The pole is not the point

I’m having some difficulties in explaining to pro’s in physics what I mean with a Monopole. It seems they are looking for a point while I’m looking at, well…a pole actually. State of the art research papers keep validating my perspective on these elusive entities, but the authors themselves appear somewhat mystified. Perhaps it would help if they imagined their data to relate to a pole instead of a point?
Always trying to be of help, I will now offer the idiots (that’s me, not the scientists) 101 on monopoles.

polepoint

The above image is not how a monopole is described in physics and math. It sounds a bit strange perhaps, but this is how our friends in the Cold lab’s looks at it:

Ordinarily, magnetic poles come in pairs: they have both a north pole and a south pole. As the name suggests, however, a magnetic monopole is a magnetic particle possessing only a single, isolated pole—a north pole without a south pole, or vice versa.

 

So their monopoles are believed to be isolated points, being either sout or north. Perhaps this is because physics have adopted a lot of thinking that belongs to mathematics, not physics. In math, a pole is not a pole at all, but a particular singularity of a meromorphic function. The link to singularity is natural and valuable, because my very physical pole is, when in isolation and not in a pair, an essential singularity. But for now let’s stay physical. So the real monopole has no less than 2 ends to it. I repeat for clarity:
A Monopole has 2 ends of 1 extension.
A Monopole is NOT an isolated point.

 

EMpoleduality

The above image is a revision of Wikipedias piece on Monopoles. If you look it up, you will see that everything is backwards in the conventional picture where poles are believed to be points. From that perspective, I can easily understand why uniting electricity and magnetism is so difficult.
If we make a pole a pole, it is not difficult at all.

And as always I remind you of the fact that a single monopole, like the one pictured here, is likely to exist only once, and that would be as an initial universal state. A single monopole is not possible in a universe that is already evolving and “in space”. The single monopole is of such force that only itself can break it apart, and that is what symmetry breaking is about. But in my model, there’s no small quantum fluctuations that does it. Instead it is an inevitable effect caused by the forced geometry of the monopole/singularity and the sequence in which it operates.

But for now, the take away message is that a monopole is a pole of frequency, not a mathematical point, and that the pole itself, by spin, extends a surface of currency as it contracts towards its mean length.
And no, all notions of space are misleading since the singular monopole is non-dimensional.

Jeffrey Goldstone and Me

It happens once in a while that I appear (to my self) a true genius. That offers me some time off from being a complete fool which is my default mode. I work on my own when building this Do It Myself Universe so I have no one telling me what’s valuable and what’s BS. I have to figure that out as I go along. I have this awkward sense of (a) having missed the point totally, and (b) everyone else having missed the point totally. The former is probably correct and the latter not likely. Hopefully there might be something hiding in-between, but I couldn’t tell you what that would be.

Anyway, I just had one of these genius-moments which I thought I could share, risking everyones dislike for showing off intelligence with exactly nothing to back it up. I might just be a damn lier and narcissistic nutcase…maybe I am?
I have this idea of the initial state of universe that seems to agree with the Hartle-Hawkins model. In this, I believe myself to have a pretty good idea of what their singularity is (a monopole), and how the monopole symmetry breaks. As I write this, I find that “my” model corresponds to this:

One of the first cases of broken symmetry discussed in the physics literature is related to the form taken by a uniformly rotating body of incompressible fluid in gravitational and hydrostatic equilibrium. Jacobi and soon later Liouville, in 1834, discussed the fact that a tri-axial ellipsoid was an equilibrium solution for this problem when the kinetic energy compared to the gravitational energy of the rotating body exceeded a certain critical value. The axial symmetry presented by the McLaurin spheroids is broken at this bifurcation point. Furthermore, above this bifurcation point, and for constant angular momentum, the solutions that minimize the kinetic energy are the non-axially symmetric Jacobi ellipsoids instead of the Maclaurin spheroids.

