I am a hack – when writing about Maths. But find, that having to work out, through a verbal discussion, things about Maths, its Simplifications of Methods and Expansion on Forms – that its a really fun challenge –
Must meet narrative requirements to work, and is helpful to me wrt to spontaneoously coming up with narrative hedges as a kind syphon or something for tendency towards rhyme and beat, and as a result prose poetry.
Also – because language for Maths aligns well with Philosophy, specifically wrt to Objects, as Useful, Existing as Conceived, but “pure of mortality” as to say, as envisioned recognizable, but a member of: The Impossibles, a big dept for Objects in both Philosophy and Maths.
I have a thing about Objects that are Possible as Imagined, but only exist as Divine, Assignable, Contrivable, Incommensurable, tend to refer to them Geographically, as Spatials in the Midst (not shooting for form per se but “things” as influx and flow, as beauty and death blow, as persistence itself).
Impossibility in its Purest Form
On PENROSE From Wiki: He devised and popularised the Penrose triangle in the 1950s, describing it as “impossibility in its purest form”, and exchanged material with the artist M. C. Escher, whose earlier depictions of impossible objects partly inspired it. Escher’s Waterfall, and Ascending and Descending were in turn inspired by Penrose.
Third Time Reading Road to Reality. Long time obsessed with reading this book by Dr. Penrose thru to its end. Made it over page 500 for the first time.
Orthogonals – V2, needs another run thru.
Seems to me, Dr. Fabulous Penrose is at stage of book (in the 500s) describing requirements for measuring Quantum.
He is talking about specific things that are required to measure quantum “movement,” one of which is Orthogonals – Angles that are 90 degrees. Orthogonals can be added togther simply, easy to add & subtract, easy to visualize – everybody who reads about this stuff knows what Right Angles look like.
Its benefits are many, for instance, as a cut out from a circle – can be easily assumed into Manifolds, aka Globes – which are used to measure circles but that across the dividing line of zero, because has as great convenience positive and negative sides.
Quantum as discussed appears to require Orthogonals as property for measurement. Ninety degree angles that share a center point – which when added together or subtracted can be used to represent beginning and end of movement being measured in Quantum space. Transforms easily to vectors.
It occurs to me that the idea for using Orthoganals was sussed out when started using mirrors with beam splitters to track particles, because of how Penrose explains it.
Whats the angle of the bounce?
Small as they come
Quantum is high energy physics, so fast, so small you CAN NOT directly track it – as to say, where it goes can only be measured by where it lands, where it shows up.
They can only detect its change – after its shot out by Particle Emitter – by where it shows up.
So, I started to wonder it they were using Orthogonals to simplify the Maths, I dont know if I am right about this, but maths Cowboys and Indians are very crafty sorts.
They set up these experiments with mirrors, and could bloody well do what they wanted in terms of math cost effectiveness, they could set up mirrors to be at a specific angle from emitters, so when particle/wave bounce off, well – the waiting detectors could be as close as possible to a right angle, Orthogonal from the mirror – then use properties of Orthogonal objects as Pro Forma, as a way to EASILY seduce additions and subtractions based initially on 45 degree – Sweet.