Section 40 (last update 2.07.2021)
Slab of nature
“But the examples which I have given you show that the notions of the situations of what you see, what you touch, and what you hear are not so sharply separated out as to defy further questioning. You cannot cling to the idea that we have two sets of experiences of nature, one of primary qualities which belong to the objects perceived, and one of secondary qualities which are the products of our mental excitements. All we know of nature is in the same boat, to sink or swim together. The constructions of science are merely expositions of the characters of things perceived. Accordingly to affirm that the cook is a certain dance of molecules and electrons is merely to affirm that the things about her which are perceivable have certain characters. The situations of the perceived manifestations of her bodily presence have only a very general relation to the situations of the molecules, to be determined by discussion of the circumstances of perception.” (148)
(Scientific objects are pure abstract relations , like electron, see section summery viii)
Whitehead points out a pressing contradiction between perceptual objects and the objects of science. Scientific intuition supported by empirical study on the one hand tells us that all varying physical objects at the perceptual gradient of the macro scale are made up of the same underlying microscopic components involving also as much or even more variability. The issue is not whether things are made up of atoms or not but in what way is an event which is itself an object be a compilation of other objects which are also events? If physical objects are complied out of atoms like a house out of bricks, we have to explain how the duration of events leading into each other relates to the physical relations of many objects forming one.
(See to transcendental object)
Level of Magnification
(Alan watts 9:35:20)
The scientific term of “level of magnifications” refers to the physical change of magnitudes in the nature of dimension. It is interesting that the physical change in magnitude of dimension is even from empirical perspective governed by conception of consciousness. Looking into a microscope or telescope alters the conscious conception instantaneously induces increase or decrease in the magnitude of spatial dimension. The scientific materialist argues that it is in fact the technical capacity of the instrument that changes the conception of consciousness, I.e, lens… meaning that it is the change of consciousness is materially induced, which makes one wonder whether consciousness was what made in the first place the instrument it peeks through inducing change in its conception.
3-dimension is only discerned via motion, otherwise the thing is 2-dimensional. We operate within 3 dimensions because there is constant motion happening which keeps the dimension, however , object fundamentally are 2 dimensional. Take for example looking out into the skies, and imagine there is no motion, just a static plain, which it does appear that way through a a telescope, and imagine the observer has no concept of objects moving, the all objects would appear 2 dimensional.
When something is static, it appears two dimensional because there is no motion to discern moving in, out, back, forth. The determination determines the dimension, not merely that actions operate within a dimension. Or if both actions are simultaneous, I.e, the conception determines the dimension and the dimension determines the actions within it, still means that we cannot exclude one from the other.
Magnification is an example of inverse negative relation. When we zoom in to much into an object, you enter a negative scale of the Cartesian scale, the object becomes inverted into the scale of parts forming it.
Magnification inverts the space between the object and the observer, to a level where both the observer and the object are in each other. It creates a a negative space by inverting the distance, take for example a line connected by a middle point, the inversion of that line would be the disconnection of the two lines away from that point, the space between the line is now equal to the length of each line separate from each other. Imagine you take a line with a midpoint, or in other words, two lines connected by the same middle-point, and separate them from each other equal to the length of each one, the space between them is now equal to their relation by the midpoint.
Mueller-Lyer illusion
Magnitude is conceptual
Lines a and b are the same length but appear differently due to the positioning of the arrow.
Atoms are not in normal experience
There seems to a disconnect between what it means for a physical object to be made up of molecules and atoms because such components plays no role in the phenomenological experience of perceptual and sense objects. People go about their day without any sense that the world is made up of atoms, yet we know they are constitutes a fundamental bedrock of existence. In the same way we know that the mind possess reason positing possibilities, images and truths, yet we have no sense of what it is like.