I claim that the Einsteinian singularity is rotating viscoelastic point of contraction, and the context in which it breaks are in effect a perfect cavity since there is nothing external to the initial state. If true, this would explain a lot of what appears “mystical” and “weird” in quantum mechanics. Now, the process I vision to follow the symmetry breaking turns out to produce something very similar to Goldstone Bosons. Had I known about these little guys before, I would feel less creative for sure, but I didn’t. I read about them 20 minutes ago. That gives me a bit of confidence in the midst of uncertainty. I allow myself to believe I’m actually on the right track here. But I’m also convinced that whatever I’m about to tell has been told before. I don’t expect to bring anything new to the table. But perhaps I can offer an unusual and valuable perspective on the old news…I don’t know.

Maybe the initial state is a monopole that breaks itself in a way similar to that described by MacLaurin and Jacobi? Maybe we just need to understand why it is so, why it has to be so?
Maybe we need to add the notion of a cavity when thinking about the singularity?
In a cavity, light and matter seems to merge into one entity/system. That makes perfect sense in my model of the initial Monopole. It has to be so. Everything must have been like that on Square 0.

The void is that cavity, and it need not be engineered. It simply is the environment of the universe. Always was, and always will be.

I sense a great peace to come 

So it came to this: 

The end of this road will be the end that roads the next

And our future relatives, making ways into their future, as we make ours, will perhaps ask the same question:

How did it all begin…

How will it end….

And if they find answers, as we have, will they be able to sing and dance in joyous appreciation of the eternal cycle of creation and re-creation? 

I wish they will, because we cannot. We are dead set on immortality, so we die tearfilled and unneccesary deaths. 

Oh how we want the flowers never to be seeds. We tell ourselves there must be a benefactor who creates without ever destroying His creation. Or Her for what I care.

But I died years ago. The awakening to have been awake all along. The big laugh. Realizing it was this who woke up to me. Not I who woke up to this. I will forever remain asleep. No problem if you don’t make it so.

Already gone, accepting the end of the road is not hard. This funny little Me with all its fears and joys will merge with the background, long before the Big One has gathered all its Small Ones, back to itself.

I believed in infinite growth until just the other day. A perpetual growth machine I have written about. Oh how I wished for that to be true. But it is not…

Infinity is finite. Infinity is a spaced out idea. Infinitely far away. Boundless space in all directions. Infinity is of our fear of the coming back to the One. So we let our minds create infinite space. Somewhere out there, in a distant galaxy perhaps, we can live forever.                (hide forever)

But finite space is eternal. That’s what I have found. The One Time will eternally come back to 0. There is no “arrow of time”. That’s bullshit. An arrow is found in space, not in time.

We fool ourselves out of fear. Out into the infinite space we imagine an arrow. Irreversibly pointing towards a future were mankind can ride on.

We reject the obvious, that time is nothing but rotation. Time is of frequency. Tic toc tic toc….

But we also know that what goes around comes around. If space is a circle as Riemann said, well said, it is free to run eternally. It need not imagine an infinite arrow of creation. It can create on the spot.

The wise traditions knows this fully well. The wheels of creation, maintenence and destruction rolls all over their scriptures and images.

And what is their advice to those who actually wanna find out for themselves? Always the same:

Let go of your fear of dying. Don’t be afraid to give your self in to the One. Start today! Pray, meditate, contemplate and trust there to be a reality which takes care of business. And then some provide a father figure or mighty gods to represent this “Bigger than you”-reality.

Take ’em if you need ’em. I don’t.

How many million turns of the wheels until it comes to yet another end? I could not tell. But I’m totally convinced that could be figured out if anyone dared to. But no one does, and I’m tired from looking into the abyss all alone. The dark void is not too bad. It’s actually impressive and beautiful. But the little self always wants company, and standing at the Horizon of The Event…

People hate that view. There’s nothing to see there. 

Time has no colour. It’s not even black and white. It is just action.       1-2-3 and a lot of action.

I sense a great peace there. I sense what is to come, and yet again come.

