Absolute Unit of Relatives

I was asked to elaborate on the notion of “objective” and “subjective”, so here goes. I will update the post along the way. Let’s start with a basic assumption regarding the fundamental aspects of reality as we try to describe it. For better or worse, I tend to keep my eyes on the physicality of existence. I wouldn’t say I’m a “physicalist”, but I make efforts to keep all descriptions as “real” as possible. This is not to be understood as “restricted to empirical observables”, because that obscures half the truth already on square one. I won’t have that, so I will be stubborn like a screaming pig in consistently pointing towards the so called “hidden variable”. To me, it is not hidden at all, but simply the “action” of the “actor”.
Anyways, this is yet another effort to picture that which can only be half pictured. The reason a half image is that images are restricted to obey the properties of space. They cannot be done without utilizing “extension” and “surface”. Without properties of space, an image is indeed invisible, nicht wahr? Never the less, half of what it tries to picture is not of spatial extension, but of the notorious line of “time”. In time, it will be obvious that fundamental “time” is not of “period” or “interval” that can be measured. Only the properties of space can be measured. Instead, fundamental time is the act of timing the spatial extensions so they can interact and evolve as a communicating system, and not as a collection of random, discrete events. Observable quantum dots in space has a way of knowing other dots. They may be quantized and discrete, but that’s only because the emerge as the surface level. Beneath the measured surface, there is so called entanglement and a network of continous connectivity. That’s where we find the timing of space. The tricky part is that we cannot find it by looking at it, because it has no looks of its own. Looks are of space, remember. But if we get the fundamental unity right, that’s not a problem. Whatever the “hidden variable” is, it looks exactly as seen in all our measurements. That’s the cool aspect of unified spacetime.
It is always the same some/thing, appearing as every/things.

 

absoluteunityrelatives

That is one way to draw this image. I have done many such attempts, and they all fall short of what I intend to communicate. A reason for this is that any concept used, be it “magnetism, charge, pole, spin, translation, relation”, is already loaded with meaning. And not only that, but of several meanings depending on context and who is reading/interpreting the text. On the other hand, replacing these concepts with ones own is also bound to fail for obvious reasons. It seems a reader must want to understand the image. That there is a desire to overcome vagueness and contradictions. I have realized that, trying to explain the vision in various ways, building many roads to Rome if you will, can easily obscure more than it reveals. I don’t know how to solve this equation efficiently. I believe everyone in a similar position experiences the same difficulties. I guess I’m whining for all of us.

I will probably keep on failing. That is how we achieve common progress.
Standing on the shoulders of failed attempts…

Hands of Time – hands on.

Q: Why do we say “Hands of Time, and why does the clock on your wall have “hands”?
A: Because Time is what bends Space into various shapes, that’s why!

All you have to do is to add viscosity, rotation and a little bit of imagination.

handsoftime

Micro Macro time tubes

There’s a saying that “As above, so below”, and I suppose it points to the possibility of everything being oscillations between what seems to be opposites. If not that, it points to whatever you prefer to look at. My preference is to look at all of reality as equally real, and what is realized “above” should be realized “below”. But the concepts of “above” and “below” are easily interpreted as “high” and “low” as well as “good” and “bad”, and before we know it, we have made “equality” become “opposition”. This is how minds intelligence operates by default. It cannot tolerate equality and unity because that makes distinction and definition almost impossible. If intelligence can’t tell This from That, it stalls and feels stupid.
What an epic fail that is for the mind which tries to figure out the inner workings of nature.
With forced distinctions, mind runs in circles while believing linear progress is made.

Anyhow, I’d like to revise the old saying a bit by suggesting “As within, so without”. We might also say “As timed, so spaced” or “As potential, so realized”. The point is supposed to be that our measurements of empirical reality are spatial extensions of the potential reality we fail to measure. And if so, the notion of “failure” is itself a failure, becuse it obscures the fact that whatever is “real” must initially have been realized from that which is not yet real, but only potentially so.

C’mon guys…reality is not likely to take off as a ready made, out of a real box “thing” that simply is there.
It is naive to assume the initial state to be an initial thing. And if thing-ness is not in place to begin with, objectivity or thingy-ness is an emergent property of latent potential. And if there is a latent potential, it means that it won’t go away or is completely replaced by what is realized from it.

I’m loosing track as always…
Mind is too extensive.
Too far out.

This is a picture of how within shows up as without as micro evolves to macro. Size is relative while operation is absolute. The cool image is from Wikipedia on microtubule and the doodle is out of my mind. I have not tried to draw a microtubule myself, but only to suggest the image of it can be seen as corresponding to my idea of the fundamental units/unities of potential/reality. I’m sure my image is inherently useless and irrelevant when it comes to any degree of complexity, and a living organism is as complex as it gets. I know nothing of biological complexity, believe me.
The take away message is not about microtubules but of time as the potential background of real, empirical space.

