From: treon3verdery@gmail.com   
      
     Could phonons, plasmons (arrays of atoms and holes that move; physically   
   translate, while retaining order), or higher velocity spintronic equivalents,   
   propagate information as little plasmonic groups cross edges through a medium,   
   possibly a    
   preservative or amplifying medium, to transport the specific layout of atoms,   
   and just possibly some of their quantum states to a Reader like a 3d   
   embroidery hoop or coating surrounding the object.  The plasmons migrating   
   might have error-reduction    
   bitwise operations similar to a cellular automata to preclude data dilution   
   with propagation out to the plasmon reader coating.   
      
   I hard about something called spintronics; does spintronics have a   
   plasmon/phonon equivalent? Spintronics could be much higher velocity than   
   electron hole plasmons.   
      
   Plasmon/phonon data reporting transporter Applications such as knowing what is   
   inside a crystal could possibly go with new radiation, particle, and vibration   
   (like Thz), EM, detectors to make new kinds of sensors. New kinds of sensors   
   benefits robots and    
   automation.   
      
   It is well travelled at things I write, but could the new scientist quantum   
   camera that makes a figurine outline from quantum-entangled photon absorption   
   at the figurine surface simulataneously at the sensing surface of the computer   
   camera to make an    
   image of the figure without a direct/transmission/reflected optical path be   
   combined with a plamonic/phonic crystal to create new kinds of detectors.    
   Combining quantum camera with plamonics creates new detectors and depth   
   vision. The phonons would    
   migrate until they reached an edge or a crystal anomaly (from the crystal   
   detecting something), then on reaching a crystal novelty-center would change   
   and cause their different sibling quantum-linked phonon or plasmon, which was   
   at the surface of a    
   reader/sensor, like a computer camera (at the figurine example), to be   
   specifically quantum polarized (possible spin polarized) from entanglement;   
   that images the 3d shape as well as likely the energy level and form of the   
   thing the first plasmon reacts    
   to.  This is a way of seeing at depth of materials, possibly 3d computer   
   chips, or even cytomaterials or tissues as when you put a nanosized plasmon   
   generating crystal next to a cyte, then the nanocrystal makes propagating   
   phonons/plamons which wash up    
   and possibly penetrate the cytomembrane and cytostructure, while what they   
   see/react to is recorded from the quantum camera effect.   
      
   One vague idea I have about reading plamonics/phonons at a perimeter or edge   
   is that little or large organic molecules could have a plasmonic   
   representation; say the edge of a quiltlike plasmon just touches the edge of a   
   little organic molecule, like a    
   carbohydrate.  The quilt hops around the carbohydrate molecule, Near-touching,   
   plasmonically/phononically modifying the plamon-quilt, without reacting   
   chemically with the carbohydrate.  So rather than an atomic force microscope   
   tip, the plasmonic quilt    
   changes its internal plasmon matrix (possibly an actively computing matrix   
   like a cellular automata) at each of the c-c-c of the carbohydrate.  The   
   carbohydrate goes unreacted but it is read/stored plasmonically. Just for   
   niftyness: I read about a time    
   crystal at wikipedia, sort of a crystal with more than one stable ground state   
   so it automatically rotates through states; so a plasmonic/phononic time   
   crystal could iterate the matrix-quilt while transporting measurements to a   
   quilt-internal or external    
   computer/sensor.    
         
      
   Math of statistics and finding things out:  A human looking at a map of US   
   states and counties can tell which are the richest. Then, as a lay perceptor,   
   I think humans do actual math correlations/other equations and/or just gaze at   
   the way overlain data    
   sets fit.  People looking at previously uncombined data sets sometimes find   
   new (perceived) trends which can then be tested as hypothesis.   
      
   database comparisons as instantaneous statements of matrice data are   
   reminiscent of finding actual predictive relationships at data, that could be   
   tested, or have highly unique probability of occuring other than by chance   
   (like a P value, but better and    
   nonspecific); So looking at the counties you could predict college attendance   
   by county wealth, even if you were absent a theory as t why.   
      
   So that brings up the math of what is the minimal matrix or block size to make   
   a 2d map overlain on an integer dataset. Like, how good a tic-tac-toe board or   
   hexagonal tile plane do you need to get a semivisual guide to data 1) where a   
   human glancing at    
   the visual it would see a trend (fMRI) 2) where an AI, like a deep learning   
   AI, would imitate a human glancing and find a trend, and 3) where some actual   
   math at an actual formula would find a trend (like multimodality or even   
   east-west gradient at tic    
   tac toe board) parsimoniously from less data.   
      
   So are there entire areas of the observable universe that fulfill the math of   
   hypothesisless true correlation?  These might be an area of science, and the   
   technology that comes from it, that are particularly easy and effective to   
   investigate. This brings    
   up a new (undecidability notation)form of D3 island of truthiness; an physics   
   and other science actual area separate from deduction or induction.     
      
   My perception is that some of science, like physics, uses reduction   
   (simplification) to produce predictable, modellable components, like electrons   
   or photons or math-fields, then build up larger things from these; the esteem   
   goes to the theories that    
   most effectively build up models that accurately predict the observed   
   universe.  That process reminds me of a combination of induction and   
   deduction.  That said if math areas of hypothesisless correlation create   
   islands of truthiness (D3) completely    
   outside and different than induction and/or deduction then there could be a   
   restatement of physics, and new physics research, based on math areas of   
   hypothesisless truthiness.  The only one (math;hypothesisless;truthiness) that   
   I think of instantly is    
   the dubious (yet possibly testable): Math winnowing of anthropic principle   
   variants at a multiverse kind of set-theory implies: If you perceive you   
   exist, then it must be at a physics that permits that.   
      
   Now testability matters, notably at core, as there is not way to tell if an   
   actual existing system is constructed in part with a non-hypothesisless math   
   component.  Keep doing the science experiments.   
      
   Math entertainment:   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)