The Philosophy of Calculus and Frequency

[metacogitans]

When we think of a tangent line of a point on a curve as only touching that curve at one point, while still having a fixed slope, we have already shed light on the nature of lines and the Euclidean grid: if you were to begin rotating the tangent line, at what point would it cease to be a tangent line and become a secant line? It would become a secant line the instant it began rotating, as lines are infinitely thin. This notion of infinitely thin lines, and infinitely small increments of time, is at the heart of calculus.

 

Why is this ever counter-intuitive to us? It has been argued that, hundreds of years ago, "math-denial" was a means for rejecting the idea of change by those in power. That may be true, but that strays more into the subject of history, really. I think the real reason is that, in a strict psychological sense, the notion of 'infinitely small' things like points and lines registers as an impossibility; there can not be 'something' without substance; mass and volume. Intuitively, we think that in order for a line to exist, it must consist of 'something', and already have properties like length, width, mass, etc.. Because of this, 'points' are actually visualized/conceptualized as tiny circles/spheres - but a line overlapping a point can rotate and still be touching the point; which I think people then try to apply to spheres and curves, but in doing so find that it's incorrect. We are not born with the concept of 'hypothetical', it is learned.

 

Let's arrive at a technical conclusion concerning 'change' and frequency; the 'change' of 'change' in the real world. When you tighten the strings of a guitar or any stringed instrument to tune it, you do not have to tune the strings to a specific man-made 'note' of frequency to make the instrument playable, you merely have to make sure the strings of the instrument are 'in tune' with each other. Yet, based on frequency, we can use devices to find what frequency and 'note' a string is tuned to, and the frequency of a note does not change (allegedly). Using the example of strings, the string can be tuned/tightened to range in frequency from 0 (being loose against the fretboard of a guitar) to infinity (although the string will obviously snap). Therefore, frequency does not change linearly, but exponentially. Let us then explain 'octave' notes in music (although the prefix oct-, meaning 8, is only correct with the 'chromatic' scale, which I'll get into momentarily):

Imagine that as we tune the string to a higher pitch/frequency, as the number of wave crests increases, the pitch of the instrument is in the process of cycling through 'notes' of music. When the top of the next crest comes to the same position in space (relative to the entire segment) which the top of the previous wave crest was at, the pitch reaches an 'octave note' (the pitch produced is recognizable as similar to the lower/higher octave note).

'Scales' in music divide the difference between a note and lower/higher octaves into notes - typically (and almost always), due to a system agreed upon hundreds of years ago called 'equal temperament', the frequency between octaves is divided into 12 notes, with the 1st and 12th notes being 'octave' notes.

 

An example of such a scale is the 'chromatic' scale (which is what uses the word 'octave' to refer to the note of recurring recognizability in frequency), which divides the frequency into a pattern of notes that anyone who has ever seen or played with a piano will be familiar with. The reason the recurring note is called an 'octave' note, is because in the chromatic scale, the 12 notes have 5 sharps/flats (one group of 2 and one group of 3), and otherwise consists of 7 distinguishable notes standard to the scale, with the 8th note repeating:

 

Going to jump ahead a bit here in the technical complexity of the topic, hope you guys don't mind:

Frequency and Entanglement

 

All particles that ever interact become 'entangled' to each other to a certain degree. In interacting, the frequency of their Zitterbewegung (trembling motion) has been synchronized with each other to a certain extent. The stronger the interaction, the greater the extent of synchronicity. The intensity of the synchronicity fades with time (if someone wants me to go back and give a more in depth explanation to this connection between frequency, 'interaction', and the entanglement of particles, I will).

 

Entanglement also extends to any particles the entangled particle interacts with; so any tunneling of electromagnetic radiation (such as down a wire, or in a computer processor) preserves this entanglement. This sort of 'stored analog data' in a particle is due to a kind of entropy in the particle's relativistic frequency: there are an infinite number of points on the surface of a sphere, and the directional point-contact of one particle and another particle will be unique to those particles.

 

All of this is similar to the frequency of a wave traveling through a guitar string.

If you watch the string itself after you pluck the string, it vibrates and moves around in a certain pattern; if you pluck the string again from a different direction with a different intensity, it will begin vibrating in that direction, but the pattern from when you plucked it intially is slightly preserved, although dampened. Using this same phenomenon is how vinyl records used to be made. If you were to drag a toothpick with a paper cone taped to it along the grooves of a vinyl and put your ear up to it, you might be able to faintly hear music playing.