The general image of an object appears to bear no resemblance to the form of the components making it up. The way an object is discerned to be made up of molecules or atoms is due to the process of magnification (find where whitehead says this) when the gradient on any part of its surface is decreased in magnitude, which is done by the process of magnifying the parts forming the surface. When the portions constituting the surface of an object are enlarged by magnification, the general image instantaneously decreases. If the cells on my skin are magnified and become enlarged, my hand which is their general conception, simultaneously begins to decrease so that we have a replacement wherein the cells now form the general scale and the arm becomes the microscopic component. But the hand which is imperceptible during the magnification of its cell, is still maintained as the abstract whole of which the cells are parts of, and the reverse event, that the hand is the complication of cells as their event, is not proposed with the same validity. But this is the problem with validity, which affirms the truth of something based on its structure, can only but presuppose a given structure to be present beforehand, and the accuracy is to validate that structure, what is implied by also ignored is the powers that actually validity the structure, which is also at the same time the movement by which the structure changes into validity.
Validity based on structure is on some level an arbitrary choice for an objective hierarchy of magnitude, which does not mean that it is wrong but only that a universal conception is only derived from particular point of view, not that the universal is a product of the particular, but that the particular point of view is the moment from which a universal view is conceivable. And if there are infinite of particular points of view just goes to show that the universal is the same conception from each. from the position from which the hand is macroscopic and its atoms are microscopic, is a direction determined from an infinitesimal duration by an observer. The infinitesimal duration is the extent of the observers capacity of rational conception, being infinite, it takes the form of an infinitesimal duration.
First image of black hole
Empirical science has recently captured the first real image of a black hole. What is interesting about the image is not how a black hole looks like because it simply reaffirms the way a black hole is perceived for a very long time since the era of Einstein. The interesting factor is not the way a black hole looks like but the context in which the black hole appears to constitute, namely that it appears to be very blurry because it is infinitesimally small and far away. This is not merely due to a lack of technology incapable of capturing something at that magnitude but is due to the fact of how small a black hole is relative to the position it was captured from.
The size of the black hole is determined by how far it is away from the observer, it is light years away. Distance determines the size of something, how small it is, but how small something is indicates something beyond merely its distance. We know from atomic theory that something infinitesimally small means that it is fundamental meaning that it does not only occupy one dimension in time, and that it is the component structuring a microscopic object. We normally assume that black holes are massive but all this means is that they are fundamental, they occupy a vast place in the universe, but in being fundamental they are also the most infinitesimal object, being such a distance away from the observer, they might as well be the size of an atom. Being so distant from an observer also means that they are so small. The conundrum is that they exhausted an immense amount of energy and gravity relative to their size, a paradox modern science cannot wrap its head around.
Black hole is as fundamental as an atom, means it is also as small as an atom. A black hole is the energy of an atom, it is the place where the strings of an atom formulate its nucleus. We have to work backwards, the atom is the most general of thing, and the black hole is as small as an atom, they are factors in each other. The distinction is a mere abstraction capturing them at different rates of meditation for a faculty of understanding that can only apprehend things in this dissimulated manner.
“Matter, being the immediate unity of existence with itself, is also indifferent towards specific character. Hence the numerous diverse matters coalesce into the one Matter, or into existence under the reflective characteristic of identity. In contrast to this one Matter these distinct properties and their external relation which they have to one another in the thing, constitute the Form – the reflective category of difference, but a difference which exists and is a totality.” (Hegel logic 128 Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1830) Part One)
Uniqueness
(Add to more things are happening within a smaller space) “The situations of a physical object are conditioned by uniqueness and continuity. The uniqueness is an ideal limit to which we approximate as we proceed in thought along an abstractive set of durations, considering smaller and smaller durations in the approach to the ideal limit of the moment of time. In other words, when the duration is small enough, the situation of the physical object within that duration is practically unique.” (157)
Before explaining why magnitude of smaller size is characteristic of uniqueness, it is important to explain in what sense are qualities like size primary or not.
*Mediation vs meditation- mediating not meditating
John Locke distinguishes between primary and secondary qualities as an attempt to categorize the ancient Aristotelian notion of form as it relates to matter, which in the modern terms developed to be the relation between the observer and the phenomenon. Primary qualities are suppose to convey facts that belong in the thing itself independent of the subjective influence of the observer, and in that way can be determined with certainty, for example if an object is spherical, no one can reasonably argue that it is triangular. (Find in thesis demonstration) Aristotle argues “that which cannot be otherwise” pierce quote the “light of reason” no other proof than its self evidence, this is how primary qualities confront the observer. Secondary qualities are properties that produce sensations in observers like colour taste, smell, sound etc. British empiricism has the methodology of classifying things into categories, but whitehead who is a later product of this tradition detests it because the means by which a fact is determined primary is derived from an uncertain or dynamically changing principle that must be taken into account. For example, in order for an object to be spherical it must be determined as spherical and therefore involves linear, plain, point etc. each of which are moment in the life of what we take as an abstraction.