Mechanical Harmonics

I like a little song and dance so I thought listening to how a monopole sounds might be fun. I found something on my main source of reference, Wikipedia:

Consider a spring, fixed at one end and having a mass attached to the other; this would be a single degree of freedom (SDoF) oscillator. Once set into motion it will oscillate at its natural frequency. For a single degree of freedom oscillator, a system in which the motion can be described by a single coordinate, the natural frequency depends on two system properties: mass and stiffness; (providing the system is undamped). The radian frequency, ωn, can be found using the following equation:

radianfqmech
Where: k = stiffness of the spring m = mass ωn = radian frequency (radians per second)

The monopole has zero stiffness. However massive, the radian frequency will always be 0. A spatial measurement as “radian” does not seem to apply. In effect it is likely to behave as a Bose-Einstein Condensate, but not close to zero Kelvin, but at exactly Zero K. It has zero viscosity. We should also remember that the monopole would have zero degrees of freedom expressed in two coordinates. This comes from how it rolls.

From the radian frequency, the natural frequency, fn, can be found by simply dividing ωn by 2π. Without first finding the radian frequency, the natural frequency can be found directly using:

naturalfqmech

Where: fn = natural frequency in hertz (cycles/second) k = stiffness of the spring (Newtons/meter or N/m) m = mass(kg) while doing the modal analysis of structures and mechanical equipment, the frequency of 1st mode is called fundamental frequency.

Dividing ωn = 0 by 2π gives another zero. Dividing 1 with 2π  = 0.1591549430918953 Assuming Pi = 3 we get 0.16666….
Something makes it not settle on .16 sharp….go look for that, please.

But the quantity 1 being divided can be redefined as 2 qualities. Reason is that a singularity has zero quantitative properties. It is all unified polarized actions. The natural frequency of a singularity/monopole would then be: 2/2π = 0.3183098861837907. Here perhaps keeping Pi fractioned makes sense since we’re close to a fundamental function. I suggest we understand this 2/2π  as:
* Two polarized actions being (a) linear contraction of pole with (b) circular pole extension. Linear contraction of pole is fundamental, self-referent gravity.
Circular extension of pole is fundamental, self-referent currency.
One is Magnetic and One is Electric.
One is of its own electromagnetism.
* Dividing is of One self-breaking in two Ones. The two Ones are of the same nature. The first Second is a clone of the first One. So 1 pole/extension becomes; 1a pole/extension + 1b pole/extension.
* The Pi value is tricky, but I have this idea of mine. The seemingly infinite fractions are probably an artifact of measurement, not being able to cover the actual quantum “tunneling”. But the basic 3 is not all that clear. Since I reject all quantities in a single monopole, it has only eigenvalues of quality, 3 is not a number of radians. Nor will I have values of space in a unit that generates space. So for now, I assume 3 to be related to the monopoles mode of oscillations and how the actual breaking of its own symmetry plays out. More on that later…

I know nothing of programming code, but I find this of potential interest:
Q: I would like to fit a curve with curve_fit and prevent it from becoming negative. Unfortunately, the code below does not work. Any hints? Thanks a lot!
A: Your model actually works fine as the following plot shows. I used your code and plotted the original data and the data you obtain with the fitted parameters:

codeplot
A nice graph with bad values we think.

This is the input values on the X-axis: xData = [0.0009824379203203417, 0.0011014182912933933, 0.0012433979929054324, 0.0014147106052612918, 0.0016240300315499524, 0.0018834904507916608, 0.002210485320720769, 0.002630660216394964, 0.0031830988618379067, 0.003929751681281367, 0.0049735919716217296, 0.0064961201261998095, 0.008841941282883075, 0.012732395447351627, 0.019894367886486918, 0.0353677651315323, 0.07957747154594767, 0.3183098861837907]

Last in line is exactly 2/2π = 0.3183098861837907 What makes me interested are the words: curve, negative. Also that the guy asking is surprised it doesn’t work, and the answer saying that it actually works fine. It seems the one asking didn’t like the graph X-axis starting at -0.05. So he got some help making the same plot look nicer:

niceplotnegativegone
Nicer looks, same data.

Same values, same outcome, but not interfering with our mathematical preferences. Presto, the ugly negative has magically disappeared, as it is always made to disappear.

