Non-renormalizability is Evolution

In response to a comment from a reader regarding dark matter here’s an extended comment replying to it as well as some interesting points unrelated, but as a consequence of it.

Our civilization having sprung from a nature that introduced no written language or symbolization toward everyday life  meant that we didn’t need symbols to represent our reality, we had our biological senses to receive information accurately enough to adapt toward it. Noticing this, our symbols are socialized, they are an extention of our senses beyond ourselves individually - they could mean anything to anyone. Some of the symbols we take for granted, like arrows, to any extraterrestrial would seem absurd, what do we mean by arrow? Is this able to represent our reality?

The answer is of course, yes, but that would require knowing the intuition of certain species, the host species, who have developed these symbols in reflection to their genetics toward their localization in reality. Different languages sound and symbolize differently, but the process of understanding is similar enough for them to socialize with each other, trade, and what not.

We didn’t evolve from symbols, they evolved from us – symbols are socialized and can mean anything. You must observe first and then correlate observation with these second rate symbols, prefering to maintain our first rate as a balancing between all things (a consensus between senses and symbols). ‘Maths’ isn’t the natural language of the universe, it’s artificial and is created through civilization, it’s a symbolic language and not the physical thing in itself – it’s idealism of the most practical type and we use this to wrap around as much symbolism as we can so that we can use the mass of it to crush others arguments that have ‘little evidence’, less symbolic mass.

Toward people in general; most of our angry athiests arn’t that bright, they are still modern regardless of how much they hate modern religion, they will utilize empiricism like a chimp ‘big stone = crush enemy HAHAHA’ ‘where iz yer big stone? you haz no big stone – I crush YOU!’

All in all this is what many people do to deny the possibility that x will evolve into z -  they say ‘z doesn’t exist! Where is your evidence?!’ without realising that through a process y, z can be evolved from x. 

x>y>z.

It’s like saying a oak seedling can’t grow into a mighty oak, because it doesn’t have enough mass in it, because it isn’t as big as the mighty oak, because the ‘here and now’ doesn’t represent to our little earthling minds the obliterating potential of evolution and growth.

The most controversial and best example of this is God - God can be evolved – God as a superorganism and conscience that uses the entire universe as a foundation to higher universes that are beyond it, a pinnacle of evolution. Many people hate God (due to christianity, equality and everything else modern) and anything mentioning this causes irritation, they lack the potential of the impossible. So they say: ‘God doesn’t exist! where is your evidence?!’ And the evidence.. isn’t, it isn’t a big rock that you can smash people with to make your authority unchallenged.

It is an understanding through a process of evolution, of combining all of the forces in our universe into a compound, an organism, a machine that then transfers information between the organism across differing time dimensions. If we study the evolution of life thusfar we see that from a single cellular organism, we see that it hosts the potential to evolve into a multicellular organism, and from this into species of animal; into societies, into civilizations, into technology, spreading through interplanetary space, interstellar space, intergalactic space, cultivating all kinds of matter dark and light.

Having achieved that much, then possibilities toward mastering time travel open, and then when the organism is saturated, or is aging and nearly dead it disperses seeds like a tree, the ‘wind’ carries them and the nano-organism seed into every possibility it can – it will reach the beginning of time and re-write the past into a parallel universe, dispersing seeds uniformly throughout all mass – and there, like in a desert, the eggs of marine creatures will sit and wait, perhaps for ‘hundreds’ of years until the rain comes – from there the desert blooms into life - An evolutionary cycle of everything.

Dark Matter problems

When we look at the distribution of dark matter we can see that they ‘web’ toward each other, they have a bridge between them. All things that touch share information transfer, such as gravity. Dark matter exists in the centres of galaxies predominantly (where it is brightest, where the gravity is greatest. The universe is webbed together through dark matter, through gravity – yet is expanding as it is stretched and bonds decay, as dark matter decays into dark energy, and that into nothingness.

