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.

 

engtanglementwormholeem

 

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…

Advertisements

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.

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.

The point of reversals

Here’s an idea of the point/meaning of spacetime. It is the same point really, but is has two faces/phases, and we can only see one of them. We can see “space” by looking at real stuff. We might think that the stuff we see is moving about “in” space, as if there was some thing like space that could have stuff in it. That’s because we forget, or choose not to acknowledge, that “dimension” means “measurement”. So it is kind of missing the point to keep measuring a measurement. What we are doing is of course measuring/dimesioning the stuff that has the quality of extension.
It is the objects that have space, not space that has objects.

Anyways, the very scientific and artsy image is of something we can call “zero point”. That term is already occupied with meaning and misconceptions, so it is not that zero point. Don’t google “zero point” whatever you do. And if you already have, forget it. This is, as of today, the enigmatic Monopole. But it is also singularity, the cosmic string, charge, spacetime, entanglement, time reversal, Speed of Light, wavelength/frequency, matter/antimatter and ….you.  But to get “you” and all other real stuff, we must have more than one single point. Everything real is combinations of many points sharing their wavelengths. That sharing is the so called unified field of empirical reality. In this One entangeled field, you will never find One single point. We can never find a monopole or a singularity, because they always come in at least a pair, possibly as “photons”. String theory’s one cosmic string is essentially a circular extension of a prime monopole/singularity that breaks by internal oscillations and becomes 2 monopoles extensions. There’s IMO only one instance when all points are unified into One Single Point.
You’ve guessed it, the initial unknown before the “Big Bang”. But that story is for later. Today we live in a reality where the many spinning zeros make an awesome flow of forward charge.

The image below is just food for thought. Think of it as an elastic sphereoid of contraction that spins so fast that its equator extends. Then imagine that, at the same time, the both ends of the same pole, that now runs through its extension, must close in on each other. It is one single point where extension as a circle and contraction as a straight line happens at once. It extends exactly as much as it contracts and vice versa. But the opposite directions of extension/contraction happens in opposite locations of the point.
Never the less, and this here is the tricky part so sit still and hold on to your ears; the 2 negative polarizations and the 1 positive extension are of the same point/unit. It is not like sphere + rings with some appearent gap between the parts that make up “Saturn”. All measurables and “dimensions” coming from this point come from the same source.

If we relate the image to string theory, I suggest strings are of the red perimeters that are wavelengts. The actual waving of the smooth perimeter comes from multiple points showing combined perimeters that lights up in complex sequences. A system of communicating extensions, they always communicate/relate, could perhaps behave like a “closed” string of an arbitrary volume/space. Then “open” strings would be all extensions not possible to define as belonging to a closed set with relevant values in uniform. But I know very little of string theory so just taking an intuitive stab at it. Basically there would be only one truly closed string i.e. the pre-big bang cosmic string/ring/surface.
Don’t know formal geometry either so “prolate/oblate” might be “ellipsoid” to the pro’s. I know “Point” is worthless to many in math because you cannot describe dimansions by means of a point, since the very definition of a mathematical point is that it has zero dimensions. Well, I’m not looking at that which has dimensions. I am looking at that which generates dimensionables.

Stop staining the picture with dimensions. I just put them there to show where masurements/dimensions are made possible. In the single point, there is nothing to measure. You must have 2 point before they realize their extensions as reality. One single point is the One Singularity without a reality to exist in.
Keep calm and count to 1.
The many points are not The Point.
Once they were and Once they will return.
But first, just an idea looking like this:

point phases

To have ones mind changed

When believe something, I really believe that. Until I don’t. Then I really believe something else. If I believe that I know X, I will act as if that was true. As if I really knew X. If I believe I don’t know X, I will act as if that was true. As if I really don’t know X.
What X really is, X only knows.
X is probably X.

Since I was old enough to contemplate existence and what existence really is, I have gone through a lot of beliefs, and I promise you, I believed them all equally much. One such belief was that the story of Big Bang was totally unbelievable. I found, and still find, a thousand reasons not to believe it. I will spare you the details, and I’m sure you know most of them. Or so I really believe anyway.

Come a moment in life when a certain belief changes shape and colour. It might still be the same belief, but something has drastically changed. In the case of my dis-belief in the Big Bang story, the change is not the Big Bang itself, but what the Big Bang is about. Suddenly I find myself believing it was actually so. It was a Big Bang-ish event which kicked off the universe as we know it. But having learned more about the concepts involved and how we argue about them, I have found that the problem is not the Big Bang but how the story is told. It is as unbeliavable today as it has been for all of my life. But today I believe myself to know better why the story sounds like science fiction and why it doesn’t make any sense.