Back to the harmonic oscillator, there’s a quirk to be recognized and dealt with. If the unit has 0 radian frequency, but a “natural” frequency of actions unified in one action (not as radiation), how does it sound? In this unit, there seems to be no steady pulse distinguished. If we could stand beside it and listen to it, hypothetically, there would perhaps be just one big bang of “0.3183098861837907”, whatever that is.
Oh, that’s 1/2π  = 0.1591549430918953 doubled….but what IS it? It seems to show up in inversed Gaussian distributions and that could be a pointer.

I intuitively like the idea of everything inversed at the point of singularity monopole evolution. And Gaussian distributions are what we have in reality. So why not crunch the numbers and have relations be outside-inside and with signs reversed?
If I knew programming, that’s what I would take as a starting point.

I also stumble over the notion of a missing fundamental, and again, such “gaps” makes me curious. So I learn that: A harmoic sound is said to have a missing fundamental, suppressed fundamental, or phantom fundamental when its overtones suggest a fundamental frequency but the sound lacks a component at the fundamental frequency itself. The brain perceives the pitch of a tone not only by its fundamental frequency, but also by the periodicity implied by the relationship between the higher harmonics; we may perceive the same pitch (perhaps with a different timbre) even if the fundamental frequency is missing from a tone.

For example, when a note (that is not a pure tone) has a pitch of 100 Hz, it will consist of frequency components that are integer multiples of that value (e.g. 100, 200, 300, 400, 500…. Hz). However, smaller loudspeakers may not produce low frequencies, and so in our example, the 100 Hz component may be missing. Nevertheless, a pitch corresponding to the fundamental may still be heard.

What my mind hears is the sound of entanglement. Hey guys and gals, after the bang of the true first harmonic, everything is a symphony of overtones which some call Cymatics. The higher harmonics are of the phantom fundamental which we cannot hear.
We cannot hear it because it is not a physical value itself.
It is the fundamental force of dual action that makes all actions valuable.
It permeates the whole universe in all directions.
It is not a detectable pulse that sweeps over the real surface in steady frequency.
It is not apart from all detectable frequencies.
It is a part of all detectable frequencies.
The phantom frequency it what drives all frequencies of spin.
It is the spinor of the spin.
It is the hidden work within the visible workers.
The phantom dissipates itself, breaks itself into realized overtones.
Its higher harmony is all there is.
A beautiful choir, made to sing a requiem for the dying phantom of the universal opera.
A phantom that will rise again, and again, and again …
It makes the phonons sing.
It makes the excitons exciting.
It is the superconducting of empirical reality.

And all of this from looking up “fundamental frequency of mechanical systems” on Wikipedia. Another productive lunch break I think.

Riemann geometry on-line

Not only will I mess with Riemann’s famous Z-func, today I will straighten out his geometry. To begin with, his correction of Euclid is excellent. I agree with Riemann on that.

Riemannian geometry, also called elliptic geometry, one of the non-Euclidean geometries that completely rejects the validity of Euclid’s fifth postulate and modifies his second postulate. Simply stated, Euclid’s fifth postulate is: through a point not on a given line there is only one line parallel to the given line. In Riemannian geometry, there are no lines parallel to the given line. Euclid’s second postulate is: a straight line of finite length can be extended continuously without bounds. In Riemannian geometry, a straight line of finite length can be extended continuously without bounds, but all straight lines are of the same …

In essence; Riemann rejects the idea of linearity. He says all extensions are basically circles. Thank you R, that’s definitely it. All of my space is of circular surfaces extended by pole frequencies. These pol extensions IS what we measure as “space”. Don’t let your mind fool you here, and assume there is:
1. Space
2. Extensions
Wrong Wrong and Wrong!!!

There is: Extensions.
That’s it!

Riemann had it perfectly right in building a geometry out of such extensions, and to have them being circular. They are. The pole extension is circular and of finite area. It is a disc. This is not really a problem if we want to build a 3D reality. We simply stack those surfaces in whatever way we like and, lo and behold, 3D space.

euclidriemann

Now, how can we make both being right? It is much related to the problem with making both QM and GR equally correct. It seems they are, but we cannot figure out how that can be since they sort of contradict each other in a disturbing way.