When we say massless particles are relativistic, we mean they distribute ‘equally’, uniformly across the entire cosmos, but what is fascinating now is what happens when ‘equality’ breaks. There’s a singularity and the cosmic pressure within it is so great that it can fuse into another particle, a particle with MASS. We’ll say dark energy is like a lesser form of gravitons, and alone it has negative energy, it is the cosmological constant, it pushes away rather than together, now when the universe was younger, space was a lot more hemmed in then these negative massless particles are today. This quintessence would fuse, it would socialize to form a group of these things as waves and then compound into a higher particle, and that packet of energy would be the next particle on the evolutionary hierarchy.

Cosmological constant:

The quintessence of negative energy is the food of mass, mass is the compound of negative energy – and that packet of quanta/ mass is called positive energy. It is buoyancy of the most universal form. Gravity is not massless, it is a phase of mass, much like gases, and the ‘mass’ we think of, as in the solid objects that sink, they are a solid – there is a greater quantity of mass within it. And with that bullet cluster – If you could measure the speed at which the stars orbit, they would slow down, the gravity would be reduced, would it not? because their is reduced dark matter there in the collision, it would be reduced in proportion to the dispersal.

The gravitons with collect together in the right conditions and fuse, it’s the best solution to ‘where’ all our matter came from, our atoms fused in our stars so why not quantum particles in singularities? Why are balckholes black? Maybe, just maybe, it could be the source of dark matter, or maybe a different phase of it alltogether, Gravity so dense that it solidifies, or turns into a plasma and time reaches ‘infinities’ and other ‘mathematical’ loopholes that they are completely obliterated by. The goal of science would be to explain in the most economical way as many observations as is possible.

Gravity is not massless in my sense, if I use ‘gravitons’ I mean mass – the base of ordinary mass, if they are massless (or anti-mass) then that is dark energy rather than dark matter. From dark matter evolving onwards, from there is the positive energy, beneath the hierarchy is the algae of the cosmos, the dark energy that it feeds on. The only reason we think gravity is massless is because we can’t weigh it as such, ‘because it passes right through us and is indifferent to mass’. Dark matter, also, is very similar and if it is not gravity in itself then it is a very close relative of it, a subtle difference.

If we had dark matter in our hands right now, we would expect that it would fade right through, just like gravity, so how do we measure it? ‘gravitational’ lensing, the same way we detect gravity, the curvature of light – the very same process, put an object over a light and just see how the light ‘curves’ around an ordinary matter body, light bends in relation to our mass, our gravity – our dark matter than sustains ordinary matter from decaying and ’sinking’. And gravity waves as well, what’s the solvent it is passing through? We can’t just say oh it’s a particle and a wave! (as most physicists do) That is creating more problems then it is solving.

 Dark energy/ quintessence/ cosmological constant is the base, dark matter/ gravity/ positive energy/curvature is the next, it’s our middle caste of the cosmos and above that, on the pinnacle, the elite part is our very positive energy, our ordinary matter. And life does not form at the very peak, but revolving around that on cooler planets and such, life evolves downwards by creating structures that preserve form whereas before it would just not exist – by compounding the substance into higher forms, from atoms to compounds to life – that is what symmetry breaking is! cosmic evolution!

Non-renormalizability is the paradox that we hit when we cannot overcome different phase transitions that occur through space-time. Certain areas go from our ‘normalized’ liquid flow, our happy pleasant earth existence, toward the ‘non-renormalizable’ infinities of a void or of a singularity, solid and gas/plasma. Time would be effected accordingly, blackholes have infinitely slow time transfers as you approach the event horizon (Einstein and Hawking would agree) as to completely freeze and slow our perception of it completely – space-time solidifies.

Then as you go over the event horizon, you reach a certain ‘pressure’ a positive pressure in space so great that no negative pressure around it, no dark energy can escape, and so the solid space-time through the horizon begins to melt and the ‘laws’ of physics are scrambled, unsolified space-time – magma. Our perception of space-time is irrelevent inside the core of the cosmos, because the structures that have evolved to create our laws are at a temperature that breaks all bonds, all forces and gives us the ‘unification of all forces’, the ‘destruction’ of all forces.

