Process Fractal vs Geometry Fractals

Let proportion be found not only in numbers, but also in sounds, weights, times and positions, and whatever force there is.Leonardo Da Vinci

The Mandelbrot set, seen here in an image generated by NOVA, epitomizes the fractal. Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation

 "Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight line." So writes acclaimed mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot in his path-breaking book The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Instead, such natural forms, and many man-made creations as well, are "rough," he says. To study and learn from such roughness, for which he invented the term fractal, Mandelbrot devised a new kind of visual mathematics based on such irregular shapes. Fractal geometry, as he called this new math, is worlds apart from the Euclidean variety we all learn in school, and it has sparked discoveries in myriad fields, from finance to metallurgy, cosmology to medicine. In this interview, hear from the father of fractals about why he disdains rules, why he considers himself a philosopher, and why he abandons work on any given advance in fractals as soon as it becomes popular. A Radical Mind

As I watch the dialogue between Bruce Lipton and Tom Campbell here, there were many things that helped my perspective understand the virtual world in relation to how the biology subject was presented. It is obvious then why Bruce Lipton likes the analogies Tom Campbell has to offer. The epiphanies Bruce is having along the road to his developing biological work is very important. It is how each time a person makes the leap that one must understand how individuals change, how societies change.



Okay so for one,  the subject of fractals presents itself and the idea of process fractals and Geometry Fractals were presented in relation to each other. Now the talk moved onto the very thought of geometry presented in context sort of raised by ire even though I couldn't distinguish the differences. The virtual world analogy is still very unsettling to me.

So ya I have something to learn here.

I think my problem was with how such iteration may be schematically driven so as toidentify the pattern. Is to see this process reveal itself on a much larger scale. So when I looked at the Euclidean basis as a Newtonian expression the evolution toward relativity had to include the idea of Non Euclidean geometries. This was the natural evolution of the math that lies at the basis of graduating from a Euclidean world. It is the natural expression of understanding how this geometry can move into  a dynamical world.

So yes the developing perspective for me is that even though we are talking abut mathematical structures here we see some correspondence in nature . This has been my thing so as to discover the starting point?

A schematic of a transmembrane receptor

It the truest sense I had already these questions in my mind as  I was going through the talk. The starting point for Bruce is his biology and the cell. For Tom, he has not been explicit here other then to say that it is his studies with Monroe that he developed his thoughts around the virtual world as it relates to the idea of what he found working with Monroe.

So it is an exploration I feel of the work he encountered and has not so far as I seen made a public statement to that effect. It needs to be said and he needs to go back and look over how he had his epiphanies. For me this is about the process of discovery and creativity that I have found in my own life. Can one feel so full as to have found ones wealth in being that you can look everywhere and see the beginnings of many things?

This wealth is not monetary for me although I recognized we had to take care of or families and made sure they were ready to be off on their own. To be productive.

The Blind Men and the Elephant
John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

 So for me the quest for that starting point is to identify the pattern that exists in nature as much as many have tried various perspective in terms of quantum gravity. Yes, we are all sort of like blind men trying to explain the reality of the world in our own way and in the process we may come up with our epiphanies.

These epiphanies help us to the next level of understanding as if we moved outside of our skeletal frame to allow the membrane of the cell to allow receptivity of what exist in the world around as information. We are not limited then to the frame of the skeleton hardened too, that we cannot progress further. The surface area of the membrane then becomes a request to open the channels toward expansion of the limitations we had applied to ourselves maintaining a frame of reference.

Where are my keys?

"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

The Extra-Dimensions?

So you intuitively believe higher dimensions really exist?

Lisa Randall:I don't see why they shouldn't. In the history of physics, every time we've looked beyond the scales and energies we were familiar with, we've found things that we wouldn't have thought were there. You look inside the atom and eventually you discover quarks. Who would have thought that? It's hubris to think that the way we see things is everything there is.

And what is it that we don't see? I thought of a comment somewhere that spoke about what first started to make it's appearance in how we communicate?

Time is the Unseen fourth Dimension

They were able to create what we recognize today as the "elliptical" and "hyperbolic" non-Euclidean geometries. Most of Saccheri's first 32 theorems can be found in today's non-Euclidean textbooks. Saccheri's theorems are prefaced by "Sac."

One of my greatest "aha moments" came when I realized Non-euclidean geometries. I had to travel the history first with Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri, Bolya and Lobachevsky, for this to make an impression, and I can safely say, that learning of Gauss and Riemann, I was truly impressed.

