Section 41 (last updated 2.09.2021)
-Big Bang difference between quantum and general relativity
The main difference between quantum and general relativity is really an ontological problem. The ontology of materialism, which the general theory of relativity has been cast under, depends on the idea of the “singularity”. The singularity in its not scientific definition but in broadest meaning is defined as peculiarity, and what makes something singular is its particular difference from something other. physics defines the the “singularity” as the point at which a function takes an infinite value, as in the case of space-time where matter is infinitely dense, like the centre of a black hole. The question is; why does a term that denotes a meaning of being singular, alone, independent, is associated with having infinite, diverse and multiple value? It would seem at the particular level that something in a singular state has the opposite of infinite value but rather only produces finite and particular kind of value. But the physical concept of “singularity” has an absolute meaning to it, it defines what it means to be particular at the ultimate level.
The notion of the “big bang” constitutes for scientific materialism the attempt at explaining the origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory assumes that the singularity is the starting point whereby the infinite variety of material forms originate from. The Big Bang logically assumes that the singularity, when in nothing, is something. This assumption states that because the singularity is the point that is the inverse of nothing, which itself is something, and ultimately such a being is not a mere thing but because it is the only thing, it is rather everything. Now if you ask the Big Bang what is the cause of this inversion into everything, the answer is that it is mere chance which initiated everything, which is another way of saying ‘ I do not know the cause that started everything’. But Chance also means that it is inevitable for everything to happen meaning that given a certain period of time of nothing being there, something eventually comes to be. This does not explain the cause only that time is a factor of it. In order to be inevitable for something to happens, means that there is a reason, that something driven towards happening means that there is cause pushing it forward.
that something and not nothing instead of nothing and not something. This conclusion has many obvious logical problems but the two main problems it has, is that if the existence of being is merely arises by chance, why has the empirical evidence suggests that the universe been developmental? Why does the universe continue to change into what seems to be more singular forms of matter? The singularity, and biological life matches the definition of a singularity in relation to the overall universe, therefore not only seems to appear at the onset of the universe but continues throughout its existence.
Second, the logical definition of the singularity must not only presuppose that nothing transition into being, but that nothing, from the point of view of being, is a singularity, and that being is also entering nothing. The say that being is the singularity of nothing is not only logically incomplete, but also contradicts the very basic physical law of nature, that energy is neither created nor destroyed but only altered. If the Big Bang assumes by its explanation of being that being is simply an alteration of nothing, then it no longer becomes a theory that hopes to describe the origin of the universe, but a theory that inquires into the nature of substance.
In the science of substance, the logical paradox between being and nothing is the power of the singularity, that any nature of difference must only be an alteration of an underlying substance. It is at this point where the science of quantum differs from the materialist doctrine of the Big Bang. Quantum is not compatible with the Big Bang theory because it presupposes that the essential principle of the universe is indivisibility. Any singularity in contradistinction from an indivisible point is but the same indivisible point.
The singularity in quantum science is therefore indivisibility itself. In quantum therefore the singularity is not only the initiative beginning of the universe, but that there is no such beginning, the singularity is present throughout the process of being. What it means to continue existence is explained by a series of infinite singularity. The singularity is therefore the constant condition that maintains the being of the universe. (Terrence) this is perhaps a startling conception because in order for the universe to continue, a singularity must be infinitely produced. Or that the regeneration of singularities is what keeps the universe alive.
Whitehead novelty keeps the universe. Singularity is novelty.
We take the concept of indivisibility for granted because we do not ask how something indivisible remains? It is assumed that the fact a component is separated from another that alone constitutes them as distinct factors, but it is also known that in science there is always an attracting force maintaining an equilibrium between any two repulsed objects.
Strip the object to its schwarzschild radius
Recent quantum mechanics show every objects is reducible to a Schwarzschild radius . The schwarzschild radius solves a very pressing problem the early quantum scientist quickly proposed against the idea of a black hole in nature. Karl schwarzschild who was particularly interested in celestial mechanics and the measurement of cosmic bodies simply could not but ask against Einstein’s notion of singularity as the defining function of black hole; in what sense is it measurable? The validity of this question is based on Newton’s law of “ universal gravitation” stating; “the gravitational force between two point-like bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, (inverse-square law) between them” .
gravitation is universal when it describes not only the attraction between two bodies in relative motion external from each other in space, but is fundamentally a quantum definition of gravity because it describes how the composition of something maintains itself a cohesion. The singularity is in a relation to the object not by being outside of it in space like other objects are but a singularity due to its feature of being a constant – everywhere at all times (or in all things at every moment) – is the substance implicit in the object as the internal force maintaining a constant self unity.