The Big Bang story suffers credibility mainly because we cannot tell the story of singularity in a reasonable way. And since singularity is a “big” player in Einsteins wonderful universe of relativity, we think it is BIG. We forget that the singularity might just be a player, and the size comes from the way it plays. We understand universe from our point of view. Science prides itself of being objective and non-egocentric, but that’s educated bullshit.
A measuring device might be objective, but the detectors don’t interpret data.
A computer tells no story and explains nothing.
It computes.
A scientist is not objective.
A scientist is a scientist.

Today I believe in the so called Big Bang, but that is not from what science tells me about it. What has changed my mind is what science doesn’t tell me. It says a lot about singularities in theory. There’s a library full of books on singularity.
Gravitational singularity.
Mathematical singularity.
Naked singularity.
Technological singularity.
Then we are told “No one knows a singularity. It is beyond description. The laws of the universe break down in the singularity. It writes its own laws and we have no access to the laws of the singularity

Then I think this: They are looking at God.

The way mind responds to the singularity reminds me of how it responds to some imagined entity which is supposed to be The Beginning.
“In the beginning there was” ….and then the stories diverge. But they are trying to describe the same event.
The Beginning.
After all the books are written, all arguments thrown on the table, all storytellers end their tale with a common disclaimer:
-The Beginner of Beginning is not to be understood.
-The Singular God is beyond conventional mind of mankind.
Still, they have their theories of what this unknown creator created first.
Bible says that “heaven and earth” cames first.
Science prefer to begin with “light”.
Bible says “God did it”.
Science says “We don’t know, but we’re working on it”.

Then I encountered the Monopole and it changed my mind.
It was a Big Bang-ish event.
Heaven and earth is probably prior to light, but light is true while heaven and earth is a metaphor. Both camps win. Both camps lose. Fair deal. At least fair enough methinks.
The discription of a Monopole fits the Wanted! ad to a T.

WANTED!
One undetectable character
One force to unite them all
A master of disguise
Extremely powerful
Carries a Holy Grail full of answers
Description: Looks a lot like “Nothing”

So what is a “monopole” then?
It is what it is.
A monopole is a monopole.
I have no addition to what wikipedia says, and you can look that up for yourself.
The question is – how well does that descripition fit the descriptions of God and Singularity. That’s a matter of opinion and belief.
Today, in my opinion, I believe God is a Monopole Singularity.
I believe in Gods, Monopoles and Singularities.
Heureka as well as Halleujah.
I believe One multiplies as many Ones.
I believe many Ones does This.
I believe the many Ones are of two faces/phases.
Matter/anti-matter
One/Zero
Extension/Contraction
All of One (not “in” One)
All as Once (not “at” once)

But only in The Beginning is the One all alone.
So One breaks into Light
Light enlightens all forms of reality
Reality is this Enlightenment
One shines as many Ones
One eventually gathers itself
The many Ones again becomes the Only One
Light returns itself to the source
Relightenment
The One Pole attracts every Little One
Then…what we cannot understand, because there is no “where” to stand.
There are no relatives to the One Alone, so theories of relativity are silenced.
There are no quantities, so quantum theory are silenced.
As a fact, “there” does not apply.
As a fact, “is” does not apply.
As a fact, “One” does not apply.
What applies is Action. That does it. Action.
Not action potential because this reality can not be. It has to be.
Reality must be inevitably enforced, not optional.
Option implies a choise, a decision and intention. Believing this is so, God, Singularity and Monople line up to enter stage. But there is no stage and no One to enter.
Stage One comes later. Big comes with the Bang, but not yet.

This is what makes it difficult to describe. We are trying to imagine action without an actor. We know there is no one physically there to do it, but we know it is done.
So we imagine Force, which is not that hard. But then the mistake of mind.
We attatch some thing that is forceful, as to “have” force.
Always looking for the doer of what is done.
God is forceful
Singularities are forceful
Monopoles are forceful
We believe that if there is force, some thing has to be full of it.
If there is walking, there has to be a walker.

Today I believe that as The Beginning was what walks the walker.
The coming of what comes.
The going of what goes.
The around of all.

The Beginning comes around and goes around
Today that is…