Einstein had to include that "extra dimension of time." Greater then, or less then, 180 degrees and we know "this triangle" can take on some funny shapes when you apply them "to surfaces" that are doing funny things.?:)

Second, we must be wary of the "God of the Gaps" phenomena, where miracles are attributed to whatever we don't understand. Contrary to the famous drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost, here we are tempted to conclude that the keys must lie in whatever dark corners we have not searched, rather than face the unpleasant conclusion that the keys may be forever lost.

Let me just say that "it is not the fact that any drinking could have held the mind" of the person, but when they absentmindedly threw their car keys. The "point is" that if the light shines only so far, what conclusion should we live with?

Moving to the Fifth

So of course whatever real estate you are buying, make sure the light is shining on what your willing to purchase? Is this not a good lesson to learn?

Moving any idea to a fifth dimension I thought was important in relation to seeing what Einstein had done. See further: Concepts of the Fifth Dimension. I illustrate more ways in which we may see that has not been seen for most could have helped the mind see how this is accomplished in current day geometric methods.

Why was this thought "wrong" when one may of thought to include "gravity and light" together, after the conclusion of spacetime's 3+1? Gravity. What Had Maxwell done? What Had Riemann done?

You knew "the perfect symmetry" had to be reduced to General Relativity?

Greg Landsberg:

Two types of the extra-dimensional effects observable at collides.

A graviton leaves our world for a short moment of time, just to come back and decay into a pair of photons (the DØ physicists looked for that particular effect).

A graviton escapes from our 3-dimensional world in extra dimensions (Megaverse), resulting in an apparent energy non-conservation in our three-dimensional world.

So why would it matter to us if the universe has more than 3 spatial dimensions, if we can not feel them? Well, in fact we could “feel” these extra dimensions through their effect on gravity. While the forces that hold our world together (electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions) are constrained to the 3+1-“flat” dimensions, the gravitational interaction always occupies the entire universe, thus allowing it to feel the effects of extra dimensions. Unfortunately, since gravity is a very weak force and since the radius of extra dimensions is tiny, it could be very hard to see any effects, unless there is some kind of mechanism that amplifies the gravitational interaction. Such a mechanism was recently proposed by Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, and Dvali, who realized that the extra dimensions can be as large as one millimeter, and still we could have missed them in our quest for the understanding of how the universe works!

Of course these ideas are experimentally being challenged, like any good scientist would want of his theory. See EOT-WASH GROUP(4)

Hyperbolic Geometry and it's Rise

Omar Khayyám the mathematician(6 april 2006 Wikipedia)

He was famous during his lifetime as a mathematician, well known for inventing the method of solving cubic equations by intersecting a parabola with a circle. Although his approach at achieving this had earlier been attempted by Menaechmus and others, Khayyám provided a generalization extending it to all cubics. In addition he discovered the binomial expansion, and authored criticisms of Euclid's theories of parallels which made their way to England, where they contributed to the eventual development of non-Euclidean geometry.

Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri(6 April 2006 Wikipedia)

Saccheri entered the Jesuit order in 1685, and was ordained as a priest in 1694. He taught philosophy at Turin from 1694 to 1697, and philosophy, theology, and mathematics at Pavia from 1697 until his death. He was a protege of the mathematician Tommaso Ceva and published several works including Quaesita geometrica (1693), Logica demonstrativa (1697), and Neo-statica (1708).

Of course the question as to "Victorian" was on mind. Is non-euclidean held to a time frame, or not?

Victorian Era(wikipedia 6 April 2006)

It is often defined as the years from 1837 to 1901

Time valuations are being thought about here. In regards too, non euclidean geometry and it's rise. Shows, many correlations within that time frame. So that was suprizing, if held to a context of the victorian socialogical time frame. But we know this statement is far from the truth?


Seminar on the History of Hyperbolic Geometry, by Greg Schreiber

We began with an exposition of Euclidean geometry, first from Euclid's perspective (as given in his Elements) and then from a modern perspective due to Hilbert (in his Foundations of Geometry). Almost all criticisms of Euclid up to the 19th century were centered on his fifth postulate, the so-called Parallel Postulate.The first half of the course dealt with various attempts by ancient, medieval, and (relatively) modern mathematicians to prove this postulate from Euclid's others. Some of the most noteworthy efforts were by the Roman mathematician Proclus, the Islamic mathematicians Omar Khayyam and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, the Jesuit priest Girolamo Sacchieri, the Englishman John Wallis, and the Frenchmen Lambert and Legendre. Each one gave a flawed proof of the parallel postulate, containing some hidden assumption equivalent to that postulate. In this way properties of hyperbolic geometry were discovered, even though no one believed such a geometry to be possible.


