This is not a Black Body

Today I will try to show you why a Black Body is not a Black Body, and how the unknowable can be known if we know what makes knowledge possible at all. I have had this invisible image in my mind for a few years now, but still I have not been able to share it with someone. This should be understood as “not able to commute that which enables a receiver to respond in such a way that a co-responding happens”. It is obvious that an invisible image is impossible in itself, let alone to communicate. It has to be so. My effort is to trigger a constructive response in you. Not shove my response down your throat. This is very difficult, because anything I say or show will by default be reconstructed according to your existing cognitive structures. It has to be so. But knowing how communication is bidirectional can be of some help.

The image has, to me, opened the floodgates to numerous Aha-moments. It still does. It is a game changer with profound consequences, that is, if you want it to be that. If you do not want it to be of any significance to you, it won’t be. Then it is just someone’s private speculations. Well, it IS someone’s private speculations no doubt, but not necessarily just so. It might also be valuable. It might also be complete/incomplete nonsense.
Ultimately, it is what it is. It is an event of co-responding.

Trying to avoid my usual rambling all over Everything, this will be an introductory post, an initial conditioning of you, so what follows has at least a slight possibility of being understood correctly. Only then can there be an accurate response to what I actually suggest, and not to what you have me suggesting. Only then can it be rightfully buffed or nerfed.

Let’s begin with the scope of this image. It answers none of your questions, except for one; What Is This? By “this” I do not mean any of the following:
God, reality, entanglement, entropy, particles, consciousness, mathematics, religion, free will, continuum, theory, mind, matter, energy, consciousness, purpose, intention, relativity, QM, essence, ether, gravity, true, good, impossible, probable, measurable, important or consciousness.
By “this” I mean: FUNDAMENTAL.
The reason I suggest the fundamental to be of highest priority is this – if we get it somewhat wrong, everything that follows will be somewhat skewed and out of focus. Not “wrong”, but not “right” either. If that is a problem is up to that response of yours. I just want to know Everything for no particular reason at all…it seems.


Using the concept of Black Body (BB) is bound to cause multiple misconceptions, because you know already what a Black Body is, and that is not what I suggest here. That means most readers will stop reading here. Before leaving, some friendly soul might suggest references and further studies so I can educate myself properly. And by that, our paths diverge. I can see for myself that my image is not of a Kirchhoff Black Body. The main reason for this is that my image does not include absorption of any kind, nor anything like emission. Since perfect absorption and zero emission is the very definition of a blackbody, this is obviously something else. There is no need to state the obvious over and over again. Sharing your opinion that the image is confusing and contradicting adds nothing but informational noise. I know it is confusing and full of contradictions. I wrote the damn thing. I have pictured it for soon to be 5 years. If you know it, you also know why it is confusing and paradoxical to an observer. You don’t reject QM out of the box, just because it is confusing, do you? You don’t accuse Zen for being full of paradoxes, do you? Objecting to my use of “Black Body” and “blackbody” without explicitly spelling out why I do that and how they relate to each other in this context, that is just interference and I’ll put you in the penalty box until you stop such nonsense. Unless you actively refuse to know, you know perfectly well what I mean. If not perfectly, well enough goes a long way.



But I reluctantly use the term Black Body anyway, because if I don’t use a conventional label, that is what is wrong and what makes everyone run away screaming “Pseudo-scientific crackpottery”. So I say “Black Body”, thinking it is the closest any concept I know of comes to what I’m suggesting.

I predict that most, if not all, questions you might have about this initial image are answered already. You must read more carefully the part of what it is not about. Then there are likely to be opinions. They cannot be answered but only argued. I won’t argue opinions unless I forget not to. It can be fun and challenging, but mostly it is boring and counterproductive. If you want the image to be potentially significant, you will ask honest questions. If you do not want it to be significant, you will argue your point. No one has ever been persuaded by arguments. Answers is what does it, so keep questioning…Everything!
I did, and I came up with Nothing.

Then of course there is the Gatekeepers of Credibility who will respond per usual:
You must include relevant equations, a list of references and vectors, scales, philosophical background, elementary charge, the number 137, set-theory, topology and algebra and whatever (we decide) is required for communicating anything at all of significance.
Sorry, can’t help them. If I could, these Gatekeepers would join the following category.

