energy and Force of Force Momentum, Force and Velocity of Force Cube of Force Force Energy
Potential Inertial Term Kinetic Inertial Term Strong Term Relativistic Force Energy Coupling
Gravity Dark Strong Weak EM

The fact there are 4 connected modes, as it were, imply there are 6 cross overs between modes of action, indicating that one term can be stimulated to convert into another term. The exact equilibrium points can be set as 6 differential equation forms, with some further analysis required of stable phase space bounds, and unstable phases at which to alter the balance to have a particular effect. Installing a constant (or function) of proportionality in each of the following balance equations would in effect allow some translation of one term ‘resonance’ into another.

v v ‘ ‘ ‘=−9 v ‘ v ‘ ‘ 3 Const and 1 root point
(v^2) v ‘ ‘ ‘=12(v ‘ ^3) 3 Const and 6 root points
v ‘ ‘ ‘=(1−v^2/c^2)v ‘ w^2 3 Const and 2 root points
−9v v ‘ ‘=12(v ‘ ^2) 2 Const and 2 root points
−9 v ‘ ‘=(1−v^2/c^2)(w^2) v 2 Const and 2 root points
12(v ‘ ^2)=(1−v^2/c^2)(wv)^2 1 Const and 12 root points

Another interesting point is 3 of the 6 are independent of w (omega mass oscillation frequency), and also by implication relativistic dependence on c.




The 3D Flavour Tensor in Analogue to the 4D of Einstein, for a 3D, 4D Curvature in Particle Physics

I like to keep updated about particle physics and LHC things, to quite an advanced level. My interest is in fields and their previous engineering value in radio waves and electronics in general. It makes sense to move to a tensor algebra in the 2+1 charge space, just as was done for the theory of gravitation. In some sense the conservation of acceleration becomes a conservation of net mapped curvature and it becomes funny via Noether’s Theorem.

CP violation as a horizon delta of radius of curvature from the “t” distance is perhaps relevant phrased as a moment of inertia in the 2+1, and its resultant geometric singular forms. This does create the idea of singular forms in the 2+1 space orbiting (or perhaps more correctly resonating) in tune with singularities in the 3+1 space. This interconnection entanglement, or something similar is perhaps connected to the “weak phase”.

So a 7D total space-time, with differing invariants in the 3D and 4D parts. The interesting thing from my prospective is the prediction of a heavy graviton, and conservation of acceleration. The idea that space itself holds its own shape without graviton interaction, and so conserves acceleration, while the heavy graviton can be a short range force which changes the curvature. The graviton then becomes a mediator of jerk and not acceleration. The graviton, being heavy would also travel slower than light. Gravity waves would then not necessarily need graviton exchange.

Quantization of theories has I think in many ways gone too far. I think the big breaks of the 21st century will be turning quantized bulk statistics into unquantized statistics, with quantization applied to only some aspects of theories. The implication is that dark matter is bent spacetime, without matter being present to emit gravitons. In this sense I predict it is not particulate.

So 7D and a differential phase space coordinate for each D (except time) gives a 13D reality. The following is an interesting equation I arrived at at one point for velocity solutions to uncertainty. I did not incorporate electromagnetism, but it’s interesting in the number of solutions, or superposition of velocity states as it were. The w being constant in the assumption, but purtubative expansion in it may be interesting. The units of the equation are conveniently force. A particle observing another particle would also be moving such, and the non linear summation for the lab rest frame of explanation might be quite interesting.

(v^2) v ‘ ‘ ‘−9v v ‘ v ‘ ‘+12(v ‘ ^3)+(1−v^2/c^2)v ‘ (wv)^2=0

With ‘ representing differential w.r.t. time notation. So v’ is acceleration and v” is the jerk. I think v”’ is called the jounce for those with a mind to learn all the Js. An interesting equation considering the whole concept of uncertain geometry started from an observation that relative mass was kind of an invariant, mass oscillation, although weird with RMS mass and RMS energy conservation, was perhaps a good way of parameterizing an uncertainty “force” proportional to the kinetic energy momentum product. As an addition it was more commutative as a tensor algebra. Some other work I calculated suggests dark energy is conservation of mass times log of normalized velocity, and dark matter could be conserved acceleration with gravity and the graviton operating to not bend space on density, but bend space through a short distance acting heavy graviton. Changes in gravity could thus travel slower than light, and an integral with a partial fourth power fraction could expand into conserved acceleration, energy, momentum and mass information velocity (dark energy) with perhaps another form of Higgs, and an uncertainty boson (spin 1) as well.

So really a 13D geometry. Each velocity state in the above mass independent free space equation above is an indication of a particle of differing mass. A particle count based on solutions. 6 quarks and all. An actual explanation for the three flavours of matter? So assuming an approximate linear superposable solution with 3 constants of integration, this gives 6 parameterized solutions from the first term via 3 constants and the square being rooted, The second tern involves just 2 of the constants for 2 possible offsets, and the third term involves just one of the constants, but 3 roots with two being in complex conjugation. The final term involves just one of the constants, but an approximation to the fourth power for 4 roots, and disappearing when the velocity is the speed of light, and so is likely a rest mass term.

So that would likely be a fermion list. A boson list would be in the boundaries at the discontinuities between those solutions, with the effective mass of the boson controlled by the expected life time between the states, and the state energy mismatch. Also of importance is how the equation translates to 4D, 3D spacetime, and the normalized rotational invariants of EM and other things. Angular momentum is conserved and constant (dimensionless in uncertain geometry),

Assuming the first 3 terms are very small compared to the last term, and v is not the speed of light. There would have to be some imaginary component to velocity, and this imaginary would be one of the degrees of freedom (leading to a total of 26). Is this imaginary velocity consistent with isospin?

Yang–Mills Existence and Mass Gap (Clay Problem)

If mass oscillation is proved to exist, then the mass gap can never be proved to be greater than zero as the mass must pass through zero for oscillation. This does exclude the possibility of complex mass oscillation, but this is just mass shrinkage (no eventual gap in the infinite time limit), or mass growth, and hence no minimum except in the big bang.

The 24 degrees of freedom on the relativistic compacted holographic 3D for the 26D string model, imply with elliptic functions, a 44 fold way. This is a decomposition into 26 sporadic elliptic patterns, and 18 generational spectra patterns. With the differential equation above providing 6*2*(2+1) combinations from the first three terms, and the 3 constants of integration locating in “colour space” through a different orthogonal basis. Would provide 24 apparent solution types, with 12 of them having a complex conjugation relation as a pair for 36. If this is the isospin solution, then the 12 fermionic solutions have all been found. That leaves the 12 bosonic solutions (the ones without a conjugate in the 3rd term generative), with only 5 (or if a photon is special 4) having been found so far. If the bosonic sector includes the dual rooting via the second term for spin polarity, then of the six (with the dual degenerates cancelled), two more are left to be found if light is special in the 4th term.

This would also leave 8 of the 44 way in a non existent capacity. I’d maybe focus on them being gluons, and consider the third still to be found as a second form of Higgs. OK.

Displacement Currents in Colour Space

Maybe an interesting wave induction effect is possible. I’m not sure what the transmitter should be made of. The ABC modulation may make it a bit “alternate” near the field emission. So not caused by bosons in the regular sense, more the “transition bosons” between particle states. The specific transitions between energy states may (although it’s not certain), pull the local ABC field in a resonant or engineered direction. The actual ABC solution of this reality has to have some reasoning for being stable for long enough. This does not imply though that no other ABC solutions act in parallel, or are not obtainable via some engineering means.