Wave mechanics and color phases

[Boof-head]

I propose that you can derive not only General Relativity, independent of c, the invariant speed of light (as energy propagating under the action of a tensor product f), but not, independent of time - and that it has an invariant metric tensor g which conserves any uv action; you can also derive a general wave-mechanical solution, similarly to the way another poster is doing, and you can do it with Platonic solids and sections, and color charges. These are the right triangular cone and the sphere (inside the cone) and the line, right triangle and cube.

 

The algorithmic tools are induction of a recurrence and polynomial curves in S^n, Euclidean space and the induction of the existence, its inverse the absence, of a charge which is an abstract color potential, using induction to prove that 1) the existence of color c_i is a copy or instantiation of c_i, absence is erasure, and so this implies a countable number of copies {c1,c2,...,ck} of color/charge i, and so 1 copy implies 0 copies as well as -1 copies, the metric, or numeric basis is the series {-1,0,+1}.

 

You need also the definition of a background and a foreground = a color field from which algebraic states evolve, discrete enumerations with a c-shape and a c-pressure, so a content or c-volume. There are distant parts or extreme edges of the color-graph, a C-shape or volume V and pressure P. C and P have deformation/diffusion operators that perform Euclidean rotations which generate/annihilate states or preserve them; these are all (color) phases with a group and phase velocity.

 

Edges are in E, Nodes in E are in an 'outer' set of signals or observables; two independent observables against two dependent surfaces on two 'generally independent' backgrounds, are the other algorithmics in the inductive step. This also (importantly) implies communication or measurement.

 

Does anyone want to have a go first or suggest why it isn't do-able, maybe there are no truly independent observables?

[Boof-head]

See, if the idea is dumb or prosaic, then so is building or designing the Rubiks's cube and other color or number puzzles, and so is QCD.

 

It might be easier at the more modest end, if you can at least imagine a cube or a sphere with colors, is a kind of crystalline 'color-state' or maybe a 'color-molecule'; both Rubik's puzzles are in fact answers to questions. These are in the domain of: "can we color a surface, and change the colors so the surface is deformed?" type of questions. Also: "can we generate colors, or a particular color, different to or almost the same again, and in what sense, given surfaces reflect and diffract all kinds of colors? How do we 'fix' or paint a color, can we un-paint it, once it's there?", and so on.

 

Clearly, we already use abstract color-maps, for the very small realm of quarks, and leptons. The domain where mass has three lepton 'flavors', the tau, the electron and muon - note how the smallest mass was the second in the list there - if there is some kind of cycle in these 'mass colors or hues', then a symmetry may be broken somewhere = a color-symmetry; there are red and blue, and anti-green quarks, and other color-anticolor particles, and 'colorless' gluons.

There really is no difficulty with imagining electrons and protons with a 'mass color' each, and two 'charge colors'; the 'spin' or minimum color height, say, is just h. Now you need to invent a way to invert the spin of a color (??)