Our forces will never be unified by maths alone, though it will conceive half of it and will never cease due to the fact that evolution is constant, the rest is for life to evolve with those laws and generate byproducts along the way, from which new laws emerge to shape and evolve those byproducts even further (ordinary matter).

Maths is great and in the future has the potential to become more interconnected with our languages, for now we must realize that symbolism comes second from observation, we observe a process in nature and try to represent this as best we can – if we start from symbols, sure it helps us with the maths in general, but we indirectly observe it, I like to see with my own eyes, to see it before we symbolize it. Reality with all its warped senses toward idealism. It also helps us intuit reality without the need for masses and masses of ‘evidence’ – we become more philosophical, more economical in our representations of reality.

2 Comments

  1. Charles Haines says:

    I’m afraid it’s a bit too much to reply to all of it, but if you don’t mind, I’d like to pick out a few points.

    You state that symbols are culture-bound, and that they have no inherent meaning. This is of course true of any language, not just mathematics. If we are to communicate with one another about the phenomena of Nature, we need a language, and math is by far the most succesful one at that. Furthermore, math also does something else that is very useful: it makes processes that are too complex to fully grasp understandable for us. You state that you would first like to ‘see’ things, but at the quantum level, such a thing is not even theoretically possible. Mathematics allows us to get from some ridiculously complex starting point to a ridiculously complex other conclusion, which would never be possible without it. For example, my mind still has trouble grasping how in BCS theory, a drop in temperature will create Cooper pairs of electrons that allow for electricity to pass through the system without resistance in superconductivity, and I sure as hell wouldn’t have been able to argue this had I not known it beforehand if someone just asked me what would happen in such a situation…..but give a scrap of paper and a pen and I can demonstrate it to you after a few hours of scribbling.
    This is because my, and I believe I’m not alone in this, intuition simply breaks down by such exotic strange phenomena which we never deal with in the rest of our lives.

    I do not know where you get the idea that we would not be able to predict evolutions by just using math. Isn’t the whole search for suitable GUT theory to unite the strong force with the electroweak force exactly that?

    The problem I have with your modus operandi of just thinking things through and writing down what seems plausible is that, although it emphasises the beauty of nature and is thus very suitable to convey the joy of studying the universe, it is not testable in any sense. There are no quantitative predictions, which pretty much places this way of describing things closer to religion than science, especially since I’m very dubious most of your readers have an inkling of what “non-renormalizibilty” is: it sounds very profound of course, but it is in fact something with a very specific definition that cannot be explained without understanding of a great deal of math (which is probably why you never see a word like it in a ny popular science book). it impresses readers, but it cannot lead to understanding for those who do not already know what it is.

    1. Robert Martin says:

      Mostly right, although the understanding of certain things may not even exist at all, for instance, magnetism, electroweak, and all the other electro-forces, maybe just a consequence of electric force and not unique forces, perhaps environmental evolution toward the individual particles as they fluctuate in quantum states using electrons to cut corners and transform in unique ways that it could never have done before. But yes, science nor religion is absolute, nor anything symbolic like language, it’s only as good as we are at describing them and this is what you are saying – I agree.

      The ‘seeing’ wasn’t the best choice of words, and maybe it is theoretically possible, how to see without photons? echoes – cave animals use it, we’ve seen in electrons through night vision etc, what about other particles? convert these into photons and then they could see..

      But for now, not so much directly seeing, but as the above, see a process of nature and take that idea along with many others and find a unique way of looking at phenomena from distinct parts of nature. So how to see dark matter, how to bats ‘see’ in the cave? they can’t theoretically ‘see’ because their eyesight is trash, but it’s possible through a process of creating a sound or a wave that echoes off the walls to then cognitively produce an image, a ‘sight’.