History (wikipedia 6 April 2006)

Hyperbolic geometry was initially explored by Giovanni Gerolamo Saccheri in the 1700s, who nevertheless believed that it was inconsistent, and later by János Bolyai, Karl Friedrich Gauss, and Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky, after whom it is sometimes named.

Big Ideas.....To String Theory

Plato said:

yes to Gauss and gaussian coordinates, not forgetting, Saccheri, Bolyai and Lobschevasky along this lineage of geometers

On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry

So A continuation from this, and reference to important papers for consideration.

I was actually looking for papers on S.S.Chern and I have been having difficulty tracking down one of his papers entitled,"Relativity and Post Reimannian Differential Geometry," published in 1980. As I look, I usually come across interesting sites for consideration. They do indeed lead from one spot to another willy-nilly.

So I thought I would show the transition to topics that I compiled for reference in relation to string theory.

So having gone through a list here as follows, I came upon the article from a site called "Big Ideas". It was nice then, that I link to the site in question and the article for consideration. Talk about getting off the beaten path.:)

My intentions was to see how Gauss's and S.S. Chern's work correlated together and developed in line with Reimann. Hence the paper in question I was looking for. If anything had change my perspective, Gauss and Reimann were instrumental here and the understading of the metric. Gaussian coordinates help united much for me into the picture General Relativity had taken me too in see the dynamcial nature of the graviational field.

Big Ideas



It is of course from 2003, but always interesting nonetheless.




I understand Clifford's hesistancy on articles that have come out and some trepidation also seen by P.P. Cook on the issue Horizon of Hawkings in his article here. My focused is well set to this horizon as well, as th e question of blackhole types etc, and how such theoretical positions arise fromthis horizon. This was important to me that I move to the understanding of conformal ideas from tha horizon.

But articles, as best they can, hopefully can bring the lay person up to speed on what these ladies and gentlemen are doing with string theory and such. They help me in the generalized direction, so I hope all things are not to lost for Clifford and Paul in their entrancement of observation. "Disgust" to something fine in the media of consideration.

I noticed Paul's link to Jan Troost's site and have seen that site develope from inception, so it was interesting to continue to see the summation of string theory on his site as well. There are really good sites out there that I have kept track of, to help orientate my thinking in regards to to theoretical thinking at it's finest.

On the Hypothese at the foundations of Geometry

I am trying to make my case on the greatest physics paper over at Cosmic Variance. One notices the slight misinterpretation I assigned, "geometical propensity to physics" that the case is more then just physi,s but the limmerack added envisioned, over such a paper that leads into physics.:) I see no difference now. So I refer to it as the greatest physics paper!

The title of this thread is attributed to Bernhard Riemann and a paper he wrote that revolutionized our concept of space with geometry of distances(the metric). With Gauss's tuteluge on curvature that was being developed, Reimann moved to understand how such changes now would be considered, where space is no longer flat. He moved Pythagorean thereom from:

c²=a²+b² to c²=a²+b²-2ab cos Æ
where the right angle is no longer right but has magitude Æ then the above theorem has been generalized

The function that measures the instantaneous distance between two points was later used by Einstein where m and n vary over the intergers 1 and 2

ds²=g_mndx_mdx_n

On the Hypothese at the foundations of Geometry

By use of similar triangles and congruent parts of similar triangles on the Saccheri quadrilateral, ABDC with AC = BD and ‚A = ‚B = p/2, he establishes his first 32 theorems. Most are too complicated to be treated in a short paper, but here some examples are merely stated, some are illustrated and some are proven. For those proofs which are brief enough to show here, the main steps are indicated and the reader is invited to fill in the missing details of the argument. A century after Saccheri, the geometers, Lobachevsky, Bolyai and Gauss would realize that, by substituting the acute case or the obtuse case for Euclid's postulate Number V, they could create two consistent geometries. In doing so they built on the progress made by Saccheri who had already proven so many of the needed theorems. They were able to create what we recognize today as the "elliptical" and "hyperbolic" non-Euclidean geometries. Most of Saccheri's first 32 theorems can be found in today's non-Euclidean textbooks. Saccheri's theorems are prefaced by "Sac."

How far advanced our thinking has become, that we can move quickly here to other avenues of consideration? How much "inbetween" the leading thinking of Riemann that we can have gotten here in our "physics of geometries?" Is it a suttle generalization in words and limmerack that such a physics view could have seen nature at its finest, and explained in a mathematical way.