Then the impatient ones who wants all their favourite questions answered promptly, or the image explains nothing at all to them. They want more than just an alphabet. They want you to read for them. You are supposed to read their favourite story, over and over again.
But consciousness is primary and is not of a Black Body
But there must be spacetime inherent in the image and it’s not
But existence is mathematical and cannot be based on geometry
But existence is based on geometry and cannot be based on a nondimensional point
But this has to be observable or it is supernatural metaphysics
But God is not reducible to a scientific concept
But Science is not reducible to an unknowable Genesis
But a Black Body is just a useful concept
But a layperson cannot possibly understand this without extensive education and years of diligent practice.
Sorry, can’t help them. If I could, it would be to help them strengthen their arguments in favour of their current story.

But nevertheless,  there is a faint hope of someone who is not only guided by convention and a priori assumptions of what is possible, true, desirable, correct, allowed and appropriate. Someone who was not dead set on reframing this image to fit his own theory/model.  If that one person looks at the image, reads the few words attached and makes a little effort to let the input stand for itself, if only for 10 minutes, then s/he might just come up with some relevant questions, and not just the predictable ones stated above. S/he might be curious….doubting…wondering…
How does that move?
How did that get there?
What enforces that?
Why is that not a Black Hole?
Why is that unknowable?

The last one I can suggest an answer to right now. It is unknowable because there is no knower relative to it. It is more fundamental than epistemology and ontology combined. In those domains, the questions are usually based on the a priori assumption that there is an existing relation knower-known. Then we start elaborating on that relation.
Who knows who, are both observers and observed, are they one or two, how does information flow from one to the other and in-between, are they discrete or continuous, local or nonlocal etc.. You can spend a lifes worth of asking the above without knowing for sure. But there’s wealth of relatively correct answers to pic from and they keep coming. Already the old Greeks knew. Everyone knows, but no one seems to know why.

If you look really closely at the/my Black Body, you might realize that there is no possible relation presented. This unity is not of relativity. It is the epitome of the Absolute. Before your pre-conception of the term “absolute” shuts down all your cognitive functions and crystallize it into a solid wall of rejection, please take a few minutes and check the source. Absolute refers to that which is away from+loosening.  From that root of perfect unity, it has grown branches of meaning that are like the origin, but only relatively so. Can you spot the potential problem with this? To me, it is obvious. If we start to wobble in relation to the absolute, we are immediately lost and separated from its very nature. So much that it can suddenly mean the opposite to itself, as in “make separate”. This brings immense confusion to all our thinking about fundamentals. To make it sensible and useful, we must hold on to the most basic and concrete definition and meaning it can possibly have. That would be; “not lost” or perhaps “conserved”. Then we can use relative as its extreme opposite, as in “coming and going” or perhaps “progressive”.

The careful reader can easily spot an inconsistency, and it is a tricky one. How can that which is, by its most fundamental definition, absolute also be relative? This is a very good objection to what I have just said. I would be a fool to suggest that the ultimate cause of all existing effects is (a) absolute, and thus (b) empty of relations. That would be saying General Relativity is totally wrong and a theory of Nothing at all. It is to negate what is obvious in our everyday experience. Since that would be stupidity per excellence, I will not suggest that.

The reason my image of this Black Body is empty of relations is that the image is incomplete. Not only incomplete, but also fundamentally wrong as it stands right now. What makes it wrong is that the most vital aspect is missing. Unless I add the missing property, the unit is indeed absolute and non-relative, just like I said it is. But it will not remain so for very long. That which is absolute will only last a moment, or perhaps 3 moments. I’ll leave that to those who know math and physics. Read that again before you start arguing. Absolute is not of a stable state, let alone a particular “thing/object”. Not in my image. No way. I claim it to be a momentary configuration that, in a very specific way, makes the existence of relatives and relations impossible. It is a momentary state of a unit that can be of numerous momentary states as defined by an existing observer. The only one of these possible states that an observer cannot observe is likely to be the state of absolute-ness. Why this is so will become less of a mystery when we have graced the Black Body with its most prominent attribute. I said it is incomplete, but that needs a slight revision. It is incomplete if understood from the context of its effects. That context is to no surprise the current universe of measurable relatives. This image is of that which potentially enforces it to be what it is. QM and GR deals with the numerous effects. My image is not that. It is not of an initial condition, but of an eternal conditioner of conditioning. Can you possibly recognize the significant differences between condition – conditioning – conditioner? Try object – observation – observer….