Take for example the form of a singularity
The Schwarzschild radius is a discrete measure of infinitesimal continuity in the thing. The only way to measure the infinite is to conceive it in a finite thing. We can explain this in the following way; the darkest object in the universe is known as a black hole. The question becomes how is a black hole deduced? This is different than asking how it is induced because empirically we arrive at knowledge of a black hole by induction; we perceive a particular instance in nature where light is warped and obscured and we claim from that obstruction must exists a black hole disfiguring the gravitational pull of the objects around it. A black hole is defined as a point of energy where light is absorbed but cannot escape.
The question of how to deduce a black hole, we can begin with any particular and look for the densest or energy within it, this means that all the energy of the object can be compacted into that point, this we know as the schwarzschild radius. This idea makes the concept of the black hole universal to all object, in other words, each object has its own “black hole”. If we take any object and we make it “darker” by eliminating its colour, or the energy in the form of light from that object being absorbed and compacted into its smallest and densest point, the schwarzschild radius, the object becomes deconstructed or rather deduced, the first layer would be to strip away the light reflecting off the matter perceivable to the senses, than when that is gone, the light reflected by the molecular structure gets sucked in, than the light bouncing off the atomic structure, until finally the object is reduced to its schwarzschild radius.
Why is the form of a singularity a minute point distinguished from a general blank plain?
Commonly the explanation is that the effect on spacetime is proportional to the mass of the objects gravitational pull. In qualitative terms this means that the more details of a thing is conceived the more it becomes a particular distinguished from the state of nothing. We see that in a black hole it has infinite possibilities of being described therefore it exhibits the magnitude of the most minute infinitesimal object.
If you pick out a black point on blank black plain, you merely have a general conception versus a specific conception. Any point in the black plain is a particular conception of a black point, so that when you distinguish one from the other you merely maintain that you have the element of uniqueness in the general frame, as the general frame is itself the unique reference point.
String theory divisibility
String theory springs up to challenge atomism not by denying the atomic structure but by evaluating the idea of indivisibility as it relates to the basic unit of composition. The paradox of physical composition concerns how an indivisible substance be divisible into distinct components while the distinct components maintain an indivisible substance? Divisibility is not the physical separation of parts from each other dismembering a whole because the question of what it even means to be a particular entity presupposes the quality of being a continuous thing in itself separate from other thing not itself. Divisibility means there are two distinct perspectives about the same thing and is identical with the change of conception. When a conception changes there is a simultaneous change in the physical composition. Like for example when perception changes from one object to another, there is a change meditating between the physical composition of the objects that is maintained constant for the sensible faculty.
The difficulty in dispensing between how a change in conception constitutes a change in physical composition is due to the comparison that a conception does not only disclose an object within a certain form but that the form of the object is a content for the conception. In the latter case if we take the conception itself as it’s own independent object, then we have no external form disclosing it but only what simply is the same happening of the conception.
A conception is the proper relation between a form and its matter substratum but this is much more complex than a static abstraction for a perceiving faculty because a conception is an unstable dynamical activity maintaining a consistent relation, and this must be taken more fundamentally than the appearance of a stable observation from a sense faculty to an object because their congruency is explained by their meditating, which itself requires explanation of whether it is stable or not. Were to we say that an object takes up a dimension in space, presupposes that space is itself is a conception from the object and is a form of it. We normally apply object to space but space itself qualifies as an object. What we take as a principle is therefore a complexity of objects making up nature (add whitehead nature is complexity of relations)
acute triangle is the conception of the relation between 3 points, we may ask; what is each point in the relation a conception of?
The relation between three points is the triangle, but what are the points themselves as parts of the the relation? The latter question is more difficult to answer because a point is first a self relation meaning that it has no particular relation but is a determination for a relation, and second when found as a part forming a whole of a relation, a point is the dimension disclosing the whole of the relations. This means that each point used as a part contributing to a whole, is itself the whole of each part. The interesting informal definition of “dimension” oriented to us is “minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.” For example a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it. Normally a point is one dimension in a triangle, but the triangle as the whole relation of 3 points is itself a dimension in each of its point.