Gaussian Coordinates

We can sum this up as follows: Gauss invented a method for the mathematical treatment of continua in general, in which ?size-relations? (?distances? between neighbouring points) are defined. To every point of a continuum are assigned as many numbers (Gaussian co-ordinates) as the continuum has dimensions. This is done in such a way, that only one meaning can be attached to the assignment, and that numbers (Gaussian co-ordinates) which differ by an indefinitely small amount are assigned to adjacent points. The Gaussian co-ordinate system is a logical generalisation of the Cartesian co-ordinate system. It is also applicable to non-Euclidean continua, but only when, with respect to the defined ?size? or ? distance,? small parts of the continuum under consideration behave more nearly like a Euclidean system, the smaller the part of the continuum under our notice.

Yes so easy now that we can see this space in ways that the average person without the physics comprehension would have never found that the fancy brane worlds held to perspective on the developing sciences and recognition of such physics processes had been elevated.

Would the likes of a Peter Woit be stagnated on what he sees if such limitation to the math endowed creator of mind, would see that such limitations to spintronic value added, would only partake of the events held to this brane and that a wider audience would now see that such dynamicsi n this universe would be greatly enhanced by entering a whole new world of abstraction.

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, the gravitational potential due to an isolated source is proportional to rho + 3P, where rho is the energy density and P is the pressure. For non-relativistic matter the pressure is negligibly small, whereas for radiation P = rho/3. Therefore, for the same value of the energy density, radiation produces a deeper and more attractive gravitational potential (left) than non-relativistic matter (centre). If rho + 3P is negative, as in the case of quintessence ­ in this example P = ­2rho/3 ­ the sign of the gravitational field is transformed from attractive to repulsive (right).

Where to Now?

Once you see parts of the picture, belonging to the whole, then it becomes clear what a nice picture we will have?:) I used it originally for the question of the idea of a royal road to geometry, but have since progressed.

If you look dead center Plato reveals this one thing for us to consider, and to Aristotle, the question contained in the heading of this Blog.

It is beyond me sometimes to wonder how minds who are involved in the approaches of physics and mathematics might have never understood the world Gauss and Reimann revealled to us. The same imaging that moves such a mind for consideration, would have also seen how the dimensional values would have been very discriptive tool for understanding the dynamics at the quantum level?

As part of this process of comprehension for me, was trying to see this evolution of ordering of geometries and the topological integration we are lead too, in our apprehension of the dynamics of high energy considerations. If you follow Gr you understand the evolution too what became inclusive of the geometry developement, to know the physics must be further extended as a basis of our developing comprehension of the small and the large. It is such a easy deduction to understand that if you are facing energy problems in terms of what can be used in terms of our experimentation, that it must be moved to the cosmological pallette for determinations.

As much as we are lead to understand Gr and its cyclical rotation of Taylor and hulse, Mercuries orbits set our mind on how we shall perceive this quantum harmonic oscillator on such a grand scale,that such relevance between the quantum and cosmological world are really never to far apart?

As I have speculated in previous links and bringing to a fruitation, the methods of apprehension in euclidean determinations classically lead the mind into the further dynamcis brought into reality by saccheri was incorporated into Einsteins model of GR. Had Grossman not have shown Einstein of these geoemtrical tendencies would Einstein completed the comprehsive picture that we now see of what is signified as Gravity?

So lets assume then, that brane world is a very dynamcial understanding that hold many visual apparatus for consideration. For instance, how would three sphere might evolve from this?

Proper understanding of three sphere is essential in understanding how this would arise in what I understood of brane considerations.

Spherical considerations to higher dimensions.

Spheres can be generalized to higher dimensions. For any natural number n, an n-sphere is the set of points in n-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is, as before, a positive real number.

a 1-sphere is a pair of points ( - r,r)
a 2-sphere is a circle of radius r
a 3-sphere is an ordinary sphere
a 4-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space
However, see the note above about the ambiguity of n-sphere.
Spheres for n ≥ 5 are sometimes called hyperspheres. The n-sphere of unit radius centred at the origin is denoted Sn and is often referred to as "the" n-sphere.

INtegration of geometry with topological consideration then would have found this continuance in how we percieve the road leading to topolgical considerations of this sphere. Thus we would find the definition of sphere extended to higher in dimensions and value in brane world considerations as thus:



In topology, an n-sphere is defined as the boundary of an (n+1)-ball; thus, it is homeomorphic to the Euclidean n-sphere described above under Geometry, but perhaps lacking its metric. It is denoted Sn and is an n-manifold. A sphere need not be smooth; if it is smooth, it need not be diffeomorphic to the Euclidean sphere.

a 0-sphere is a pair of points with the discrete topology
a 1-sphere is a circle
a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere
An n-sphere is an example of a compact n-manifold without boundary.

