# How to make 0 of 1

After making a few comments on two quotes from Chaitin’s Meta Math!, I will offer everyone looking for simple, unifying ideas a way to make 1 and 0 natural numbers in the sense of being exact images of the most basic physical event there is.

After all, math deals with the world of ideas, which transcends

the real world. And for “God” you can understand the laws of the universe,

as Einstein did, or the entire world, as Spinoza did, that doesn’t change the

message.

To say math deals with something that trancends the real world is prone to be misunderstood if not specifying what exactly is required for something to be ”real”. One can easily read that “ideas” are not real, and then argue that the neural activity related to thinking is indeed real. It is also problematic to assume there is some interface which has reality on one side and ideas on the other. As far as I can see, that leaves us with the tedious old dispute about “media” and “ether” and how separate entities communicate and so on and so forth. It’s a dead end. Further, to separate the physical world/universe from their alleged laws makes for more problems, especially if the Godlike laws are supposed not to change the message. I will hold that the fundamental laws are descriptions of indisputable, physical events which are in and of themselves very simple. What we conventionally think of as “laws” are rather consistency in relative effects. I will also hold that the message is the messenger, just as I believe that Jesus Christ is God.

I am always searching for simple, unifying ideas, rather than

glorying intellectually in “polytheistic” subjects like biology, in which there

is a rich tapestry of extremely complicated facts that resists being reduced

to a few simple ideas.

I share this preference for absolute simplicity. Reason is that I believe the Singularity of Einstein’s GR is definitely real. If so, it makes no sense at all to philosophize about the Singularity in terms of complexity and a plurality of concepts like zero point, universal string, infinite density, boundary, heat etc. Rather one should make an effort to condense all these concepts into that which can generate and rule them all. That is to figure out which concepts are pointing to the same “unknown”. By doing so, I have come to the conclusion that there is ultimately just two qualities of reality; one is extension and the other relaxation. If you really want to simplify the fundamental state of affairs, getting rid of contraction and gravity helps a lot. This is not a new idea since already Ezekiel in his vision kept repeating that: And each went straight forward; wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go, without turning as they went.… Whenever they moved, they moved in any of their four directions without turning as they moved.…

Now, Ezekiel said a lot of thing which I do not understand correctly, not yet, but one thing we definitely agree on is this: … for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels.… Indeed it is, and I can tell you why this is so. And you will definitely not believe one single word of it.

To generate one 2D surface of space, we need one axis of rotation. That axis is an imaginary straight line written as I or 1. At this moment, there is no zero because the sphere equator has not yet extended from rotation. We might say that there is an invisible space, or potential space, waiting to be spaced out by fundamental force of rotation. So the shape of things to come rests in the momentarily undetectable sphere which is in equilibrium and thus void of energy.

Now, if we let this 1 rotate, there is likely to emerge an equatorial bulge. This horizontal bulge is the emergence of space extension. It is the emergence of zero as comprising “everything”, because empirical reality is all of these momentary extensions. If there ever was a perfect sphere, we would not be able to detect it. This act of disappearing by means of geometry is the cause of quantization and the dreaded “gaps” in physical reality.

Since a quantum of action, which is Singularity, is finite, there can be no horizontal extension without a proportional compression of its vertical axis. So as empirical reality extends as a circular horizon, at its center there is the compression of 1 axis. In this way the 1 axis is continuously translated into a circular horizon. This is how electricity is perpendicular to magnetism, and so kinetic energy grows perpendicular to the growth of potential energy.

But to keep it simple, there is just the fact that if rotation flattens a sphere out into a disc, there will be compression at the disc center. Perhaps a better way to say is that tension is greater at the perimeter of the disc. Whichever way we phrase it, 2D extension is not forever. Flat is as far as it gets. Then what? Now we have translated the axis I into a much wider surface perimeter, symbolized by the all encompassing circle O. Reality is but an ocean of such momentary extensions, but it is not static. It breathes and has a lot of spirit, right?

Well, lets have a phase/face inversion so that potential energy (compression) is released, bidirectional and perpendicular to the extended horizon. What is likely to happen is that space seems to “shrink” and there is empirical “contraction”. But to invoke “gravity” is a big mistake. Perhaps the biggest of mistakes. There is no force which “pulls” space out of sight. Instead we have built up energy potential which has to be released. Otherwise we need some influx of force to keep the unit flat. As we know pretty well, the flow of reality seems to prefer a spherical shape, and now you can figure out why. That is because axial compression, enforced by fundamental force of rotation, has a limit to how compressed 1 can be. The poles/ends of the axis can meet at the very center of the fully extended space/horizon, but compression cannot pass through compression. Instead I suggest the poles will “bounce” off each other, and as they do, they will take the horizon with them.

