# 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.

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.

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.

# Hawkins radiation from a single point of view

In this article is discussed why Stephen Hawkin’s 1974 theory of Black Hole radiation made such a fuzz. As always, I assume others argue over the theory itself and definitely over mainstream medias presentations of it. This article may be totally confused, but what can you do?

A wacky set of physical theories says that if you try to zoom all the way in to look at the tiniest particles, you won’t be able to focus the camera. Everything is a blurry mess, like white noise, where things are constantly created and destroyed from nothing. An electron, for example, can appear out of nowhere if its evil twin, the positron — the same particle but with the opposite electric charge — appears alongside it. Since opposites attract in physics, the particles crash back together and disappear in a burst of energy.

But, Hawking thought, what if the two particles appeared on either side of the point-of-no-return of the black hole’s pull? One particle would meet its demise inside the black hole, while the other would have just enough will to escape. Those lucky particles overcame the black hole’s oppressive gravity and appear as an extremely faint glow — one that we might be able to measure. That glow is now known Hawking radiation.

Without questioning any of Hawkins authority and brilliance, I’d like to make a few comments on the above. “Things” are never created or destroyed, but their shape may change for as long as the thing is real. When not-realized, that which was a “thing” just a nanosecond ago can be “no-thing” in a flash. The dis-appearing is not from existence but from apperance. A quanta can appear as well as dis-appear, but it’s still a quanta. Make no mistake. “Things” may be “lost”, but “no-things” are never lost. They are just the abscence of properties required for the phenomena of apperance.

The reason electron and positron come and go together is, in my mind, because the “and” is a mistake. Get rid of duality and you have an “elepotron”. We know that any particle always comes with an anti-particle, so why not assume they are opposite expressions of the same quanta? My basic unit of quanta is an annulus surface, and such a geometry has two sides of itself. The upside is the other side of the downside and vice versa. They charge in the same direction, the direction of their/its zero point pole, so left alone, they would functionally be the same simply because they are the same.
But we never find particles/quanta in total isolation. A minimum of interaction would be with the quanta of measurement. Without that, well…how could we find it?
So the one single surface of pole extension, its measurable quanta if you will, is always valued in relation to what evaluates it. Without evaluation, no matter/antimatter opposition. But if measurement evaluates one side, it collapses, and since the other side is of the same extension, it too collapses. This is as obvious as when you flip a coin and both sides flip in unison, but depending on a relative observer, the sides of the coin behave like two. They can be measured as having opposite signs. That is because they are the opposite sides on the same coin. Don’t get lost in the philosophical aspect of whether a coin has sides or the sides has a coin. All of that deals, ad infinitum, with artifacts of mind. Put it to rest for now.

I suggest fundamental charge is one directional as in “charging in rotation of its own single pole”. Only with 2 or more relatives will “opposite” charge enter stage. But then it is not the charge that is opposite, but the position of the relative. This is to say, all circles have the same direction. They all go round and round and round. Only when 2 charges/circles are placed together can we realize linearity, distance, angles and opposition.

When the “elepotron” escapes observation, it does that by being contracted backwards by its own double negative pole. The flat surface extension is then the equator of a sphere. When extended, the one pole is naturally contracted and its two ends are at their closest. So the units circular extension comes with its linear/polar contraction.
This is not a sequence.
It is an instance of one single action.
Nothing is extended. There is ex-tension.
Nothing is contracted. There is con-traction.
This one is the action, but there is no-thing “doing” the action.
This one does things. It is not!
It does.
The “burst of energy” they dis-appear into is what robs the quanta of its measurables. It is the frequency of the pole that does it. Then the doing of circular extension is reversed to the doing of circular contraction. So the extended quanta is dis-appeared by its own double negative pole.
So while the radiation itself might be real, it is not caused by what Hawkins suggest. That would require the breaking of a monopole, and we will not have that.

Note that when I say “one” monopole, I do not mean “one electron”. The electric currency I suggest is the electron, is itself a compound value of monopoles oscillating as quark/gluon. This is why charge ratio of proton/electron is same but opposite.

What actually could be the cause of Hawkins Radiation I can only guess. Perhaps the environment at the Black Hole horizon is such that the compounds of monopoles i.e. atoms, will be charged out of their phase locks and split. The radiation would then be some scattering of this disintergation.
What the heck. I don’t know.
But there’s no splitting of matter/anti-matter on a fundamental level.
There is no two of the same particle in that sense.
Every particle has a backside which is in play when it comes to measurements, but not neccesarily when it comes to action. The backside/anti might be functionally silent, but measuring the visible/active front, you inevitabely get the value of them both.