To be a primary quality within the frame conceiving it is not the same to say that it belongs subjectively to the observer because the analysis or the interpretation of the phenomena is a judgment coming after the fact. The phenomena is only objective standing independently true to be comprehended by the subjective side when it shares in the essential form of the conception. The conception stands as the mediation between the particle state of an object as one given moment is the actualization in the wavelength duration constituting as one step towards the totality of possibilities of a things activity. By mediation the conception is in the continuity of one event transition to another by connecting to each other, following from each other, forming the material fabric of what we perceive as an object. One object or the particle state is simple the connection of events leading into each other to form the next point of continuity in their duration. When we look around the world we see what whitehead calls “slabs” – “Slab of nature” – the duration objectifies itself as a distinct object exhibiting each details within it as the variabilities of its process.
When two observers agree on the same object means they are sharing in the same conception which is the slab of nature connecting their common ground.
“Slab of nature”
(Add infinite possibilities of a thing forming its wavelength sequence)
A slab of nature is literally the conception that distinct observers share to agree on the same fact and is the objective side of the phenomenon as it is conceived within a certain reference frame. This agreement Is not a mere “agreement” but an actual object in nature, however it is only an object within the reality of observers. When we say that the conception is the relation we mean that it is literally the duration of a single thing in which other things share an experience in. So that when observer A and B conceive phenomena C their conception is the duration of that phenomenon which constitutes their relation, but so far as phenomena C has a relation to a fourth phenomena D, phenomena C is sharing in the conception of D as being related to A and B and so on and so fourth, for example when me and John look at a river, the river is our conception, but the river is also the conception of the rock which is related to me, John and the river.
In order for something to be objective is not the same to equate permanency with the fact of unchanging, to be permanent does not mean to not change, but only that the process from a point of view outside of it can be totally laid out in its entirety as a simultaneity. This is presupposed by observers in order to have a difference of determination or rather what differentiates one phenomena out of another, butterfly is a mobile leaf, out of the leaf emerges the butterfly. When the extent of a duration reaches the revelation of its totality, it becomes realized and therefore transitions or changes into something else.
The conception of the observer does not mean that the conception belongs to the observer, as if the conception is in the possession of the observer. The preface of this point is the fact that the observer is not equivalent to an observation. The observer is the point which the conception bears the closest proximity to. This means that the observer is the point which the conception is approaching towards as a limit and therefore the conception is not an object for the observer in the sense that it belongs to it but is the relation by which a phenomenon is confirmed, a return to itself, which is the same as a completion of a process. (Add relative size)
different observers agree on the principle
Then conception is prior to the observer follows from the logic that the relation is prior to the components constituting it.
The observer is the confirmation of the phenomenon itself and therefore the phenomenon is objective.
A thing is primary in relation to an observer which means something primary is the agreement of the observer with the phenomenon, the observer confirms for a thing to be primary, this is how different observers agree in the same fact, what is primary is their relation which does not mean it is static but is dynamic changing
(see definition of situation)
An experience is defined “when all the pieces fall into place” or on other terms when distinct variables form the same relation, or when the set of all factors are disclosed within the same conception
The qualities of small and big do not belong primarily to physical objects because any given object is only big or small relative to other objects depending on the components being related by the conception. However this is not the same to say that size is not primary because every object bears a smaller or bigger size. The conception is the movement of mediating between distinguished components but there is more proximity leaning to one of the component and distinctively away from the other at a given moment.
The concentration on one object over the other is not specific to that one object but is the form of the conception as a relation mediating between things. The physical manifestation of the mediating process is a wavelength.
