I suppose you are two fathoms deep in mathematics,

and if you are, then God help you, for so am I,

only with this difference,

I stick fast in the mud at the bottom and there I shall remain.

–Charles Darwin

How nice that one would think that, “like Aristotle” Darwin held to what “nature holds around us,” that we say that Darwin is indeed grounded. But, that is a whole lot of water to contend with, while the ascent to land becomes the species that can contend with it’s emotive stability, and moves the intellect to the open air. One’s evolution is hard to understand in this context, and maybe hard for those to understand the math constructs in dialect that arises from such mud.

For me this journey has a blazon image on my mind. I would not say I am a extremely religious type, yet to see the image of a man who steps outside the boat of the troubled apostles, I think this lesson all to well for me in my continued journey on this earth to become better at what is ancient in it’s descriptions, while looking at the schematics of our arrangements.

How far back we trace the idea behind such a problem and Kepler Conjecture is speaking about cannon balls. Tom Hales writes,”Nearly four hundred years ago, Kepler asserted that no packing of congruent spheres can have a density greater than the density of the face-centered cubic packing.”

In three dimensions the answer is not so clear. It is easy to arrange 12 spheres so that each touches a central sphere, but there is a lot of space left over, and it is not obvious that there is no way to pack in a 13th sphere. (In fact, there is so much extra space that any two of the 12 outer spheres can exchange places through a continuous movement without any of the outer spheres losing contact with the center one.) This was the subject of a famous disagreement between mathematicians Isaac Newton and David Gregory. Newton thought that the limit was 12, and Gregory that a 13th could fit. The question was not resolved until 1874; Newton was correct.[1] In four dimensions, it was known for some time that the answer is either 24 or 25. It is easy to produce a packing of 24 spheres around a central sphere (one can place the spheres at the vertices of a suitably scaled 24-cell centered at the origin). As in the three-dimensional case, there is a lot of space left over—even more, in fact, than for n = 3—so the situation was even less clear. Finally, in 2003, Oleg Musin proved the kissing number for n = 4 to be 24, using a subtle trick.[2]

The kissing number in n dimensions is unknown for n > 4, except for n = 8 (240), and n = 24 (196,560).[3][4] The results in these dimensions stem from the existence of highly symmetrical lattices: the E8 lattice and the Leech lattice. In fact, the only way to arrange spheres in these dimensions with the above kissing numbers is to center them at the minimal vectors in these lattices. There is no space whatsoever for any additional balls.

So what is the glue that binds all these spheres in in the complexities that they are arrange in the dimensions and all that we shall have describe gravity along with the very nature of the particle that describe the reality and makeup that we have been dissecting with the collision process?

As with good teachers, and “exceptional ideas” they are those who gather, as if an Einstein crosses the room, and for those well equipped, we like to know what this energy is. What is it that describes the nature of such arrangements, that we look to what energy and mass has to say about it’s very makeup and relations. A crystal in it’s molecular arrangement?

Look’s like grapefruit to me, and not oranges?:)

Symmetry’s physical dimension by Stephen Maxfield

Each orange (sphere) in the first layer of such a stack is surrounded by six others to form a hexagonal, honeycomb lattice, while the second layer is built by placing the spheres above the “hollows” in the first layer. The third layer can be placed either directly above the first (producing a hexagonal close-packed lattice structure) or offset by one hollow (producing a face-centred cubic lattice). In both cases, 74% of the total volume of the stack is filled — and Hales showed that this density cannot be bettered…..

In the optimal packing arrangement, each sphere is touched by 12 others positioned around it. Newton suspected that this “kissing number” of 12 is the maximum possible in 3D, yet it was not until 1874 that mathematicians proved him right. This is because such a proof must take into account all possible arrangements of spheres, not just regular ones, and for centuries people thought that the extra space or “slop” in the 3D arrangement might allow a 13th sphere to be squeezed in. For similar reasons, Hales’ proof of greengrocers’ everyday experience is so complex that even now the referees are only 99% sure that it is correct….

Each sphere in the E8 lattice is surrounded by 240 others in a tight, slop-free arrangement — solving both the optimal-packing and kissing-number problems in 8D. Moreover, the centres of the spheres mark the vertices of an 8D solid called the E8 or “Gosset” polytope, which is named after the British mathematician Thorold Gosset who discovered it in 1900.

The following article is indeed abstract to me in it’s visualizations, just as the kaleidescope is. The expression of anyone of those spheres(an idea is related) in how information is distributed and aligned. At some point in the generation of this new idea we have succeeded in in a desired result, and some would have “this element of nature” explained as some result in the LHC?

A while ago I related Mendeleev’s table of elements, as an association, and thought what better way to describe this new theory by implementing “new elements” never seen before, to an acceptance of the new 22 new particles to be described in a new process? There is an “inherent curve” that arises out of Riemann’s primes, that might look like a “fingerprint” to some. Shall we relate “the sieves” to such spaces?

At some point, “this information” becomes an example of a “higher form “realized by it’s very constituents and acceptance, “as a result.”

Math Will Rock Your World by Neal Goldman

By the time you’re reading these words, this very article will exist as a line in Goldman’s polytope. And that raises a fundamental question: If long articles full of twists and turns can be reduced to a mathematical essence, what’s next? Our businesses — and, yes, ourselves.