Measuring action and measuring what acts is not to be confused.
But we usually do.
Mind trap.

# 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:

# Liquid monopole unification

Today I learned about a paper where spacetime was derived from quantum entanglement. What got my attention was initially the picture of this relation. Since I’m no good at math, visions are my source of information. I thought this image could be helpful in describing this vision of mine. I will not bother you with the whole picture in one post, but just the basics. Everything is based on the fundament anyway so if you contemplate that, the rest follows naturally. But you must keep your mind in check. The fundamentals are so simple that intelligence will not believe it. Intelligence default mode of operation is of dualities. It cannot count to 1. Please mind the gap.

Here is the picture:

Locality of Gravitational Systems from Entanglement of Conformal Field Theories, Physical Review

Letters, 2015

So what we see looks like half a real system, doesn’t it? It is like the spheres are divided and the upside is gone. How can a spinning liquid look like half a sphere? Well, my answer is that the red gravitational dot in the bottom of the darkest sphere is missing its twin dot. From the center out, there seems to be generation of extended bowls/spheres, but in the absolute center there is just one.

What I suggest is this: assume the red dot to be 1 zero dimensional monopole as described by Dirac. Add to the above image a twin monopole and place it and its extensions as a mirror image over the one we have. By that, you see the whole picture as it actually is.
As we have learned, one single monopole is undetectable so that’s not it. But if we make a pair of monpoles, I claim they generate an electromagnetic field, and by that we have ourselves a photon package. This is how I unify the forces into One.

I’m just a guy without the formal tools to communicate this vision properly. I just throw stuff at those who I believe able to cruch the numbers and plot the graphs. I vision the geometries and functions. I connect available dots. But I do not communicate well from my intellectual confinement. But for some reason, I keep trying. The doodle here is such an effort, knowing that to you it appears as irrelevant armchair speculations and crackpottery. I’ve stopped being bothered by that. The picture I paint is so simple that it has to be unbeliavable. If it looked right, there would be nothing radically new in it.

I can’t even make the resolution right so it’s all blurry, haha. How goofy can it get? Anyways, here’s the basic assumptions:
A monopole is a point sphere of elastic/liquid spinning contraction.
The monopole sphere defines the limit of dimensional space.
Monopole spin causes the spherical geometry to fallent out to, what I believe is called, an ellipsoid.
Flattening of monopole geometry is ultimate cause of all physical dimensions of spacetime and forces.
The one monopole has by definition 2 two ends, both acts in opposite linear relation.
The monopole sphere has no axis of rotation because it is the fundamental axis.
As the 2 poles of the monopole “contracts/gravitates” towards shared center point, the great circle of the sphereoid extends accordingly.
Equator extension and pole contraction happens at once. This is NOT a sequence of 1,2. It is a uniform action of opposite effects/values.
2 ends narrow a linear relation while 1 torus/circle extends an orbit.
This is NOT dual action. It is ONE action.
It is the unification of forces. Not a “collection” of forces.
Again, in the monopole it is nonsensical to assume the known forces to be present at once. Thats looking at it backwards. The monopole spinning elastic contraction is what presents itself as multiples of measurable forces, but they are not multiple.
They are fundamentally ONE that does Everything AT ONCE. Please contemplate the unbelievable simplicity in this. The brute logic. Empty your mind of multiples and really make an effort to act as a singularity.
All of reality is multiples of the monopoles extensions. Quanta is of these momentary flashes of extensions that go on/off at exactly C speed.
C is NOT a linear measure, but a measure of zero point frequency spin.
Two monopoles make one photon, so the value of C relates to the photon sequence of wavelength-gap-wavelength- gap etc. C is not of “speed” or “velocity” but points to a discrete sequence and what’s likely 3 steps/flips, like “changes”.
Electricity is fundamentally the extension orbit charge. It is inherently kinetic while being circular.
Magnetism is fundamentally the double negative contraction of monopole ends which defines the undetectable aspect of the unit.
NOTE: the zero limit is not a perfect circle. A perfect circle is the average limit. The boundary surface that unfortunately divides QM and GR is wavy. It is so because all measures in empirical reality are of 2 (photon) or +2 (matter) multiples of monopoles. Their combined pulses creates a wave pattern.
Energy dynamics on quantum level seems to be guided by phase inversions. These should be easily pictured assuming the above scenario. The logic then implies that is that is the case of local change, then it also holds for global change. Therefore it is reasonable to assume a universal cycle being similar to:

1.Monopole
2. Monopole breaks in two
3. Photon
4. Photon breaks in multiples
5. Multiples combine to complexity
6. Complexity contracts in monopoles
7. Super massive mopoles unite into 1 monopole
8. Rinsed and repeated.