The crest can be taken as a moment of concentration but the trough is another moment of concentration, as to whether the crest or the trough occupy the center of the focus, that is when directly looking at one your simultaneously indirectly looking at the other. Mediation is the simple form when one is the center the other occupies the perimeter of the reference frame. This back and forth between when one is at the centre, and the other at the perimeter, is the mediating process of the conception, the relation prior to its distinct components, because the movement is the asymmetry wherein one stands out while the other does not. This is why there is such thing as component. The wave is the dynamical animate function; while on the other side, the circle is the particle, the component side. The components is one perspective of the relation from a distinct point of view, so that the components is not partial amount from the relation but the characterization of it from a point of view wherein a partiality is discernible.
The circumference is the component of the conception at the perimeter and the centre is the focus of the conception
The form of a circle having a centre point and circumference is the particle- wave duality form. The wave is the basic action of having a perimeter at the extremity and the centre at the proximity.
A given moment subject to change of which one object is the centre while the other is at the perimeter
For example, the perception of a tree involves the conception is relation of the organ of the eye with the tree. The conception or the reference frame does not belong exclusively to any object in the relation but is rather the relation itself, it only is an approximation to one object relative to another.
If size for instance is feature not permanently belonging to physical objects but are changing magnitudes of continuity in which a set of things are related. Whitehead argues that qualities like size for instance are examples of perceptual objects not physical ones.
If we take larger and smaller as magnitudes of continuity then they are defined by how much they contain, so that something larger is different from something smaller on the basis that it contains more distinctions within a certain disclosure. A smaller magnitude is distinguishable from a larger one because it cannot disclose as many things and therefore its conception is more of a specification than the larger one which is more of a generalization. The difficulty however is that larger magnitudes involve specifications also because they contain more distinctions while smaller magnitude involves the aspect of generality because the abstraction of a single entity appears to be uniform by having no more further distinctions. No matter how small a thing is as long as it appears uniform and cannot be broken down into further distinctions bears that as a quality of generality. This is why the atom is the most general physical structure because it cannot be broken down, even the presence of strings are always disclosed by a nucleus. For example a rock from far away looks like it is generally a rock, but when brought up closer, it is a set of combined pebbles.
We normally assume that uniqueness is the origination of a different thing from an unknown place, but what is implied by this, is whether a unique thing need not to presuppose anything for its appearing into being? Smaller space characterizes uniqueness because it is the emphasizes on a single thing within a schema of relations as the conception of those relations. For example, if we take an area with a bunch of chairs, tables, and desks, and then ask what can a smaller area in comparison hold? The answer is that the smaller area cannot hold as many things as the larger but the smaller area is occupied by each single object individually, like the area occupied by one single chair or one single table is smaller than the area occupied by both chair and table.
The limitation of what an area can disclose precisely answers why smaller magnitude constitutes uniqueness. Size is a measure. When we move from the larger size into a smaller; we are moving away from the general conception containing many objects into the specification of each single thing , we have what we term uniqueness because it is the defining feature of that object being distinctly perceptual within a generality. Conversely if we take that very same object occupying the smaller space within a generality among other objects and magnify it, it now becomes the general conception containing a set of possible unique objects taken up even smaller spaces. For example, grab a small rock from the ground and hold it away from the eyes,
Rock
the rock appears as a uniformity of shape, colours and textures indiscriminately forming the same unique object. Bring that rock closest possible to the eye and it takes up the entire scope of perception, what is inside a rock
the mass of that once smaller rock in a magnified view now becomes the larger generality disclosing a set of unique details occupying even more smaller spaces within a rock, whether it be the combination of hundreds of other minute rocks together in a round shape each with its own details, or the patterns on the rock like waves etc. Primary qualities like size are determined by what the form of the conception contains as disclosing a set of relations .
We have this nature of magnitude exactly demonstrated by the formation of terrestrial bodies like stars and planets.
Changing the magnification in the conception changes what is considered macroscopic scale and microscopic scale
Equally when looking at a city from far away, it appears to take up smaller space, but come closer and it becomes a set of large individual objects.
When something takes time it does not mean that time is an independent substance of which an object is subtracting a certain span away from. Rather when an activity is done by a thing, time is the simultaneous with the conception throughout the duration of that activity. When an activity “takes up time” means that the span of that duration is itself time.
Relative motion is relative size
What it means for there to be relative size is related to the nature of the conception having a proximity in quantitive measures like distance, mass, density etc.