A point qualifies as minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point because it is a circle which disclosed not just any point but all points. The line is the continuity between one point to another, but it is this relation because it is the potential for the point being everywhere on the spectrum. So that the length of a line between two points discloses the whole potential relations that is formed by the connection of the points. Take the form of the “alternate segment theorem”
What we see here is an abstraction of what each point on a line disclosed as the conception of its relation. A is one of the points forming the triangle within the circle, but the circle disclosed what is happening inside each point forming it. Implicit in each point forming a triangle is the form of the triangle. This is what we mean by dimension within dimension.
The broader application of the term “observer” not limited to human observation pertains to the quality of form disclosing a certain kind of composition. For example when we have a cluster of galaxies, this is a conception of a multi-complex form pertained by each galaxy.
In theoretical physics the involvement of the observer in the phenomenon started out as an innocent rule for infallibility – to recognize a kind of confirmation bias and remain impartial when trying to derive an objective fact about physical phenomenon. We should always recognize that the observer making the analysis is involved as a variable in the phenomena and be aware of the degree of influence the observer has on the actual nature of the phenomenon under investigation .
The concept of the observer quickly developed into something more fundamental by shifting focus away from the subjective side of the individuals errors that might effect an objective picture and investigating the implicit side that constitutes a shared experience between the observer and the phenomenon. The scientific inquiry about what it means to be an observer extends to the equivalent philosophical investigation of what it means for an object to have an essence.
Early theoretical physicists speculate that there seems to be quality of indifference inherent in the physical composition of a definite object and unlike space which is passive, bent and warped by the gravitational pull of an object, this null quality indivisible from the object is acting against the physical composition of the object by maintaining its form. the capacity to remain impartial is not merely a human intellectual virtue of temperance but is an inherent physical component disclosing the composition of an object. This becomes the question of the so called “dark matter” inherently affecting objects while not having any clear indication of being affected by them, which unlike the fabric of space for instance is altered by objects.
Scientist like Einstein located semblances of the “dark stuff” somewhere in the universe with the early stimulation of a black hole in nature whose active force of gravity supersedes any object around it. The dichotomy of the black hole which challenges ordinary classical mechanics is that its size is so massive affecting the largest bodies in space but its affect is also prevalent among even the most microscopic bits of matter and for that reason it was given the title of a singularity.
The notion of a singularity posits a scientific paradox because the value of one – is a point having infinite value. The difficulty of a singularity is not that each object exhibits the measure of one quantity because the value of “one” as a measure for a thing is not secondary attribute that has been attached after the fact of a multiplicity of distinctions forming a diversity; but that the presupposition of a diversity of things all have the value of “one” by being reducible to the same principle found in them. The empirical task in the early 19th century was to locate the notion of a singularity among all degrees of magnitudes. For example when an object is taken out from the place it occupies in space, does there remains a cross ponding effect that remains unaffected by the removal of the object?
When the total composition of an object is filtered out, there still remains behind the scenes even more fundamentally than the space occupied by the object and its time frame, a potential energy inept of any qualities, except the only quality that still remains is what the old metaphysics took as the general principle that must be sought out and found in nature, I,e. Pure being. The method employed by the ancients to find the quality of pure being was to simply search for it as if searching for a lost object, so they located it in fire, air, ether etc. Whereas they never found pure being by locating things from the outside, they derived the elements that held the more basis forms of energy which comes closer to a conception of pure being. Ever since the time of the pre-socratics all the way to the early 19th century, the history of science has been going through a cunning deconstruction of the physical world with the unconscious intuition to search for the principle of pure being in nature.
Modern science in the early 19th century indirectly prove the philosophical notion of a pure being with the discovery of dark matter, but rather than being a step for development, it resulted in an intellectual regression because science both did not know what to do with the fact of pure being, and it seems impossible to actually understand it. Science therefore reaches its latest dead end and since the time of Einstein, although we do see drastic technological development, there has not been any special developments in the realm of theoretical physics. It is only with the recent developments of string theory starting in the 1980 we see a revival in the progression of theoretical physics but at a much slower pace.
Observer principle guides uncertainty to construct reality
A circle appears to be one object but really it is a possibility of a set of distinctly acting objects, such as points and lines. A circle discloses therefore the potentiality for a set of distinct forms.
A circle is an infinite set of possible forms representing a single form. The single form that a circle is to discloses an infinite of other discrete forms constitutes an uncertainty principle, where the possibilities of forms loose their distinct shape and they only exhibit a general relation. Impeded in the quarks making up the proton and neutron are so called “strings” which are indeterminate “vibrating” passages of nature.