Red is from perimeter of surface ex-tension.
Blue is from original/origo pole tension.

Tension —> Ex-Tension
In Time —> Spaced Out
Black Pole —> White Hole

And since oscillation is the law:
Time <—> SpaceTime <—> Space <—> SpaceTime <—> Time —> ad infinitum

microtubediscmacro

The nature of detection

Isn’t it strange that we first define nature as “empirically detectable reality”, then we begin looking at nature in trying to understand it.

What can we understand from that besides the process of detection? We become experts on detectables and measurables, and that expertise goes a long and glorious way. But rarely do we ask ourselves – what is required for detection to happen at all? If we do ask this, it soon becomes an issue of epistemology and human consciousness. And so we miss the point and get stuck in the complexity of relatives. We’re in over our heads in that. 

But my question is not about “me” and what I can detect. I’m irrelevant here. What I contemplate is the nature of X itself. How can it be non-detectable, regardless of being observed or not?

My answer today is this: for X to be a detectable object, it must have properties of a wavefunction. A wave will cause vibrations and vibrations can be detected. Vibrations have measurable values of length, period, frequency and so on. But if X is a flat surface that extends and contracts, there is just a pulse with no direction. A flat disc makes no waves. Assuming all of space being of such 2D-surfaces, how the heck is anything detectable at all? 

Well , if we have two such discs and we let them rotate as they extend and contract, then we have what appears to be a transverse wave. So my definition of nature is one of parity. My definition of matter is triality . 

At the base of the natural universe is not the supernatural. Nature is as high as it gets. Neither is the fundament subnatural . It is better described as para-, pre- or half – natural. 

And assuming universe to be cyclic, it cannot evolve from being this to being that. It has to be both all of the time. The most both it can be is at the point of universal inversion. That’s the final/initial state of singularity.

Definitely uncertain

Sometimes I get stuck in details when trying to communicate my vision of fundamental physics. This usually begins with positive energy and a desire to look stuff up and see how they correspond to my ideas. I fill notebooks with equations and I draw images whenever I find paper and pens. After a few days of work, I seem to run out of steam and the process is stalled. There is always something terribly wrong in all this, and for all the nice lines I draw between various dots of knowledge, the picture becomes increasingly blurry and incomprehensible. It always ends in a terrible mess of scattered potentials. Nothing stable and reliable ever manifests, and I end up with nothing to say.
A month later, I do it all over again.
Same result.

What usually helps me terminate these bouts of communication is when I stumble upon something that makes it obvious that my thinking is better left playing around inside my head, and I better leave others alone with their ideas. Today, the reality check looked like this:

Suppose it is desired to measure the position and speed of an object – for example a car going through a radar speed trap. It can be assumed that the car has a definite position and speed at a particular moment in time. How accurately these values can be measured depends on the quality of the measuring equipment – if the precision of the measuring equipment is improved, it will provide a result that is closer to the true value. It might be assumed that the speed of the car and its position could be operationally defined and measured simultaneously, as precisely as might be desired.

In 1927, Heisenberg proved that this last assumption is not correct. Quantum mechanics shows that certain pairs of physical properties, such as for example position and speed, cannot be simultaneously measured, nor defined in operational terms, to arbitrary precision: the more precisely one property is measured, or defined in operational terms, the less precisely can the other. This statement is known as the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle isn’t only a statement about the accuracy of our measuring equipment, but, more deeply, is about the conceptual nature of the measured quantities – the assumption that the car had simultaneously defined position and speed does not work in quantum mechanics. On a scale of cars and people, these uncertainties are negligible, but when dealing with atoms and electrons they become critical.

The above is from Wikipedia’s article Introduction to quantum mechanics. So what is wrong in this picture? It is a standard description of a basic quantum concept, so it should not be a problem. Maybe it isn’t, and I’m just seeing ghosts, or I am just too dense to get it. I don’t know, but …

It can be assumed that the car has a definite position and speed at a particular moment in time.

How can one assume such nonsense? How can we build a resonable argument based on the assumption that a moving object can have both “speed” and “position” measured simultaneously? Do we really need Heisenberg to tell us that’s impossible, not only on a quantum level, but impossible all together?
Isn’t it obvious that to measure the speed of object X, going from a to b, requires object X to change position? And does this not tell us that as long as object X stays at position a, we cannot define its speed because the damn car, or particle if you will, doesn’t have any speed. It simply refuses to travel along our points of measurement. But sure enough, if it just sits there, we can say a lot about its position. In fact, it has to be perfectly still when we define its position. As soon as object X starts rolling, position is lost, but we can now say something about its speed.
At “a particular moment in time”, object X can never have speed at all.
Moment in time cannot be measured as moment in space.

