Section 71 ( updated 4.23.2021),
(last updated 7.06.2021)
Mexican hat potential
The concept of supersymmetry is not only relevant in the realm of physical phenomena but is ontologically the aesthetical value of a fundamentally ethical truth.
( “man can know all things theoretically but not know them morally)
morality is the study of ethics in the domain of self-conscious and willing action, and it is the essence of the behaviour of physical objects in motion. In our ontology, the motion of physical objects is itself ethical. The subject of morality is especially difficult because whereas in the physical domains we are presented with complexity of mechanics, these are at least abstracted into perceptible entities.
Morality concerning the nature of conduct is elusive from abstraction because its very knowledge involves the application of doing for the reason of knowing. The difficulty of morality is that it cannot be known prior to action and is the simultaneity of knowledge and action. The difficulty of morality and why every amateur in philosophy feels like they can critique Kant’s categorical imperative is because morality is not bodied and therefore is not discernible as a clear “this” or ”that over there”, one cannot just simply point to morality as being definitely true because there is always leeway into what constitutes wrong or right action , however there is definitely the universal that catches actions into the category of bad as opposed to good, evil as opposed to virtuous, these are not up for question, but what is up for question is their application at every level of experience. And so many argue that the categorical imperative is too ridged because a moral cannot be made a law that should be followed absolutely in every situation because some circumstances require a suspension or alteration for a greater morality. This critique questions the universality of what is considered moral but in truth it is a struggle of contending with the lack of embodied nature of morality.
The question of whether morality is universal is not even a question because whether we theorize about what the good is, we are already engaged in action outside of that dissuasion, whether it produce a negative or positive results. Morality is the subtle form of action such that the value is exhibited instantaneous with the acting. across all cultures certain forms of action are unequivocally forbidden whether individuals know the reason why or not. The Ten Commandments for example is an attempt to embody the most fundamental wrong actions in the form of written law such that when someone asks “where this law exists” and “why am I being condemned by it”, authority can point to scripture, and reference the laws of god or the universe and not some arbitrary authoritative law, even though it is the authoritative power that enforced it; while at the same time it is much difficult to give the exact reason as to why killing for example is wrong when it is done in the context of war, or survival and so on,. And so it seems that if the context changes, what is morally true also changes, but it is this point that we are claiming to be the fallacy of studying morality because the contextual change of events and experiences are the very exercise of these unmoved abs universal laws. How this is the case, becomes the difficult question of our inquiry.
The difficulty in morality relates to the ridgity between the universal and the particular, for example we question why bad men have so much riches and power and so there is a discontinuity between morality as a universal ideal and the particular embodiment of it by the individual. The reason why what seems to be bad men achieving things that rationally should only be granted for the virtuous is because either we conflate what is good with what is meek, or that individuals apply morality like an activity, and as an activity, morality is dynamical so that generally good people do sometimes bad things and generally bad people do sometimes good things. This bring action into the context of time such that the individual being judged whether they are good or bad are an active and living organicism in real time and is constantly changing their behaviour and adapting it to their circumstances also. For example the game of soccer is universal in that it is a sport that is playable by anyone, but it is individuals that partake in the sport by playing it, otherwise soccer would just be a potential of a sport with no real value to judge and observer what makes a good or bad player. It is the engagement of the activity that merits the judgment of bad or good, otherwise it is potentially both, which also means it is potentially non and therefore indiscernible.
Morality is the ultimate activity of ethics and like any other activity there is a right way and a wrong way of acting. we say it is the activity of ethics, because ethics consists of all types of possible relations as potentialities, e.g., if you start a business you may or may not get rich, if you start body building you may get muscles, if you eat that spicy food it may hurt after etc., all these are possibilities given the relation between anything and everything. Morality is the acting out of these relations in real time, how they are acted on at every moment. This happens in the following ways;
(1) Morality is a supersymmetry of action
Morality is not bodied it is rather embodied and this accounts for its universality. There can be a universal law applied in an infinite particular way. To explain this interaction of morality, let us look at the most basic operations in nature.
Superposition
The fact that quantum systems, such as electrons and protons, have indeterminate aspects means they exist as possibilities rather than actualities. This gives them the property of being things that might be or might happen, rather than things that are happing at any given instance. This is in sharp contrast to Newtonian physics where things are, or are not, there is no uncertainty except those imposed by poor data or limitations of the data gathering equipment.