From that “bounce”, the all encompassing O of space will gradually shrink and be quantized. So in this way, zero translates to an increasing axis I. The trick here is to realize that 1 is never to be detected as empirical reality. The 1 is of a sphere, not a prolate ellipsoid. In a physical sense, there is nothing >1.

The God I have found is of this invisible 1. And as explicitly stated in Genesis, creation grows by cutting itself down, not in 2, but in another 1. This is how one quanta breaks down to numerous quanta, and they all spin. Mathematicians like Tarski and Banach has shown how to make a sun by cutting up a pea and rotating the pieces. Math is just as real as the world of ideas. Reality cannot trancend itself, and it cannot fool itself.

What is NOT real is the “You” who is believed to read this post. Self-reference of human mind is the fool. Were was “You” at the moment of Singularity? What was there to eventually generate this “You” of “Yours”? Nah, forget it. “You” will never know it. In fact, you can never know it. Why? Because, if the above is actually true, IT is what knows “you”. “You” are IT, appearing and responding to context as “You”. 1 when invisible. 0 when obvious. Oscillations….lots of them….billions, and the relative image of stable matters which is an effect of them being so many. As the beginning (and end), the many are but 1, and The One is a moment of perfect equilibrium and universal unity. Force of rotation makes The One a black hole sun, a sun disc…The Only Son. So God anoints Himself, smears Himself out, into the presence of Light. Booom, Big Bang….Fiat Lux. Light is a wobbling Zero, coming from and going back to the invisible One.
Ultimately, This is of course the same body as That.
Reality hides by being Everything.
Jesus Christ hides by being God.
Light hides by being quantized.
Space hides….in time.

Nonsense…..

# Paired singularity actions

This is one way to imagine how time and space are generated by a parity we know as electromagnetic wave package i.e. photon. I will not dwell on the particulars of the individual unit in this post. Just assume that each unit in this dynamic unity will either expand horizontally from rotation or contract vertically from release of axial compression.
The sequence is pictured from a perspective above/below, not from aside. Also, I assume this parity wobbles so the angles of units tilts in specific amounts of degrees. We must also keep in mind that even if it looks like the parity “travels” from left to right, the only displacement is probably that generated by magnetic moment. That length is obviously equal to width of the charge strip. This is how frequency and wavelength is proportional to each other.
I recommend you make an effort to put aside all your knowledge of physics if just for a moment. What we know of these matters is based on understanding dynamics of many body systems. The image here is not to be empirically observed as it is, but only how it is in a context of numerous pairs and triplets of such units.
Another thing to note is that qualities/values/dimensions of black compression and red extension are gradients and that both units have both qualities, except for the momentary case when/where they are either black or red.
When black, there is no extension.
When white, there is no compression.
Don’t get too hung-up on that because it is bound to generate confusion and the wrong counter arguments. “Black” is “grey” equilibrium and “red” is “Black/White” maximum energy. Further, “red” is actually “white” but that’s tricky to show on this canvas. The trick is to figure out how “zero entropy” of one is paired with “equilibrium” of the other one, and how the roles/values gradually shifts to end up in the opposite unit.

It’s a waste of potential utility if I pile up what I conclude from this image. You must write your own verses by these letters. This is the simultaneous emergence and disapperance of two fundamental pulses, together making up one first harmonic.
This is a Godlike production of Adam and Eve, continously switching gender as they breathe in seemingly opposite direction. This is an image of the Buddha’s Whole Body Breath i.e. The Holy Spirit.

Can you sense the inhale of projection?
Can you sense the exhale of conjection?

Take a moment and contemplate laws of conservation.
Imagine what direction is like, and of what is directed.
Try finding the director of this dance. Who does it?
Reflect on the problem of finding the protons (3 units) center of mass.
How do you apply the concept of “entropy” in this sequence?
Can you place the hands of two clocks anchored at the centers of mass and see how they run in opposite direction and various, but interdependent speeds?
Can you see why a whole/certain measurement of parity is impossible?
Can you count the number of light-cones in this image, and figure out what it is that runs in what kind of direction(s)?
Can you be the One to unify Electro/Magnetism?
Can you break Quantum Mechanics down to General Relativity?
Can you tell me why all zeros of Riemann’s Z-func. happen to be half-real?
Will you?