Which is derived from the conception having a closer approximation to a third object it is not directly perceiving. From the perspective of an observer, any two objects disclosed in their conception relate to each other in a symmetrical manner, one tree at a certain from a lamp post no matter of the distance as long both are directly disclosed within the framework relate in a symmetrical manner against their disclosure. What gives the tree it’s shape which is asymmetrical from the lamppost is the relative relation both object bear to a third object indirectly conceived and imperceptible out of the reference frame. The conception as it directly disclosed two objects having a symmetrical relation by virtue of being disclosed by the same form also must be accounted their asymmetry which is a result from the indirect relation the conception has with the object it is more proximity to. The asymmetrical principle is the property from a third inconceivable object relative to two object conceivable to each other therefore bringing an uncertainty to the relation.
As to whether objects have an inherent size is also answerable with the nature of the conception because when an object generates into being, it brings itself in a position relative to other things and therefore it maintains its position by imposing a universal quantitative measure it necessarily occupies during the duration fit for it’s experience. For example, Light needs to be the least dense object in order to be fastest.
The relations of magnitudes form a dimension
Dimensions like 3-dimensional space are perceptual objects formed by the relations of varying degrees of magnitude fixated on points of space. When a conception moves from one point in space to another, there maintains a distinction in that conceptual relation forming a magnitude the range of which is always circular because the consciousness maintains a constant recognition of that the distinction is part of the same relation.
When an object like a planet is picked out in its orbital cycle that is an abstraction of its particle point like state. The difference between a point particle state and a wavelength state is not comparable as having separate physical manifestations, like wave is extended and particle is discrete.
The wave length is not the external space covered by motion of the planet ,e,g, the orbit of the planet; nor is the particle state merely the spherical appearance of the planet, e,g. As a rock in space. Particle and wave are abstractions of magnitudes of conception. The difficulty in the question of the wave-particle duality is to provide an overview for their actually synthesis wherein one is found in the conception of the other.
Zooming far out is zooming far in
The dialectic between the universal and the particular is the fundamental ontological principle that supplements the physical concept of the spacetime manifold. In this dynamics each possibility is applicable to the other formulating a more complete picture of the whole motion- or rather they way the entirety of intricate particular relations behave as a whole conception. The scientific question is not merely what is being (?)But rather how being behaves, the way in which being fundamentally moves because in the former question, being is presupposed also as not being and therefore it’s proposition for existence is negated by the fact that it does not exist. In this way being and nothing are given the same quality of substantial substance, but although being and its negation nothing are part of the same relation of substance, the difficulty is that they play proper different roles in the interplay of the object. Being is characteristic of describing time because time is the simple one dimension wherein the activity of a possible duration form into the conception for an observer.
The difficultly surrounding the relation between the universal and the particular associated with spacetime manifold is as follows; which concept should be associated with the other if the concepts themselves are premises in the same proposition, when the proposition being the conclusion, either a valid or invalid or sound or unsound, itself is not a component in the premises? The proposition is explaining something that is not contextual to being a component. For example should the universal be applied to space or time, because both facts about nature are universal in being permanent and incorruptible substances, yet they both take the particular form of the determination that in the first place distinguishes the universal from the particular magnitude.
The difficulty in this application of the ontological principles to the physical concepts is due to the fact that non of them are what we conventionally refer to as physical objects. Space and time are not physical for sense perception, as picked out definite kind of objects and distinguish from an other while maintaining both of them in their differences. Whitehead explains that space and time are “more” abstract objects than the sensible objects we perceive though perception because they disclose the internal relations in a single object that formulate together forming its geometric and physical properties. Space and time are basic principles of the power of conception
Time in this context is the reference point of the observer.
The observer is somewhere in this process, this somewhere is the centre of the inverse magnitudes of the universe. The position of the observer is the point where one magnitude goes furthest away as possible, and inwardly in as possible, and where these two extensions meet is at the limit of each of them, the extent of each duration, the going out as furthest reaches the scale of all things condensed all within that reference frame, which is the same point, as when we go in as much as possible, it is that smallest indivisible unit of matter. When you go out as furthest away from everything, that itself becomes the smallest point.
(This is also the astronomical unit from a first person point of view)
Light is the consciousness of the observer reaching the limit of its extent of conceiving infinity.