      I’m interested in anti-gravity, so how do i see this? I take bubbles and rotational objects, i see that spinning a baseball prevents it from falling off my finger, but stationary it will fall off. In a swimming pool, a plate spinning will levitate and rise in the volume of liquid, yet in the air there is too much friction to do this as it is anchored on the surface. Buoyancy, I ‘see’ here, not directly but can then apply this in a productive way. Spinning mass weighs less at the core and densest at the sides, take this and apply to blackholes, supermassive and rotating at some incomprehensible speed, they are massless at the center and expel all the mass around the exterior, creating an orbital disk across the galaxy. It also reminds me of a drill ‘seeing’ one dimension (air) drilling into another (water) and this then moves the solid ground beneath it (sand) it creates a funnel of sandy, bubbly water, that woulden’t exist without that interdimensional interaction.

      A funnel of spinning ‘things’ – the ‘laws’ are lifted out of their formerly understood place, lifted beyond our plane of vision, beyond our solid surface of sandy solid, rigid, facts and definitions and into the liquid and air of impossible processes that our crawling minds cannot understand, only flying minds can understand, able to comprehend these interactive processes, these non-material social processes between all things in the universe – creates everything.

      Below a depth of this drilling tornado of spinning mass, it uncovers different layers and all this substance lifts up into the spinning mass creating new particles, creating orbits, creating pairs and bonds between impossible objects, generating the observable universe with its photons, protons, neutrons and electrons, just the tip of the iceberg, and one among many icebergs and even ice continents and even lands without any ice at all – our 0.4% of the universe we see, nothing, there is other planes of vision and other planes of life beyond photonic observance.

      This chemicalism we have, is not the only periodic tables possible, it needs to be unified with quantum theory, and this needs quantum chemistry and with that quantum geology to understand the mixing of these forces at different ‘velocities’ of time and ‘volume’ of space, different time-heat temperatures, how they form baryonic molecules in cold, slow time and how they form plasmas in infinitely hot, fast time, then how these interact between each other

      Quantity doesn’t have to be the only thing, that thinking should be equal to qualitative thinking – like natural philosophy using the least symbols possible, everything can be done better and even explained in different ways, where I am coming from is more of a collective approach at the whole of science, I also think of it more philosophically and as you say, more like a religion – because that is a great drive to have and keeps knowledge unified around a level playing field that can then cross pollinate into other knowledge and ultimately our entire lives, not just confined to the specialists and their obscure ‘name-name theory’ ‘name-name-name bridge’ ‘this process is called the name-name-name process’.

      That’s what pisses me off with symbols, i’m trying to understand some of these processes without words and just pure visualization of the phenomena and symbolism gets in the bloody way making the task a million years longer – so many nobels with so many names and our whole equations are based on nothing more than names with symbols of their initials – I want back to basics, no more pissing in the wind.

      And for the GUT force, i think it is something like Gravity > Strong > Weak > Electric. Similar to naturalization > socialization > civilization > mechanization, from machines, the electrons, made of incredibly low mass, create new scenarios where previous laws in the universe can be overhauled – think of the prefix – ‘electro’ Electronuclear > Electroweak > Electromagnetic > Magnetic – all these electros! All thanks to the low mass, high quality electrons that form magnetism, these mechanizations industriously throwing off photons, gluons and other ‘massless’ information carriers – echoes!

      Thereby reinforcing the gravitational effect through the strong force, through socialization of different dimensional forces, increasing the complexity, variety and integrity of the previous forces and continuously producing more life.

      Another layer on the cake.. with a big spinning funnel inside it to mix it all up, only now, it is evolving counterproductively through the weak force, decaying into little microbes, little dark energy things, making the cake crumble and fall apart, expand with buoyant gases that the microbes produce in their digestion of the forces – releasing bubbles of dark energy – getting ready to create the air that future life will breathe.

      All the particles create ripple effects in the substance of lesser particles, and as that medium evolves, so does the external world and how it is perceived. And unfortunately, you are correct that hardly anyone understands what i am talking about, and that is a shame.. But we have eugenics for that.

Leave a Reply

38 queries. 0.768 seconds