 

How protons (and other hadrons) preserve relativistic entropy:

The current model describes protons as being made of 2 up quarks with a +2/3 charge and 1 down quark with a -1/3 charge, leading to a total charge of +1 for the entire proton. We could perhaps imagine these 3 constituents as making the proton dipolar like a water molecule. When imagining these 3 quarks, we could imagine their magnetic fields as being an elastic tether holding the 3 together; when one moves, it will stretch away from the other 2, but will pull back to them (pulling them slightly as well).

Since the proton is dipolar, when another positive or negative charged particle enters its magnetic proximity, the magnetic wave from the particle causes the 2 up quarks to be attracted or repulsed (depending on the charge of the wave) while the down quark does the opposite.

Momentum is preserved in the magnetic 'elastic tether' holding the 3 quarks together, which stores relativistic frequency.

Edited September 6, 2014 by metacogitans

[metacogitans]

I just broke new ground tonight with writings and drawings in a physical notebook of mine.

 

The drawings are on the topic of quantum computers - new designs and changes in microarchitecture. I am not sure that I should even show them to anyone.

Anyone they might be of interest to or a concern of, please reply to this thread or private message my inbox at this forum.

 

I do not know whether they should be sold, hidden, or discarded, or where I would even go to voice those concerns.

If anyone else already has what I think they have, they may even already know that I wrote them - but I do not know whether or not they have knowledge of the exact technology or design. In which case, I would be willing to be a consultant possibly. I need to know who would be interested so I am able to address concerns of mine. Please contact me at this forum.

 

I am trying to write ambiguously because I don't wish to imply that I would like to sell them, but I do not think they should be shared openly either.
This is stuff I would consider 'new-physics'.. It's a complete reworking of the meta-design of quantum processors.

 

If I still feel it's a concern in a few days, I think I'm going to take concerns of mine up the proper channels with gestures of good faith.. I realize now that I do not want part of their construction unless it were for some reason necessary.

Edited September 6, 2014 by metacogitans

[studiot]

 

When we think of a tangent line of a point on a curve as only touching that curve at one point, while still having a fixed slope, we have already shed light on the nature of lines and the Euclidean grid: if you were to begin rotating the tangent line, at what point would it cease to be a tangent line and become a secant line? It would become a secant line the instant it began rotating, as lines are infinitely thin. This notion of infinitely thin lines, and infinitely small increments of time, is at the heart of calculus.

 

So far as I can make out in your two posts this is your only reference to analysis and calculus (the forum you have posted in) and your only question which you answered yourself.

 

Unfortunately, your basic premise that a tangent is defined as only 'touching another curve at one point' is flawed.

 

So what is this thread about please?

[metacogitans]

 

So far as I can make out in your two posts this is your only reference to analysis and calculus (the forum you have posted in) and your only question which you answered yourself.

 

Unfortunately, your basic premise that a tangent is defined as only 'touching another curve at one point' is flawed.

 

So what is this thread about please?

lol

[metacogitans]

The race to build a quantum computer is on brother; but apparently I'm one of the only ones who knows the components & micro-architecture by intuition. So I'm going to do what any American does in this situation: patent it. And protect it from the people who would misuse it.

[andrewcellini]

The race to build a quantum computer is on brother; but apparently I'm one of the only ones who knows the components & micro-architecture by intuition. So I'm going to do what any American does in this situation: patent it. And protect it from the people who would misuse it.

uh, what?

 

what is the relevance to "philosophy of calculus?"

 

you didn't touch upon any mathematics and went off on a tangent about quantum computing (bad pun intended).

Edited October 1, 2014 by andrewcellini

[swansont]

 

All particles that ever interact become 'entangled' to each other to a certain degree. In interacting, the frequency of their Zitterbewegung (trembling motion) has been synchronized with each other to a certain extent. The stronger the interaction, the greater the extent of synchronicity. The intensity of the synchronicity fades with time (if someone wants me to go back and give a more in depth explanation to this connection between frequency, 'interaction', and the entanglement of particles, I will).

 

 

At least provide a link to where this appears in the literature; it's the first I've heard of zitterbewegung being part of any entanglement process, or that entanglement is a continuous function that can fade smoothly over time.