Meditation is consciousness mediating between these two states, where on some level the world is already given as a particular place for consciousness, or that consciousness finds itself in very peculiar and particular circumstances, from looking at an object that is particular, to being placed in a particular kind of body and identity, to the time and place at the moment. But in this particular case, consciousness behind itself is conceiving universally, whether it be thinking beyond its particular circumstances into the different possibilities that may occupy the particular moment, or whether it is thinking of universally eternal principles, like love and beauty, that are always true but have a different manifestation at this point in time.
Whitehead says spatio-temporal
“The character of the spatio-temporal structure of events can be fully expressed in terms of relations between these more abstract event-particles. The advantage of dealing with event-particles is that though they are abstract and complex in respect to the finite events which we directly observe, they are simpler than finite events in respect to their mutual relations.”
The rigidity in nature presented to the ordinary understanding is a plain space manifold littered with distinctions of instantaneous abstract forms maintain separate form each other for a sense faculties but are muddled together interfering each other’s form filling up the disclosure of a definite kind of space and operate against each other in a homogeneous duration of time.
But as we move out further and further away from this conception by physically flying out and away from a specific slap of nature, we see that the internal space at one scale increases drastically to separate clusters of relations forming bodies. at the macro-scale of observable physical phenomena the concentration of spatial extension is more condensed by being cluttered with mutual relations overlapping each other forming layers and layers of varying dimensions of temporal order. What the study of astronomy ordinarily refer to as “space” is the vast 3-dimensional region that begins where the earth’s atmosphere ends.
The space that begins beyond the earth’s atmosphere is a dimension of space layered by multitude of physical phenomena. If we remove the locus of mutual relations at a certain point of space by magnifying the space disclosed by them, which is done by increasing the distance away from the mutual relations forming a clusters and the space which breaches beyond that, we see groups of physical relations clustered together at a certain point in space moving in relation to each other at a certain rate of time. At the level where we see the relations formed by solar systems and galaxies, we reach a magnitude of space shared by the most expansive and intensive forms of relations.
In other words at a certain degree of magnitude, the space that discloses galaxies and the space that disclosing subatomic relations becomes the same because both require the speed of light, both magnitudes require to be penetrated by light. It is granted that just because the space itself is shared among expansive multi-dimensions of phenomena, that is not equal to say that the phenomenas themselves are the same shared in that space. However if we take space as a fundamental principle shared by what appears to be varying extremes of magnitude, then it is not far off to presuppose space as an internal dimension brigading together phenomenon at different extremes of extension. Space is not just an external plain whereby a set of objects relate with each other but it is also internal within each object constituting it’s infinitesimal magnitudes every scale of analysis.
internal mutual relations forming that are distinctly separated by space and even the time by which one group of relations operates as sharing the same space to another group of relations, has a different history. At this magnitude of scale, which is the same magnitude of space captured by the Hubble telescope, we find the very same internal relations that constitutes the microscopic sub-atomic relations of each individual object forming a mere component in a complex system of interrelations. (Add here when you zoom in your seeing the other side of the dimension while when you zoom out you see the other side, to presuppose distinct sides assumes that the relation between micro and macro scales form a boundary, a medium , which is rounded by inverse dimensions.
(Add rock coming closer)
(Add first second dimension) from one dimensional conceptions of spacetime the object appears to be internal but from another second dimensional, the object appears to be external.
(Zooming in enough will result in an infinite regress which becomes the point for determining the opposite form of determination of coming in out infinitely. These limited of conception constitutes the form of conception they are disclosed within such that the conception is there outer extreme limit which determines the movement back to the inward minute direction.
Zooming earth
The internal dimension of space is time
(Add to made up of spacetime-tesseract )
the wave length of the planet is not the external extension, where it goes or the position it takes in space, but is the internally substructure of the planets entire microscopic magnitude, how far can it express an infinitesimal microstructure. The wave length property of a planet is its infinitesimal inwardness and the particle state is the discrete measure of this disclosed
A planet from a certain distance appears to exhibit the discrete measure of a particle like state, its wavelength state is not merely in the ground it covers due to its orbital motion nor the light reflected from it, but rather the most basic wavelength property in the discrete measure of a particle state is its infinitesimal inward continuity, that you can enter it and find another genera grounds of foundation. When you zoom into a particle from a certain distance, its wave function is the infinitesimal inward continuity of all its possible structures.