Strings are an abstraction of an undifferentiated form disclosing an indeterminate amount of potential distinct objects. Among the infinite number of possibilities is an object that was able to remove itself from the relation and stand independently from the indeterminate process as an indifferent object. This is called the observer principle. One point forming the circumference of the circle was able to leave and go down to the centre of the circle. This is called the singularity in physics. A black hole in nature is a purely generating mechanism where it takes in energy and spews it out and this seems completely chaotic and constitutes the element of randomness in the world. But implicit is the quality of this chaos.
The observer is the ordering principle that constructs a particular object following the laws of logic, it determines the chaos into a logical narrative. As it left the circle to go down to the centre, traced behind it a line forming the circumference, called the radius, is the uncertainty principle. This line is the abstraction of an indeterminacy, a “string” but now instead of being completely random, it is guided by a singularity. Physics claims that things fall towards a singularity due to its gravitational pull, but this is no different than saying that it determines matter due to its force. It’s still a form of determination. The reason why the singularity has the strongest gravitational pull is because it is dragging with it all possible measure of mass that constitutes the sum total of all possible things implicit in the indeterminate state.
The observer principle defines the singularity as the force for determination. The observer is an inevitable part of the universe because among the infinite and indeterminate possibilities is one possibility that has the power for self-determination, which took its first step outside the indeterminacy and now is the guiding force of it abstracting from it actual definite objects to construct a reality. The proof for it by definition is it’s self-evidence. In other words the fact for it to take control of itself is proof for it being self-evident.
This singularity is however not one thing like in the sense of an object because it is also an ideal form like the circle but of consciousness. As the singularity is falling to the centre of the circle it is dragging behind it the line of the radius, which is at the same time an extension of the circumference, is an abstraction of the indeterminate state of all infinite possibilities determinate in a particular way. The singularity is therefore the form of the motion of acting in a self-determined manner, which is because it is at a point in the line, it is every point of the line.
The process that the observer principle is the point from the circumference develops independence and goes to the centre guiding behind it the line segment from the circle, is a universal process. This does not only mean that it is the most general of processes, describes the form of the universe because as we discussed the form of the universe is ultimately in a state of indeterminacy. This form describes the universal particularity of the universe in the sense that it is universal because it describes the process of each particular object.
The complexity is that each particular object from its own point of view forms the centre of the universe by having a singularity as the point where everything leads to. But since this feature is numerous there are competing forms and this constitutes the general state of nature. Each particular object has the singularity reaching a particular limit within it, but the singularity in objects is still pushing the boundaries of its limits. The idea that each single object is a point that can disclose an infinite number of objects is described by the “zero-point energy” idea. How can you fit a universe within a grain of sand? This is the topic of “zero-point energy”.
(Singularity is the zero-point energy)
The singularity is not an object and so it is not inside each object contained by it like a body contains an organ, but the singularity is what the object is reducible to, and therefor is simultaneous with the object in every way. At this point we reach a contradiction about what a singularity actually is because it is the shared feature of objects, yet it maintains each thing distinctively. The fact that the singularity is what objects are reducible to can be seen as a dead end because all objects become routes leading to the same nullity, which is either unexplainable or is taken as the sum possibilities of each object .
Infinitely long stream of bubbles because the continuity is each discrete point having the potential barrier to impinge on the other.
Eternal cyclic universe theory
There is already theories today that explain and elaborate the notion that scale, or rather size, is not an ultimate factor in the fundamental operations of nature. The CCC theory claims that when the known universe emerges out of a singularity point, that singularity point is found as the limit of an infinitely expanded universe. In other words, when a universe expands enough, it reaches a point where it’s expansion is identical with a singularity that characterizes the smallest and most dense point. As the universe grows larger and colder, that states moves towards a small and hot universe.
This can be taken literally to mean that as the universe becomes the most expanded and the coldest form, this means that a certain length of time has gone by and a certain development happens where it reaches the smallest and hottest point. This is to look at the theory in terms of purely quantitive characteristics because we do not explain what causes the transition to the smallest point of singularity and than expand out from that into infinity large scale . However the ccc theory precisely provides demonstration that the development of the universe is moving towards the most particular and finite point somewhere within it. For example zero point energy is the condensation of the maximum amount of max within the smallest finite size. It can be equally said that since the observer is said to be the centre of a sphere, and there is an infinity of particular observers, and the universe generally is moving towards his centre, than there is an infinitely of universes each moving towards or collapsing into one from an infinity of particular observers.