Finally, this image is of post-symmetry breaking. This is Enlightenment. The single unbroken Unity of Singularity is a completely different beast. It is conceptually the exact opposite to parity, and why would that be so difficult to realize?
The Cosmic String itself is just the perimeter of a universal pulse. When it breaks from cutting itself in two, we get all of the above. In light, there is a wavy pattern of self-reference and interaction.
One dependent on the other one.
Yin and Yang.
The problem with String Theory, as with all current theories, is that it denies the prime existence of that which cannot be understood by means of reduction. That is, ST images the Cosmic String as 1-dimensional defect within a vacuum manifold not simply connected. But the mathematical concept on “manifold” is based on relations between points on a surface. The key here is points, as in >1. Well, Singularity defies the application of points, simply because it is The Irreducible Point Itself. It cannot be analysed by relative means. Period. Full stop.

In the Godlike Singularity, there is either the extended horizon of heavenly energy or the energetically dead hell of grey indifference. The Singularity oscillates between Every thing and No thing. With parity, there is always Some thing. Half of it coming/projecting and the other half going/conjecting. That is the exi-stence of Be-ing.
The “Out of” that which “Stands”.
The noun of verb.
The verbal-ization of the un-noun…..

Appreciate the notion of God generation as of the (many) Heavens and the (one) Earth and Genesis hopefully starts making its sense come through.

Can you hear the Zen Master  saying:
Reality is not one, nor is it not-not one

# 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 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?

# The bending of Euclid

This is a picture of my vision regarding…a lot of things. I Believe it relates to continuity vs. quantization and “entanglement” and the complex image of 3D space. We can probably squeeze out a notion of time too. It is importand to note that a static image of that which is never still can be very misleading. Reality oscillates and waves. It is never ever stable, straight or circular.
To have Euclide’s line being a closed surface perimeter is how I replace “infinity” with “finiteness”.
Eternal are the oscillations, but what oscillates need not be infinite in extension. It can only extend to the limit of its action potential. That action potential is on the Y-axis of rotation/spin and it has no spatial extension for as long as it remains there, but it never does except for in our hypothetical theories. In reality it appears as quantized space units which pops in and out of sight. The extensions do not extend “into” space, but they are space. They might be understood as the flat spatial extensions of vertical time contractions. But I would be careful with saying that there is “contraction” at all. I suggest “relaxation” being a better concept to work with. The basic unit need not “contract” in order to “pull” back its extension. All it has to do is being finite, and the surface will inverse naturally after reaching its potential limit of action. Then the tension/stretching of its pole value will increase as the perimeter decreases. The weird thing is that the tensor value will not increase as an effective value of extended space. The extension value will decrease without some corresponding tensor increasing in real “length”.
That’s why bosons can be in superposition, but … that is probably only in theory and a way to make sense of data. I suggest the superposition is continously realized as definite position, and that this position, as a particular placement in relative space, is only momentary. That would be a consequence from fundamental oscillation. That might also explain why we only get either “position” or “velocity” when measuring the little 1’s. They are both, but never simultaneously. But being both, one value must always translate to the other. On the other hand, if the above is true, I guess “velocity” is equal to surface perimeter and “position” is the corresponding potential of the invisible Y-axis. Position could be everywhere since the Y-potential is definitely non-local. It localizes itself as it translates into a surface.
Easy cheese, and the holes are not in it. It is the cheese that comes out of the holes.
My question is concerning the mechanics of this unit and exactly how it manages to oscillate as to both “break” and then “re-assemble” its fractions. I think hydrodynamics have it, but I’m unfamiliar with that.
A finite volume (tricky concept here since 1/2 of the unit has zero volume in space) of viscoelastic spin must “flatten out” perpendicular to axis of rotation (magnetism and electricity being in 90 degree relation), and this should be without the pole axis ever having any spatial extension itself.
Rather than a spheroid, ovoid or ellipse, the basic unit would be in the shape of an annulus where the inner and other areas translate each other. The inner area would be the “White hole” out of which “space” emerges as a 2D-disc, and then immediately it is the “Black hole” into which “space” dis-appears.
Reality is neither This, nor That. It is not discrete or continous, not QM or GR.
It oscillates, and C is as slow as it gets. Anything slower that C is in a theory of relative values, and dang me if that is not Everything we are and Everything else in empirical reality.
Bummer….