I thought we could approach this academic problem with a little help from one of the academic superstars, Edward Witten of String Theory fame. I’m being a monopole guy, I found a paper on ST and singularities from which I quote:

Here we run into a problem. One can read a textbook recipe for quantization in Dirac’s old book or in more modern texts on quantum field theory. But these recipes, applied to the Einstein-Hilbert theory, do not work. Because of the highly nonlinear nature of Riemannian geometry, these methods fail to give a consistent and meaningful result.

So if I read Prof. Witten right, he detects a problem in that quantization seems a fact while Riemann’s geometry also seems true. On one hand, quantization and Riemann agrees on the finiteness of geometry. Unlike Euclid, both say that extension is not infinite in space, but rater in rotation. The closed circle, string, surfce can in priciple spin forever without going anywhere in space. I can draw a 2 km long line on my A4 paper by curling it up in a circle. I can thus “bend” space into a particular Place. Then we ask, is it still a line?
Of course it isn’t, but the energy spent on drawing it can be exactly, has to be exactly, same as if drawing a true line. And please don’t get hung up on the energy expenditure and definitions of “energy”. Try getting the point instead. Thank you.

The problem Witten finds is likely that Dirac’s quantizing recipe will generate a real geometry/space with gaps in it. Reality might ultimately be quantized and dot-like, but it is also true that it acts in accordance with the smootheness of General Relativity, and however discrete Riemann’s infinite dots look like, when put to work they generate a manifold of smooth complexity. Riemann gets there by adding a tensor to his circles. This is the same trick as Einstein used to wrap up spacetime. A metric tensor is a mathematical function that aids in measuring and dimensioning, but it is not a real part of reality.
It simply is not there to look at. I will replace that device with the internal frequency of the geometry since it is pole spin that both extends to a surface and which keeps it in shape. More on that later.

Now I will tell you how to make a continous line from discrete dots that goes on and off like pixles on a screen. This is important, because Dirac’s recipe is a good one, but the “string” he imagined to have it work properly can be replaced with my viscoelastic point of spinning contraction. I reality, the Dirac string is the circular currency of 2 monopole surface extensions spinning in opposite directions. That my friends is what a photon looks like. The string is the photon’s helical twist of transversed waves. It is the 2 poles frequencies that does the twisting extensions, and we get a photon wavelength from that. But that’s off topic.

Looking at the picture makes better sense if you take a look at how my monoples behave. I have a few posts on that so study them before you watch how I get rid of space.

rgbcmykvisibles

So…how should I phrase this…? Let the extensions be reality because they are reality. Really make a mental effort to let this sink in: Only the extended sufaces are real, as in empirically measurable. It is not because we cannot look close enough to see the poles in their middles. It is because there is only spin frequency there. It is as visible as a black hole. The Riemann geometry of a closed circle prevents outsiders from looking in. It is like having an Euclidian line “bent” around it. That’s excellent, and it should have put an end to ideas of infinite space….I wish.

linecircleobserver

We see that the Euclidian geometry applied to quantum systems just ends up in infinities. Especially conceptual infinities. However academically rewarding that might be, it won’t take us further around the road. Let’s settle for Riemann’s infinity instead. An infinity that allows a process, like for example universal evolution, to keep going, but prohibits infinities of space. I suggest the arrow of time goes around the clock and not like a hand of time that keeps stretching out the face. If the hands reach out too far, they will lose frequency/momentum and the turning of time will stop. It doesn’t. So if we look at the chart below and realize the monopole itself is a first harmonic string/circle, then it will not have a complete basic unit of space. The minimum circles needed for space to emerge is a pair of monopoles, and that’s a photon. The first harmonic singularity (initial state) is a circular surface of 1 wave. By the way Prof. Witten, that’s the cosmic string soon about to be 2 strings. But in this particular case, it is not a nice and wavy surfers wave, but an instant pulse when the spin of the pole makes it shrink inwards as to press its great circle outwards to extension. The spheroid point flattens out, just like that. Boom.