The Heine-Borel theorem is used in a short proof that an n-sphere is compact. The sphere is the inverse image of a one-point set under the continuous function ||x||. Therefore the sphere is closed. Sn is also bounded. Therefore it is compact.

Sometimes it is very hard not to imagine this sphere would have these closed strings that would issue from its poles and expand to its circumference, as in some poincare projection of a radius value seen in 1r. It is troubling to me that the exchange from energy to matter considerations would have seen this topological expression turn itself inside/out only after collapsing, that pre definition of expression would have found the evoltuion to this sphere necessary.

Escher's imaging is very interesting here. The tree structure of these strings going along the length of the cylinder would vary in the structure of its cosmic string length based on this energy determination of the KK tower. The imaging of this closed string is very powerful when seen in the context of how it moves along the length of that cylinder. Along the cosmic string.

To get to this point:) and having shown a Platonic expression of simplices of the sphere, also integration of higher dimension values determined from a monte carlo effect determnation of quantum gravity. John Baez migh have been proud of such a model with such discrete functions?:) But how the heck would you determine the toplogical function of that sphere in higher dimensional vaues other then in nodal point flippings of energy concentration, revealled in that monte carlo model?

Topological consideration would need to be smooth, and without this structure how would you define such collpases in our universe, if you did not consider the blackhole?

So part of the developement here was to understand where I should go with the physics, to point out the evolving consideration in experimentation that would move our minds to consider how such supersymmetrical realities would have been realized in the models of the early universe understanding. How such views would have been revealled in our understanding within that cosmo?

One needed to be able to understand the scale feature of gravity from the very strong to the very weak in order to explain this developing concept of geometry and topological consideration no less then what Einstein did for us, we must do again in some comprehensive model of application.

No Royal Road to Geometry?

All those who have written histories bring to this point their account of the development of this science. Not long after these men came Euclid, who brought together the Elements, systematizing many of the theorems of Eudoxus, perfecting many of those of Theatetus, and putting in irrefutable demonstrable form propositions that had been rather loosely established by his predecessors. He lived in the time of Ptolemy the First, for Archimedes, who lived after the time of the first Ptolemy, mentions Euclid. It is also reported that Ptolemy once asked Euclid if there was not a shorter road to geometry that through the Elements, and Euclid replied that there was no royal road to geometry. He was therefore later than Plato's group but earlier than Eratosthenes and Archimedes, for these two men were contemporaries, as Eratosthenes somewhere says. Euclid belonged to the persuasion of Plato and was at home in this philosophy; and this is why he thought the goal of the Elements as a whole to be the construction of the so-called Platonic figures. (Proclus, ed. Friedlein, p. 68, tr. Morrow)

It was interesting to me that I find some thread that has survived through the many centuries , that moves through the hands of individuals, to bring us to a interesting abstract world that few would recognize.



While Euclid is not known to have made any original discoveries, and the Elements is based on the work of his predecessors, it is assumed that some of the proofs are his own and that he is responsible for the excellent arrangement. Over a thousand editions of the work have been published since the first printed version of 1482. Euclid's other works include Data, On Divisions of Figures, Phaenomena, Optics, Surface Loci, Porisms, Conics, Book of Fallacies, and Elements of Music. Only the first four of these survive.

Of interest, is that some line of departure from the classical defintions, would have followed some road of developement, that I needed to understand how this progression became apparent. For now such links helped to stabilize this process and the essence of the departure form this classical defintion needed a culmination reached in Einstein's General Relativity. But long before this road was capture in it's essence, the predecessors in this projective road, develope conceptual realizations and moved from some point. To me, this is the fifth postulate. But before I draw attention there I wanted to show the index of this same projective geometry.

A theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.

The move from the fifth postulate had Girolamo Saccheri, S.J. (1667 - 1733) ask the question?

What if the sum of the angles of a triangle were not equal to 180 degrees (or p radians)?" Suppose the sum of these angles was greater than or less than p. What would happen to the geometry we have come to depend on for so many things? What would happen to our buildings? to our technology? to our countries' boundaries?

The progression through these geometries leads to global perspectives that are not limited to the thread that moves through these cultures and civilizations. The evolution dictates that having reached Einstein GR that we understand that the world we meet is a dynamical one and with Reason, we come t recognize the Self Evident Truths.

At this point, having moved through the geometrical phases and recognitions, the physics of understanding have intertwined mathematical realms associated with Strings and loop and other means, in which to interpret that dynamical world called the Planck Length(Quantum Gravity).

Reichenbach on Helmholtz