In other words, every observer has a universe collapsing into it. This paradox can be solved in two ways, first all observers are gathered into one single and smallest location, and there is one general universe moving into each of those, or one of those observer, the most particular of them all, or in the domain of time, the lifetime of an observer equals the lifetime of the universe it is in. The latter is especially obscure because we state that the universe is way older than any individual being that occupies a short lifespan within it. But this only indicates that there is a universe before and after the passing of a particular being.
It cannot indicate that there is a single universe we call the same that remains after, since there is infinitely occurring change happening, the universe is never the same, or what we observer as large scale aggregates in space having long spans of time, have an equally corresponding long scale away from the observer which corresponds to infinitely long differences in time, a universe which appears to take a long time to change, may have already changed long ago. And this is the contradiction of time. It may seem that the universe your in corresponds to the reality your living in now, your lifespan in other words is a different reality than the time of the last era, or the era before that and so on and so forth. Such that what may have happened to the ancient men as they describe in religion or so called mythology, may not be mythology at all, but might as well be reality, how can we truly confirm otherwise?, we can only take what appears to be reality in our time, which is something unimaginable at their time, as the standard for judging reality generally.
Problems with singularity
Seen in this light Science reaches a dead end when confronting the concept of a singularity because from its empirical manner the singularity appears as a point like particle, void in the object, which results in the theoretical presumption that part of a defining aspect of the object is what the object is not. The negation of an object taken by itself is presumed to be where the object ends.
The schwarzschild radius of an object indicates one important philosophical implication, that when a singularity is reached means we reached the extent of that object. Extent is defined not as a point where once reached is no longer extensive, but to say that an extent is the full duration or length of something is defined by the wave length property of phenomenon as revealing the total happening of the activity- an extent is a revelation or scale of the entire duration, where a point is a particular period . To say that a singularity is the extent of the object related to the wave length nature of an object being its potential state, a wave length exhibits an intensive duration meaning that point like particle is at two different places at the same time.
Account between object and void
The wave length nature of the object in conjunction with the idea that all objects are reducible to a singularity, meaning that all objects end at the singularity, we can make one proposition following the other about that the form of a singularity as it relates to the object: the particle-wave relation indicates an inverse supersymmetry between object and void. In a particle state a singularity appears as a discrete void in space, like a black hole, and objects in relation to it are extended as wave lengths, like a black holes gravitational force pulling an object into a continuity. In the inverse manner when a singularity is a wave length, we see it extended as a tunnel and objects are maintained as particle like discrete measures flowing through it. The singularity is the inherent superposition of the object, that when an object is a wave, it is extended in ratio to particle state a void, and when objects are point like particles, they flow within a wave quantum tunneling.
In the latter conception the singularity is the extent of all possible objects, and is there total duration. The conception of a void is derived from the perspective of viewing the object in a point like particle state, whereas if we change the nature of the conception and view the object as a wavelength , the form of singularity also changes corresponding to a tunnel.
All objects go through the tunnel as possible events
As a particle state the singularity appears as a void, a passage that connects all the objects together but really all the objects are connected as moving through a tunnel
But it is exactly this moment that is adopted by practical science as the quality of potentiality- the potential change of one thing to another.
Whenever science reaches a dead end in thought Hegel claims “ add quote when ever the understanding reaches a contradiction it looks back into the world world for the resolution” because in the world the contradiction is never a dead end but the constant movement of change.
(Add here square meter and inverse square law)
The singularity in an object is its capacity for change into something other, and so far everything has this capacity, called Potential energy, it maintains the reality of an object because an object is a duration of an experience, when the duration comes to an end that is the extent of the object reached, but upon reaching because it is a duration continuous to something other. A knife is still a knife even when not used because it has the potential energy, or can still potentially be used to cut. Its potential function alone maintains its existence. Once the potential energy changes, the form of the knife changes when it starts to get dull and eventually disintegrate into a different price of metal. The change of a matter is maintained by the void implicit enduring through out the duration of the alteration.
Going through a tunnel is the experience of the events of reality changing, the neurological system of the brain are all the potential routes bundled up together to form the individual that will at any given time make the determination for their life to enter a certain route
The singularity is not found in every object as an exclusive object but it is what remains when the total mass of an object converges to nothing
Mini black holes(Add to shwartzchild radius) Every object has mini black hole at the centre of it. All objects are fundamentally spherical, light as their basic substratum. Light is spherical. All objects are conceiving each.