I could release a barrage of consequenses following the above scenarion, but this is more than enough I think. I don’t expect anyone to believe it anyway. Not now. But all I see when looking at what emerges out of avant garde research is a collective convergence towards “my” model.
I don’t think of it as “mine” really, because it is just a product of throwing available data into a questionable mind.
I’m sure the “mind”-part is the key to unlock a GUT or a ToE. I am not saying this is what I have done.
It is NOT. Hopefully I can inspire someones thinking to dare the path less travelled. That path leads to both non-local nowhere and eternity, as well as global infinity in no time.
To me, that spells Enlightenment.
Why not have a shot at it? What’s there to lose but perhaps a career in academia and all of your credibility?
If you’re afraid to lose your mind thinking like this, don’t be.
You know why?
Because if the unified field is actually true, that mindwas not yours to have anyway.

As for entanglement, I think the paper speaks for itself. I have nothing to add but what I just said. The paper is half the big picture shown correctly. If they double the bet, they might win a big prize.

If by any chance anyone is actually curious to have me elaborate, in my layman terminology, don’t hesitate to let me know. I have no one to talk to about these ideas so it would be my pleasure.
I make things up on my own as it appears…

# Essentially singular monopole

This blog is about the fundamentals. It concerns the ultimate cause of all effects. One might say that I’m all about what’s essential. Such an enterprise tends to become rather one-pointed. It converges into nothing really. Most people would find that rather boring. The multiple effects are more entertaining for sure.

Today we will have a quick look at an essential singularity. It is a beast of mathematics which was unleashed by the french genius Emile Picard

Great Picard’s Theorem: If an analytic function f has an essential singularity at a point w, then on any punctured neighborhood of w, f(z) takes on all possible complex values, with at most a single exception, infinitely often.

Since I suck at math I must translate into layman lingo: If you have a mathematical function that describes complexity (a lot of stuff going on), and that function has an essential singularity in it, then anything that happens at that singularity can become any event in the whole picture except for one single event. Whatever happens out of the essential singularity can be anything. And it will be anything, or rather everything, infinitely many times. There is only one thing it can never be.

The one thing it cannot be is probably all possibilities at once. That is, one operation can be one value/out put, any output actually, but one operation can never be >1 output. Everything seems possible, but not at once. We must allow for some evolution, right?

Plot of the function exp(1/z), centered on the essential singularity at z=0. The hue represents the complex argument, the luminance represents the absolute value. This plot shows how approaching the essential singularity from different directions yields different behaviors (as opposed to a pole, which, approached from any direction, would be uniformly white). (from wikipedia)

Note that a “pole” is probably related to defined positive and/or negative values. But in this case we are looking at what I suspect is a monopole. A monopole is…well, different. If approaching the singularity/monopole from different directions show complexity, it is reasonable that the same holds in the opposite direction. Out from the singularity emerges complexity. But you can never enter it. That’s the bummer with an ultimate cause. Everything comes out of it, but nothing comes back.
The black and white in its sub-zero center, that is the “punctured neighborhood” from Picard’s Theorem, is the simultaneous/instant contraction and extension of the spinning viscoelastic contraction which is the monopole I imagine. A true monopole has 2 ends, a dipole has 4 ends. The electromagnetic field in the Beautiful picture is only possible to generate in a mathematical simulation of a monopole. In physical reality, monopoles always come in pairs of 2 making them a dipole function. A solitaire monopole has no em-field around it and can therefore not be detected as it is. But it can reside inside a Black Hole I think. A monopole should hide in the center of a Black Hole.

The hardest part in this is not the complex math. The challange is to imagine the black and white singularity being one single unit of polarity. it is not a sequence which flips from one to the other extreme. There’s nothing linear in this, so no matter how fast we imagine a black/white switch to be, it won’t end up an essential singularity. Not even the speed of light is enough. To generate all of universal complexity, the monopole singularity must do its thing at once.

Can you imagine something that does opposite actions at once? I guess not. To paint such a picture, you must abandon all linear thinking. You must abandon scales that have two directions. In fact, you must leave all of space behind you. You see, at the very point of everything, there is a point. A point has zero directions in space. The point of the monopole is that it spins. It spins as a “pole” but it doesn’t look like a pole. There is no axis of rotation inside the zero point. There is just rotation. So how do we make it go separate ways in relation to itself? Here goes:

Make it elastic so it can stretch and relax.
Make it contractive so it doesn’t break from the rotation.
Keep spinning.

Don’t be surprised if there is extension at the equator of the point just as its “poles” are both going towards the center of the spinning point. There you have it! One expanding circle/torus around a pole with two contracting ends. That’s about as “all at once” I can get it.

