Some Stuff About The Gell-Namn-Najshima Relations

Those sets of boundary-based conditions of the multiplicit acting quarks -- when one discerns the covariance of their so-eluded-to parity-based interactions -- that work to establish the kinematic interplay of their Ward-Caucy bounds, as taken over the multiplicit Sterling-based approximations of their sequential series of iterations, that is of their directly corresponding group instantons, -- that work to form that energy that such quarks function in, in so as to operate as such a partial of any directly related subatomic source of physical entity over time, -- is the concept of as to what may here be termed of as the Gell-Namn-Najshima relations that exist in the substringular.
 I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Samuel David Roach.

Part Two of Session 8 of Course Nine

Each individual light-cone-gauge eigenstate has 44 angular momentum components, 84 orbital components, and 128 spin components.  This is due to the condition that, for relatively time-oriented supertrings, it is most basic for a light-cone-gauge eigenstate to rotate along its axial plane over the course of sequential instantons, while it is a little less basic for a light-cone-gauge eigenstate to rotate along a radial Lagrangian while yet maintaining a directly covariant association with a specific conipoint of the coniaxial that is related to an arbitrary superstring when it is undergoing a state of conformal invariance, while it is less basic, yet essential, for a superstring to undergo a perturbation in the locus of its coniaxial.  (Although Gaussian Transformation happen all of the time, because of intertia, it takes an outward force to transversally move a supersting out of conformal invariane in such a manner so as to allow for the continued flow of the countless Fourier Transformations that are associated with the kinematic interplay that allows space-time-fabric to spontaneously continue to exist.)  In one-dimensional strings, the 44 angular momentum components are excentuated beyond the other components, do to the condition that one-dimensional superstrings comprise the existence of plain kinetic energy.  In two-dimensional superstrings associated with the upper Royal Arc section, spin-related components are excentuated beyond the other components.  One-Dimensional superstrings have relatively timeless light-cone-gauge eigenstates -- partially on account of the condition that a one-dimensional superstring has a purely Minkowsk field that is directly associated with it.  (A one-dimensional superstring directly associates with a two-dimensional field.)  Two-Dimensional superstrings have relatively time-oriented light-cone-gauge eigenstates, partially on account that the three-dimensional fields that directly accomedate the respective two-dimensional superstrings, at least, bear some basis with a Hilbert-like field.  (Hilbert-based fields may have as little as three spatial dimensions associated with these.)  Yes, Minkowski space may have up to 26 spatial dimensions under the conditions of an arbitrary Laplacian setting, yet, the foundation of Minkowski space is two-dimensional space -- the basis of flat space is a planar two-diimensional field.  Hilbert space is volume-oriented space.  Hilbert space may be comprised of as little as three spatial dimensions under certain conditions.  Time-Oriented light-cone-gauge eigenstates, which, are of two-dimensional superstrings,  have ten second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates that comprise the initially mentioned first-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates of the described two-dimensional superstrings.  Relatively timeless light-cone-gauge eigenstates exist in the field of one-Dimensional superstrings, these of which have five second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates that comprise the initially mentioned first-ordered light cone-gauge eigenstates that are associated with the described one-dimensional superstrings.  Two-Dimensional superstrings are closed, while one-dimensional superstrings are open.  Most superstrings have bear light-cone-gauge eigenstates that are relatively time oriented, so, most superstrings are closed , or, in other words, most superstrings are bosonic.  Yet, fermionic or open superstrings must exist.  If open superstrings did not exist, a photon would implode as it was formed, yet, thank goodness for the fact that their is plain kinetic energy (it is a fact of reality), so as long as there is a Continuum, there will be a certain arbitrary amount of one-dimensional (fermionic) or open superstrings.  I will continue with the suspense later!    I have a couple more posts to do on this session to ellaborate further as to the meaning of what I have been describing here.Until then, move closer and closer to your goals, and you will move in the direction of which you think!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Session 9 Of Course One

If two things are next to each other, then these are near. If the same two things are

                 
separated by a substantial distance, then these are far. Two things that are near each other

are relatively local. Two things that are far from each other are not relatively local. Two

things that are made relatively local to each other have become localized. Two things,

however, that were relatively local and subsequently became separated have become

delocalized.

A man who lives by his neighbor is local to that neighbor. The man’s children, you

might add, are even more local to that man. Yet the man’s neighbor is certainly more

local to him than someone on the opposite side of the planet, at least in terms of physical

nearness. As a standard, a locality in America is named by the county or city that that

person lives in. You may say, “I live in Pinckney, Michigan, which is in the United

States.” Likewise, one may always be able to grunge through more and more detail as

to where a particle is, yet the precision of how specific you define your locality is often

defined by the need that your specific description is to suffice. For instance, if you

wanted to know where a cluster of molecules was, you probably wouldn’t delve down to

the subatomic level. Rather, you would only need to search a level or two smaller than

what you are looking for in order to find the region in which the thing you are looking for

may be found. In this case, maybe searching down to the level of small molecules that

may cluster in such a way so as to find what you are searching for.

Loci may mean spots where things interdependently differentiate, or it may mean spots

that are near because these are attached. For instance, a uniform is near the body of a

baseball player, yet it is not a part of that baseball player’s body. A chair may be near

the table that it goes to, yet the chair is not part of the table. You might say, “Well, the

uniform is local to the ball player’s body, yet it isn’t part of his body. And the chair

is local to the table, yet it isn’t part of the table.” Exactly. So, if you consider certain

phenomena as things that are made of parts, and these parts are made up of parts, when

is something just local, and when is the object at hand in and of itself? What you need to

define is what you are calling a specific thing. If the ball player’s whole body, including

his hair, was the definition of a specific thing, then any part of his body would not be

considered just local to his body – it would be part of his body. Yet, if the definition of

the given specific thing was only the living portion of the ball player’s body, then his hair

would be local to his body versus being part of the same specific thing.

The electrons of an atom are local to that atom, while the electrons of another atom

are local to that other atom and not local to that first one. This is because we are not

treating the atom as a static blob, but as a kinematic interplay of components that are

interdependent. So, there is no “specific thing” that defines that entity of an atom, since

an atom is the basis of the structure of matter, and matter is energy in static equilibrium.

So, if you are talking about anything being local to the neighborhood of an atom, you are

talking about a particle or object that is at least adjacent to the field of that atom. Yet if

you are talking about something that is local to an atom, you are talking about something

taking place within the given atom itself. For instance, anybody in a city is a local

resident of that city, and everybody in that city is part of that city. If you were part of a

pencil, you are considered localized within that pencil. This is because the members of a

city, just as the electrons of an atom, are kinematic at their respective levels, whereas the

parts of a pencil are not kinematic at an observers respective level.