It might be assumed that the speed of the car and its position could be operationally defined and measured simultaneously, as precisely as might be desired.

Is this really what any sensible person would assume to be possible? I’m afraid it is, and if so, I must be the craziest nutcase alive. How could I ever communicate efficiently with a person who assumes “speed” can be measured when the object is perfectly still in a definite “position”?
No can do.
No way.

So the groundbreaking proof by Heisenberg, the awesome insight everyone had been unable to get until 1927, was that in the realm quantum mechanics, it was impossible to measure these two properties simultaneously. And so we were given the uncertainty principle. All hail to the power of Heisenberg because he was way smarter than I will ever be, so I’m not roasting him by any means. What troubles me is the possibility that people today, almost 100 years later, goes around thinking that the classical world is different from the quantum world in this respect. I suspect most of you are thinking that this uncertainty is a particular case of “weird quantum effects” or conditions. And while you do that, I’m here thinking it is not a special case at all, but bleedin’ obvious in the moment you say it out loud:
– What is the exact position of a car in motion?
– At what speed does a car in the parking lot move?

If this is one of the corner stones of Quantum Mechanics, no wonder it is assumed to be incomplete.
And yes, it is way more complicated than this, it is much more complex, I have made a sloppy interpretation of the article, no one who doesn’t know QM correctly can understand it, I’m over simplifying the statements, it is not about conventional “speed” and “position” of classical objects, it depends on how we define the relevant concepts, and the realm of quantum effects is totally different from that of classical effects.
I know all of that.
And still …it makes no sense at all.
Not to me.

Density of time

This is one way of thinking about the relation time-space; time might be considered a constant value, let’s say “3” or “1”, and an increase of time is not an increase of that value, but an increase in the frequency of that particular value. So as we get older, there is something that happens at an increasing rate. I suggest we “shrink” with age, and that our previous kinetic motion, our outward activity, is translated to potential activity. Contrary to what we usually Think, we do not “dissolve” when we die, but we are condensed back into the source of spatial extension. That source is the density of time.

In the image below, we can understand the circles as 2D surface extensions and the lines as “poles” of those surfaces. So the radii of surfaces decrease as their poles increase. But unlike in the crude graph, each surface has but 1 pole, and its value grows vertically, as if the pole was a tensor with spatial dimension (length). But it is not likely so, because linear “time” cannot be directly observed as “space”. The poles/tensors are to be understood as the “timing” of potential extension. Only as surfaces are these “timings” realized.

The lower left of the graph has some arrows depicted and they go in certain angles. This is where context comes into play and where multiple time lines (poles) align as to generate geometries. That’s about the angles of spin, not about “rotation”, because my poles doesn’t spin. Only as surfaces do they rotate, and they do so around the remains of the pole position. Therefore, velocity is circular while position is not. But I’ll save that for a post on the measurement problem. The point is that with increased density, frequency of time is condensed to a position of lesser space. Run as far as you can with that thought, and you end up in a nonlocal state of eternity where there is no space at all. You get there by merging 2 fundamental units so that their surface extensions goes from an EM-wavelength to the single pulse of a singularity without exterior. That’s a true monopole in my book.

But today let’s keep it to how the growth of “time” equals the increase of polar “frequency”. By that, we also have an increase in density which makes for a paradoxical spacetime evolution where the universe “shrinks” as it grows “older”. So perhaps the acceleration of universal expansion is actually an increase in global density.  As we all know, the speed of informational processing increases as density increases, and superconductors are superdense and superfast. One might argue that observation of acceleration is an artifact from informational values gaining speed from global increase in density.

I’m pretty sure that our universe is not expanding but contracting, and objects that are, relative to us, travelling outwards, are doing so to a much lesser extent than data implies. It is probably the frequency of data flow, telling us the object is moving further away, that increases. Not the assumed velocity of the object. All of that is relative truths…

Side note: nevermind the 3,2,1 stuff at the top. It’s another topic and I’m out of paper.

 

densityradiancegraph

Spacetime proton

My Friday unbelievability is a little picture of how time warps into space, as magnetism warps into electricity. As a bonus, I also offer an armchair theory of a protonic spacetime triplet.
That’s it for this week folks.
Time to make space for a beer…

 

tensorsurfaceSo when we now have helped Time to translate into a smooth and spinning surface of charged Space, we can let 3 basic units ocillate as to have ourselves a Proton. And by this, we can put the quarks, gluons, electrons and anti-stuff in the archives. Thank’s for all the marvelous complexity, but enough is enough.
Let complexity come with increased number of the same legos. You can build more cool stuff the more pieces you have, you know. It’s still legos….spacetimeproton