# Wormhole as polarized currency

For what it’s worth, this is how I understand the now popular ER=ERP conjecture and the nature of wormholes “between” objects.

lThe way I see it, the mysterious wormholes are not tunnels through space at all. I see no reason to believe the imagined objects communicates “through” a media connection that has the property of space. To say that just leads to new mysteries and conceptual problems. Instead, let’s assume that the objects, on a quantum level, have to modes/phases where one is of space and the other of time. If so, the units are entangled by simply being in the same “place” when not being in their respective extended phases. In this scenarion, every pair of monopoles (there are no single monopoles) continously flips between being local and non-local, and they do so at the speed of light. That’s because the inversion point, the critical limit when one phase flips to the other, is exactly C. In other words, C is determined by the fundamental units phase inversion as it cycles through polarized contraction >C and charged extension <C. The “boundary” between time and space is then =C. Therefore, C is when the frequency of “time” extends enough to materialize as the wavelength of “space”.
Again, both phases/dimensions are of the same system and thus like the heads/tails of a single coin. That is why frequency and wavelength are always proportional.

Can you see how the “bridge” between the 2 is essentially non-local frequency of time?
Can you see how all extended surfaces are always connected in the same non-locality?
Can you see how all observables are connected at the same time?
Can you see why light in special relativity has all space but zero time?
Can you see why black holes can be eternally nowhere?
Can you see that “in-between” is irrelevant to non-locality?

No you can’t, because you insist that monopoles are impossible and that time must be measured in space in order to be understood correctly. You also believe reality cannot be gauge invariant, and that which cannot be measured/dimensioned as space to be “supernatural” and speculative.
Therefore you will keep looking for “where” objects are connected and what the wormhole is made of.

So you can never even consider that the wormholes are in fact what the measured objects are when contracted/polarized out of space. But believe me, if all the fundamental units contracted in synch, our universe would become an instant singularity, poof, just like that. Since they dont, there is always enough of them in extended phase as to generate what appears to be a rather stable and continous reality.
But at the speed of light, reality comes and goes.
Out of time, into space.
Out of space, in time.

So there is your “dark” energy, hiding from observation by being the frequency of time which is inherent in Everything. The mystery of time is why we insist it must be “seen” as separate to “space” in order for us to understand it.

Still running the fools errand…

# How energy works

This Friday Fun will be to get rid of both energy and work. I’ve never liked how those concepts are used so I thought it best to weed them out of physics. They create more confusion than most other ideas. People use these concepts in various ways, and every time the word “energy” or “work” comes up, it is usually followed by “… depending on how you define…”. That alone suggests there’s something fishy going on here. From the excellent Physics Hypertextbook comes the following definition:

A system possesses energy if it has the ability to do work.

Work shifts energy from one system to another.

Energy is…

• a scalar quantity,

• abstract and cannot always be perceived,

• given meaning through calculation,

• a central concept in science.

Not attacking this definition, what’s wrong in the above? Well, first of all, the notion of “a system” is misleading. Since we are yet to discover a system in perfect isolation, there is no “a system” in the universal system. And if there was such a non-interactive system, it would stop being “a system” at the moment of detection. If we can measure it, we have a situation where the imagined boundaries of systems (observed and observing) are crossed from both sides, and then there is no definite boundary. The there is the idea of “possession” which is totally out of order. Any conceived system is of energy, and cannot be reasonably understood as a system (non-energetic) which has energy. Whatever this system is, it is of energy. It could not exist without being of energy. That is, existence of X requires X to be of both kinetic and potential energy in some proportions. If it is totally balanced, it is physically dead, and if it is totally unbalanced, it is a monopole. Every thing/system in-between dead and monopole is both kinetic and potential in itself. There’s no thing that can exist as having or not having energy. If it exists, it is the ability to do work. And speaking of “work”, if system X is the ability to do work, it need not “do” any work. All it has to “do” is to be what it is. In other words, no system can choose to “do” or “not do” its work. Therefore we can revise the definition accordingly:

A system is possesses energy if it has the ability to do work.

Work Systems shifts energy from one system to another.

With that out of the way, we can finally ask ourselves – what is work?
My answer is: Work is changing the relations of contraction and extension. That’s it.

There’s nothing “doing” this changing.
Change is enforced by the reality of existence.
If it exists, it will change and be changed.
The system does what the system is.
The system is contracting/potential and expanding/kinetic.

# 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.