As for now, all we know is that whatever is pictured here, it is not of observable qualities.
If we wish, we can therefore label it “supernatural”, “hidden” or “that which cannot be known”. I suggest we avoid all such definitions because they hi-jack our imagination and steals away from us any degrees of intellectual freedom.
If supernatural, scientific mind shuts down.
If hidden, we must invent that which hides it. Please, don’t do it. You will end up with a cover, a bulk, a boundary and a double cover. Before you can say “Duality”, game is over.
If “That which cannot be known”, there is the obvious risk of abandoning the whole issue. Of course, we are not able to let go of the fundamental question, but if we dodge the question of why an absolute state is unknowable, we begin to generate objects that have the property of being invisible, ethereal or omnipresent.
A spacetime grid or a universal background or …gravity…

Ok, now you are free to do what you are forced to do:

– A double cover is a …formalism…necessary…understand…Nobel Prize…
– Your use of the word “observer” is …Copenhagen interpretation….uncertainty….nonsense.
– A singularity is by definition _insert your preferred definition_
– What do you mean by…duality…intellectual….body….ontology…obviously you’re wrong.
– Absolute can be defined as …without a conscious witness….just so you know!
– In string theory, dimensions are ….which contradicts…because
– Contrary to what you imply here, General Relativity is not …
– Already the old Greeks knew that …fundamentals must…because…
– I get the impression you believe …which is wrong…because..
– Just because you consider…doesn’t mean…because…
– My God you’re full of your own garbage aren’t you.

Yes of course, definitely; it is, it does, it means, it should, it must, I will, I am, I can’t, there is, there was, he said, you are, you can and no one should, just as everyone is required to.

Now, does a dog have Buddha nature, or can we for once respond according to what actually is?


A quick spin on spinors

“No one fully understands spinors. Their algebra is formally understood but their general significance is mysterious. In some sense they describe the “square root” of geometry and, just as understanding the square root of −1 took centuries, the same might be true of spinors.” From Graham Farmelo. The Strangest Man: The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Quantum Genius

The concept of spinors is obviously a tricky one to people in the fields of math and physics. So how can I be of any help? Well, I could copy paste some statements about spinors and see how that relates to my fundamental unit. Who knows, they might turn out to be the same ”thing”.

  1. “…spinors appear when we imagine that instead of a single rotation, the coordinate system is gradually (continuously) rotated between some initial and final configuration.”
    Good fit! My unit oscillates back and forth between two distinct configurations. Those are the momentary states when/where the unit experiences phase shifts to and from projection/extension and conjection/contraction. I usually describe this as the unit being what defines the coordinate system values of X,Y,Z.
  2. “…sensitive to how the gradual rotation of the coordinates arrived there: they exhibit path-dependence
    Good fit! The gradual change is of opposite directions vertically, but same direction horizontally. When vertical values decrease, horizontal values increase and vice versa. So one path is “positive” in the sense that the real plane extends, and the other is “negative” since the projected values are then conjected. This is probably the cause of quantization. It seems reasonable to assume path-dependence of value X as either increasing or decreasing.
  3. Spinors actually exhibit a sign-reversal..” Perfect fit! As explained above, all values are likely to be reversed/inversed as the unit phase shifts at the relevant end configurations. The different topologies of rotation can perhaps be linked to the perpendicular relation of pole/axis to charge/radius. While my unit rotates around the vertical axis, that axis itself is assumed to be non-rotational. Instead, it is compressed when unit extends horizontally, and it elongates when compression is relaxed i.e. when axis function as a tensor. The topologies of circular and linear would be close to opposite as far as I can see. But if this is what is meant by “inequivalent gradual (continuous) rotations of the coordinate system”, I don’t know.
  4. “..a spinor must belong to a representation of the double cover of the rotation group SO(n, R), or more generally of double cover of the generalized special orthogonal group SO+(p, q, R) on spaces with metric signature (p, q).”
    You got me there Buddy! When reading “double cover” I think of chocolate wrapping, but that makes no sense in this context, so I Google it up. It turns out that what is covered is a continuous function p which is mapped from a topological space C to a topological space X. Seems like p-function translates “open” values to “definite” values. Then I stumble on the concept of “balls” in math, and things start to get really complicated. But however complex and diverse, the balls of math seems to resonate fairly well to my extreme simplicity. An Euclidean plane ball is a disc, an Euclidean 3-space ball is a volume bounded by a 2-D spherical shell and in 1-D space it is a line segment. All of those are present in my unit so, at a glance, it seems possible that this oscillator covers, if not everything so at least lots of it.All in all, I believe someone knowing Lorentz groups and spin matrices would have a field day with this unit/oscillator. And even with my limited understanding of formal physics and math, it seems possible that this is indeed what causes the effect of geometry. The problem might be that this unit cannot be detected empirically as a particular pure state. That requires a parity of such units, and such a pair is, at least in my mind, forced to counter each others values as to obey von Neumann entropy zero. That is, if A is forced by observation to express “contraction”, then B is forced by parity to express “extension”. That would seem an obvious function of parity, to have A and B oscillate in transverse directions. If both were to expand equally, I see them bounce off each other and separate. On the other hand, if they both contract, I fear they would condense to a single, coherent state. Opposition would be what keeps the oscillator oscillate, whether it is a single, pair or a triplet.