 

Harmonic Pattern # of Loops Length-WavelengthRelationship
1st 1 L = 1 / 2 • λ
2nd 2 L = 2 / 2 • λ

But we still have only half a space, right. No matter how fearful and gigantic we assume this entity to be, with one single loop there’s zero space. It simply cannot achieve “space” on its own. Was it not alone we could assume its existence by looking at what’s external to it, as we do with Black Holes in our already banged up universe. But looking at one single solitaire of a monopole, there is nothing external to prove it existing at all.
It is just frequency/rate of oscillating contraction/extension. We should also be careful with the notion of frequency, because at this point we don’t know the frequency of what. We don’t have a clock to say “It rotates 300 000 000 times in a second”.
Come on guys, “time” is just as not-there as “space”.

So how do we quantize a la Dirac to make a nice wave out of this monster of a dimensionless oscillator? Witten of course wants an electromagnetic wave out of this, and that it should be smoothe, and able to, in multiples, build a Riemann manifold of continous complexities without those crazy quantum gaps in it. I suggest we let the monopole oscillate itself in half. The twist from spin is likely to break it at some point in the sequence, and until further notice, I will set that point at 3. 3 full contractions and extensions and it is suddenly 2 monopoles. By that, we have played the first second harmonic and now we have 1 basic length of space and it took a frequency of 3 times. When you stop laughing at the paradox of having created 1 dimension of space from 3 dimensions of time, you can open your eyes an have yourself a Big Bang of light.

I’m not sure yet how the next breaking plays out so there’s a few options available to this uneducated mind at least. For a pro there may not be so many. Hopefully only one according to what we know of electromagnetism. The important thing to note is that once the monopole singularity is broken in two, we can have a sequence of multiple oscillations. That will bridge the quantized gap so we now face a reality that is no longer black or white, as in on/off quantum flickering, but relatively smooth and continous.
This means we can throw away the tensors and keep the Dirac monopole(s) binary nature intact and build a Riemann manifold. The tensor effect is now inherent in the combined contractions of the multiple spinning poles. It is what gives the space extensions their frequencies and holds them together as “waves” and not Euclidean straight lines.
That we cannot directly measure the quantum jumping with out probes without getting tunnel-vision  should not be a problem if you know how it’s done and what it is. The reality of the many lights being momentarily “off” is shadowed by the many which are always “on”. The pre-reality of what is real will show up in the real measurements however we go about doing them.

We’re swimming in the Dirac Sea as we speak, it’s just that we are the clouds hoovering above it. When we cool down, we fall down into the ocean of insides.
Count to C and we’re up and flying for real again.

Sorry to mess with String Theories, but the opens strings are not neccesary. The math is probably spot on, but I suspect it is way more complex than is actually called for. I believe we can keep the single closed string/surface as it is with wavelength 1, and then we just break it down in as many legos/points we like to fit with the data. I’m sure the flow of currency appearing smooth and continous can be achieved by letting the “off” poles be what they are supposed to be i.e. non interfering with measures of space qualities.
“Flow” is exactly one such quality, and if the silent 1’s are not real is space, they will not affect how space evolves. But they will indeed affect the frequency/timing of space.
The timing is of how that which is linear is curved and folded into complex geometries. Space extension doesn’t do that.
Time does.

 

 

Guten abend Prof. Riemann

Guten abend Prof. Riemann

Ever since I “got it” 4 years ago, I’ve been looking for a way to express it in various ways. Everyday language is pretty useless, and everyone who “gets it” knows this for sure. In the Zen tradition this pofound inability to express in words what is beyond words is often pictured in short stories. My favourite is this:

Student: What is truth?
Master: Truth is like a river.
Student: How do you mean “like a river”?
Master: Ok, truth is not like a river.

So however you phrase it, it’s not that. You must rely on metaphors and pointers to have the listener find out for herself. There is no other way it seems. But I’m not here to tell you about Zen. I am fool enough to …well, perhaps I am here to tell you about Zen. Zen is whatever happens so there’s no way out of it really.