The change in the magnitude of continuity constitutes a change in the discrete measures of the particle states all forming the same wavelength. The quality of solidity is a perceptual object, meaning that when mass is taken to be predicate of solidity, that any density is measured as a mass taking up volume in space, any solid object with mass is infinitesimally penetrable by the conception altering the particle like state.
Solidity is a perpetual object because implicit in the structure of the object is an infinitesimal magnitude of continuity, so that a single solid object is infinitesimally penetrable dimensionally . (Point zero energy) these images above show that the structure of a thing is its dimensions
Equally a particle like state in order to be altered and change into another, or equally is penetrated by infinitesimal magnitude, is internally structured as wavelength. The discrete measure of a particle state is itself a measure of the infinitesimal factors of a wavelength magnitude. The discrete measure of an infinitesimal wavelength magnitude is not of ordinary extension where the continuity is linear, two points being separated further from each other. But it is of a relation forming connections, and for this reason it is internal, meaning there are structures and forms underlying the apprehension of a complete product.
(Talk about the form of the singularity as being the distinction between the unique conception and the general. The distinction of a particular from a universal is derived from the universal particularity within it.
The Vantablack “blackest black” is a material developed by Surrey NanoSystems in the United Kingdom and is one of the darkest substances known, absorbing up to 99.96% of visible light (at 663 nm if the light is perpendicular to the material).
This dimensional property which allows for infinitesimal magitnude is explained by the singularity property in the thing.
Closed and open strings
Unlike elementary particles, which are zero-dimensional or point-like by definition, strings are one-dimensional extended objects. The strings may be open (forming a segment with two endpoints) or closed (forming a loop like a circle) and may have other special properties. the strings are very tiny objects; much smaller than can be observed in today’s particle accelerators. Therefore on much larger length scales, such as the scales visible in physics laboratories, such objects would appear to be zero-dimensional point particles. Strings are able to vibrate as harmonic oscillators, and different vibrational states of the same string would appear to be a different type of particle.
Therefore on much larger length scales, such as the scales visible in physics laboratories, such objects would appear to be zero-dimensional point particles. Strings are able to vibrate as harmonic oscillators, and different vibrational states of the same string would appear to be a different type of particle.
Strings can be either open or closed. A closed string is a string that has no end-points, and therefore is topologically equivalent to a circle. An open string, on the other hand, has two end-points and is topologically equivalent to a line interval. Not all string theories contain open strings, but every theory must contain closed strings, as interactions between open strings can always result in closed strings.
Connect to how tunnel is wave and simultaneous with point like particle discrete
The singularity is not a dead end of the object but its potential energy for change.
(Add to point like particle- problems with term object)
Quantum tunnel
The most common analogy used to explain quantum tunnelling is a ball rolling over a hill. Normally, the ball needs a certain amount of energy to push it up and over, otherwise it’s stuck at the bottom.
But in quantum physics, there’s a chance that the ball could randomly move to the other side of the hill, through a process where a subatomic particle passes through a potential barrier that it cannot surmount under the provision of classical mechanics.This has been well documented for decades: elementary particles escaping from atoms is one of the key drivers behind radioactive decay.
The reason for quantum tunnelling is because the singularity has a potential form in the object that is more fundamental and general then the objects form. The point like particle quality and the wave length properties are not features of object because they were abstracted from them, but they are universal passages of nature.
Potential barrier (square meter is the form for a potential change at any point in the angle, Cartesian coordinate system)
the rectangular (or, at times, square) potential barrier is a standard one-dimensional problem that demonstrates the phenomena of wave-mechanical tunnelling or quantum tunnelling. The problem consists of solving the one-dimensional time-independent Schrödinger equation for a particle encountering a rectangular potential energy barrier.
Although classically a particle behaving as a point mass would be reflected, a particle actually behaving as a matter wave has a non-zero probability of penetrating the barrier and continuing its travel as a wave on the other side. In classical wave-physics, this effect is known as evanescent wave coupling. The likelihood that the particle will pass through the barrier is given by the transmission coefficient, whereas the likelihood that it is reflected is given by the reflection coefficient.
Plain-Cylinder intersection