    Science seems bound to appearances, and in my image, appearance is a quality of space extensions and that is only half the truth. How space hides itself will be revealed in time, but “time” is not an observable. Time is linear momentum which enables spatial extensions to be observed “at a distance”. Without axial compression/relaxation, Alice and Bob would be blind to system AB. A spinning surface is going nowhere but in circles, but a pole on the other hand…can be understood as an “arrow of time”.
    In short: pole is messenger and surface is the message. In my image, the fundamental unit oscillates between both configurations. Not local, not nonlocal.

    Does this make any sense? Most certainly not!

Infinite shades of gray

The wormhole debate rages on, and out of it pops one universe after another. I have my head full of this here universe so I though it would be a good thing to compress and condence the arguments a bit so answers can expand beyond todays beating around the black bush.  After all, I’d like to be able to explain reality to my 7 year old in a somewhat sensible and reasonable way. With todays theories, that’s far from even remotely possible.

In my image, we can begin with what we have in our current universe, and that is parity. Any observable object is, I claim, a combination of at least 2 fundamental units and that would be a “photon”. I’ll leave singularity of monopoles out for now, but if you know 2 you will eventually know 1. And if you know 1, you will eventually know that 1 is a two-phased joker and that trinity/threeunity is what matters. 

In the image below you can think of the red surfaces as shades of gray which (a) comes out of white holes and (b) disappears into black holes. An electromagnetic wave is a parity of 2 such units, both oscillating between being black/white. That’s why the em-wave is both electric and magnetic in opposite directions.

The perhaps deepest pitfall in the image is to fall for the habit of understanding everything in terms of extensions. That’s why current models insist on making “time” appear as “space”. If we do that, the image becomes both twisted and unreasonably complex. So we take the math of it, which is likely to be very accurate, and then we confuse the math of time with the math of space, and draw a picture that is of space properties only. What we get is a number of geometries that makes no sense at all in the classical world of surfaces. But as mathematical expressions based on spatial dimension only, I’m sure they are correct.
All of them.

My geometry is simpler. Much simpler. It is so simple that it has to be totally wrong by current standards.
That’s because current standards are totally wrong by actual standards.
Actual standards are in my opinion unbelievably simple.
If you just invert you perspective and conventional interpretations, the usual definitions of black or white might translate to undefinable shades of gray.


We can understand Black as the sphere of zero space extension, and White as the perimeter of the extended surface. Inside sphere is entropy 1. At surface perimeter is entropy 0. Black is totally relaxed while White is tension/compression. Reality is never fixed at either/or. It oscillates between being more or less this or that. Only intelligence of mind separates reality into either this or that. It has to separate in order to know. Therefore, it will never know by being intelligent. Nor by being stupid. Simply unified is the way.