Chinese Chan master Yiduan (I-tuan, 9th century), a disciple of Nanquan, declared: “Speech is blasphemy! Silence is a lie! Above speech and silence, there is a way out.”

True that, and I’m falling inside out of that door way, so in which direction should I point my finger? Well, ultimately that’s a trick question because there is no door way. There is no way “out” of that which you are always “in”. Forget that and forget the “you” asking all the questions. Let’s go answering instead.
One way of answering is to ask great minds what they don’t know. To know what is not known is probably better than to know a lot. It narrows the search. So let’s ask one of our greatest minds, Bernhard Riemann, what he didn’t know most of all. It turns out he didn’t know for sure if all the zeros of his famous Z-function has the real part 1/2. If you’re not a fan of mathematical enigmas, this is irrelevant. But if you are, you know that proving the Riemann Hypothesis is the Big One in the field. Pro’s has been obsessed by it for decades, but no one seems able to hack it. Bets are on and stakes are high. More than a few insiders believes it is impossible to prove this beast of a function in the way Riemann himself thought of as perhaps possible.

So why would I even bother to look t it? I may be dumb as a rock, but I’m not stupid enough to think I could prove it, because I can’t. Full. Stop. First of all, I hardly know math well enough to count change at the grocery store. Secondly, I know no one who is willing to help me understand it in a formally accepted and correct way. As with physics, I mix it up as I go along and rarely follow the beaten paths of the professionals. I always get lost in complexity when I try. So I stay simple and follow my nose. This doesn’t mean I can’t hack it, because I can. It means no one credible in academia would ever look at my layman doodles. And honestly, who can blame them?

Never the less, here’s my basic message to my dear friend BR: Your hypothesis is definitely on track and all zeros will indeed have real part 1/2. Thing is, I must be rude enough to wreck your complex image to show you why. The reason for this is that the rotation at hand is of a peculiar kind. It is of a monopole, not a known particle or measurable spinor. To throw in a pole in a complex image is sort of how it’s done, so nothing new there. But I’m afraid this one is like an essential singularity with some geometry missing. To picture stuff that has no place in space can be a challange. It messes with the values on X and Y, but what can you do? We’re talking quantum stuff here, and those guys do not behave as expected. Not with any certainty at least. It is also tricky to picture it right when you’re dealing with “time”. Sure time goes around, and the complex rotation goes around, but time is also an arrow of sorts. In this case it means I will throw away what roates a soon as it has made uni verse (one turn). I hope you’ll excuse me for this, but I have thrown a monopole on the table and it just won’t sit still and spin within the image frame. I seems to oscillate, as a light switch going on/off, and to runs off mixing with other values. Most of all, it is never ever alone, so I would need two images to picture something relating to the physical world as we measure it. Then I could show you a photon perhaps.

CPRZ
A simple complex image, essentially being a singularity

So Prof. Riemann, there’s a pdf with my monopole/singularity to look at, and below I have copy/pasted a few words from it. Again, this will not make sense without thinking of a physical entity, or half physical perhaps. As a mathematical proof it is of course an obvious failure. But I like to think math has emerged from human mind, and that human mind is the mind of physical reality. Claiming we are the reality that is being pictured in our math and science, one thinks naturally that math is not abstract or un-natural in any way. In reality, everything is equally real, including the complex plane. What I allowed myself to do was to add a little quantum mystery to it. Mystery or not, the blue surface is what eventually builds space and the primes will come from that building. But to do that we would need 3 such surfaces to make an atom, and this is the image of 1. I’d like to show you how the 1 really looks like, but perhaps you already know it has no surface when really being the only 1. My image is of course based on how 1 appears together with 1, but so do all our images don’t they.

There’s a hole  the picture, I know that, and perhaps there has to be. I know you are a religious man Professor, and if you so wish, please insert a Holieness in that hole. I’d love that image. But not to scare away the secular  minds of today, I might choose to regard it “silent frequency” or Father Time to reconcile. I guess Dirac would call it a drop in the ocean. And knowing God as I imagine you do, I assume you know the quantity of 1 better than most. That’s a good thing. Half the seen world and half the unseen always adds up to 1 doesn’t it?