Today was a round about the essential singularity as a mathematical image of a physical monopole. To me it is one and the same, the infamous Singularity suggested by Einstein in his General Relativity. There will be more on the funny little monopole in coming posts. I will soon try to enlighten everything in a slightly unconventional way.

# Critical density is given

As an aside, I am looking at the Omega number 3H2/8πG = 5 × 10-30 grams cm-3 (3 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter). This means that for our observed universe, as we imagine ourselves to know it, there needs to be an average of 3 Hydrogen atoms in a cubic meter chunk of space. If there’s less, the universe will dissolve by thinning out. If there is more it will implode in a big crunch.

To understand the equation we need to revise it some.

1 atom of Hydrogen equals 24 so 3 Hydrogen times is 72 as in 3 Days.
Pi is 3 as in 3 directions.
G is 6 as in half the value of Dirac’s quantized singularity of +-12.

72/144= 0.5

By this correction we get 1/2 contraction instead of the wierd 0000000000000000000000000000005 grams of contraction.

We can now make sense of universal density by knowing that expansion comes from equal parts contraction and extension. Omega is 1 because
.5 contraction + .5 extension generates 1 Absolute Omega.

This is more informative than setting omega to 3 Hydrogen atoms per m3. But to make sense, we must understand the nature of the dual phased singularity as a real Dirac Delta Function. This function is believed to blow up to “infinity” at its zero, but that’s a misconception. There is no such value as “infinity”. Infinity is prediction of an process that will keep on keeping on. If we define infinity like that, it is true that the Dirac Delta goes on infinitely as an operational function.
Why the Dirac Delta breaks down, collapses at its zero will be explained later. So does essential singularities. For now, let’s celebrate the fact that universe is a perpetual growth machine. Global growth comes from local contraction of zero point singularities as described by Dirac 1931.
Since global expansion is caused by local contractions, the two are inevitably proportional.

In time, I will also show why a Hydrogen atom is “24” times and why Pi is “3” space. It’s basically from assuming that a singularity has no fractions and that the numbers have nothing to do with quantities. There are no dimensions in a singular point so there’s no things to count as 1 or 2. There is just what generates dimensions/measurables as a generalized product of a particular function.

No, current laws of conservation does not allow for us to makes sense of reality.
Conservation is a symmetry that needs to be broken out of.
Traits of singularity does that. In my head I see how it is done. But I need to know advaced hydrodynamics to get it out. I don’t know that, just as hydrodynamics don’t know what is in my head.

Edit: It is cyclic, not infinitely growing in space. I was contradicting myself. Infinity is the wrong concept. It is eternally cycling through phases of density. If it starts equally contractive and extensive, it will of course come back to that.

And again. …

# The World on a String

The length of a string in String Theory is not much. It is to a grain of sand as we are to the known universe i.e. tiny. However, this does not neccesarily mean it is complicated or impossible to study. If you look at it in a simple way, it’s pretty straight forward. Here’s the equation of Nambu-Goto which is basics in String Theory:

The important part is: -1÷2πα. Please don’t ask me about the rest of this beauty because I don’t understand much of it. But in my math, π is 3 and the tension of a string is equally of contraction and expansion, going sequentially in-out-in-out.. from zero, so α is 1+1=2. Please note that we are never subtracting anything from reality, and especially not from the world of strings where reality is generated. So 1 positive “out” and 1 negative “in” makes 2, not 0. That’s the dual radius of 1  operation by this little singularity. By this we get:

## -1÷2πα = -1÷2x3x2 = -1÷12 = -0.08333…

This is nice considering the Ramanujan summation of divergent series which is: -1÷12 = -0.08333…Ramanujan figured this fraction is the effective sum of addition 1+2+3+4+5+…+n. And this piece of the unified field knew where he came from and what he was. He was reality speaking.

The pro’s will probably consider this a coincidence or triviality. To me it is a good indicator of being on the right track when playing my strings. This is the fundamental generation.

Ramanujan said his knowledge came from a Goddess. He was, like all the great Ones, not a professional knower. He just knew.

“World On A String”

You know I lose,

you know I win

You know I call for
the shape I’m in.
It’s just a game you
see me play,
Only real in the way
That I feel
from day to day.

is not unknown,
I’m searchin’, searchin’,
and how I’ve grown.
It’s not all right
to say goodbye,
And the world on a string
Doesn’t mean a thing.

No, the world on a string
Doesn’t mean a thing.
It’s only real in the way
That I feel from day to day.
No, the world on a string
Doesn’t mean a thing.

Neil Young