Oh, one more thing. Having XY never go beyond 1+1i  is not only to stay true to the one, but will save some space and keep us on comfortable distance from relativity’s fractions. The big numbers and tedious decimals come later, with the many poles as numerous di-poles. I claim the original complex image should be extraordinarily simple.
A one timer, then….Bang.
Lights On.

RZF_CP

Riemann hypothesis is true in quantum physics.
A real surface is the 2D extension of a spinning monopole. The least real value is 1 since monopoles are not of fractions. All real measurables are of positive values. Negative values are of surface rotation in real quarter. Rotational values must be calculated separately from extensional values. There are 2 zeros relating to the monopoles binary nature. The definite XY Zero is of the monopole as less than real space measurable. The relative .5,.5=1 is the zero in the so called critical strip. Any monopole extension will generate a real quantum of measurable space with the real value 1. All real values 1 of the Z-function will thus show up as having real part .5 in the complex image. The imaginary values are related to the empirically undetectable zero point with definite XY=0. XY=0 is not measurable since it is a point entity which defines the zero limit where the monopole extension does not generate spatial dimensionals. As a real space value 1, the pole frequency of the extended surface wavelength 1 is silent to observation. The silent value relates to uncertainty in measurement and likely to phenomena such as parity, antimatter, flux tube, wormhole and inversion of signs. As the monopoles surface extension is real space, the internal silent zero spin should be understood as real time/frequency. Pi is corrected to be 3 because the extension radius .5 is when including the zero points radius .2. But .2 has no real space value so r.5 is dimensionally r.3 (red dotted circle). When extension is measured as real surface, there is loss of zero point values .2 i.e. the time/frequency values, indicated by red lines. This can be understood as the zero point frequency of any real space that cannot be dimensioned as space itself. Therefore, Pi decimals are added as time, inherent in every basic quantum of space generated by monopoles extensions.

“Off” is not “Gone”

If you make one fundamental mistake, your whole building will be somewhat skewed and off line. No matter how nice furniture and luxury, there’s always a need to nail the pictures to the wall. Inside the walls of physics there are a lot of nails. Some pictures you cannot even see behind its nailing. When I visit that particular building, I carry tools. I pull out nails. Pictures start swaying. 

Fundamental mistake 1.

Reality is either chopped up as quantized or it is a continous flow without gaps. 

The mistake is not about “quantized” or “smooth”. The mistake is about “reality”. You might spot it by contemplating one of the most accepted of physical Laws.

Nothing is ever lost or gained. Momentum  is conserved.

Now think of the fact that black holes have no space properties. All we detect is what’s external to them. By that we also know black holes are anything but trivial gaps in space. They have force en masse. Still, they are not there. Lots of force seems to make for lots of missing space, right. Hold that thought.

A photon is like the opposite to a Black Hole. It is the force carrier of light. Force again…

So is there a quantum gap between packages of photons or is it not? This is not a trivial question. It has kept QM and GR apart for some time. So why not solve the issue so we can advance for real.

A “gap” to be true requires something missing that should be there but is not. There can only be a gap in something that exists for reality. But what if there is not something there in which there can be a gap? What if the idea of “there” is misplaced to begin with?

Where there is no property of space, “there” is not “there”. Then there is no “where” at which a gap can be. There can be no thing at all. If no thing is there, the gap is functionally closed and the sequence of quantized photons is smooth as can be. It is still quantized, but that need not bother its continous flow. 

So reality is only here when the quantum lights are on. When lights are on, reality is a continuum of quantum flow. When quantum lights are off, they are momentarily ruled out of the empirical picture. What would be a photon gap is instead a pair of pole frequencies without wavelength. They generate no space at that moment. Reality is without gaps, but the thing is, in a quantum world, reality comes and goes. 

When it’s here, it is totally real. When it’s not here, it just totally is.

Case closed.