Further experimentation shows that reality at the quantum (microscopic) level consists of two kinds of reality, actual and potential. The potential is what we get when we see or observe a quantum entity, like a photon at a certain position in spacetime. The actual is the unpredictable aspect inherent in the moment of observing an object during a real specific moment. The actual therefore has the power of the potential which is the state the object existed before it was measured and after it’s measurement. The actual is the moment the observer realized that what they are looking at is no longer the reality of the object being observed. The result is that a quantum entity (a photon, electron, neutron, etc) exists in multiple possibilities of realities known as superpositions.
A unit of process
The “quantum” as a symbol of measurement is the single unit of process. It is the finite form of an infinite set of internal relations in the particular means of observation. For example, you see a photon as a single discrete partial, but then you turn the dimensional plane, and that discrete points transforms into an “infinite”, because it is undefined, wavelengths. The “quantum leap” is one basic form of internal relations. In the quantum leap, the atom proceeds in the abrupt transition in its state of being. This occurs in the physical sense in the form of energy;
“such as the transition of an electron from one orbit to another around the nucleus of an atom”
Quanta is not divisible, that is, it is not substance in the physical sense. Quantum is not matter but is also is not divisible from matter. In being not divisible, it is either being or non-being. The indivisibility depends on its logical necessity, that is, quantum is rational, and not, random or arbitrary. Logic for example involves either something to be or not be, but not both. Or that if we take both to be the category, then that becomes a distinct premise distinct from the opposite of both, which is either one or the other, both of which are categories distinct from each other, and distinct from the relation, or lack of, that both have in reference to each other, and now therefore complexity enters into the domain of relation;
where, the “one” defines the relation as consisting of two different components, because the relation is itself a single measure. Also each component in that discernibly single relation are “others” to each other, they are not each other, and therefore the relation takes on a distinct measure separate from the components making it up. This means that those distinct components are “ones” in being a single measure of a quantity, but the quality of them being a single “one” is that they are in a relation where one is not the other, and therefore the idea of the “other”, in terms of quantity, is the non of both things in relation to each other, but in quality, this non of them is the place where one is each itself and not identical with the other in the first place.
The logic of Quantum operates in this manner, because it sees the contradiction as bearing no resolution, that is, the occurrence of a contradiction constitutes non-being, and so the opposite of that contradiction, the resolution to it, or anything else other than remaining in that contradiction, is the answer for Being. And so Being separates itself out of its non-being state, it comes out of it standing alone as a single and distinct entity alone separate from all possibilities of what it can be, as a single and definite possibility.
However in the level of the quantum state, the contradiction is always the resolution, that is, there is no process without its result. The contradiction literally always produces the resolution, the single thing came out of it. . The universe in the general sense bears this resolution. The resolution is taken to be universal, that is, the particular. Classical Physics explains the process to be smooth and continues change. The transfer in energy from photons is taken to characterize a continues process. This is the inversion to the quantum state.
Classical physics is necessarily based on the logic underpinning quantum physic, but operates in the complete inversion of quantum physics.
Einstein opposed the notion of quantum as the basis to general relativity. He claims that quantum cannot yield certain results, that is, quantum constitutes an infinite set of results. In the macroscopic scale, results always bear certainty. But in the microscopic, the results are always almost uncertain, and we can only really ever have a concept or an “idea” about what is going on at the fundamental levels. This uncertainty is not a flaw in the science of quantum science, but it is really a real feature in nature outside, or beyond, the conceptual framework of an observer, which is also another natural feature not merely limited to its subjective characterization, but is one part of an essetinal principle in nature. Einstein even himself said, and I paraphrase, ‘that his theory ends with quantum mechanic’, that his ideas reach the limit where quantum mechanics began.
wave/particle duality
Einsteins following claim is fundamental to modern physics: he explains that there exists a wave-particle dualism. According to Einstein, light is not only electromagnetic wave but is also a set of discrete particles. Light consists of a duality between a particle state and a wave state:
“The photoelectric effect occurs because the packets of energy carried by each individual red photons are too weak to knock the electrons off the atoms no matter how many red photons you beamed onto the cathode. But the individual UV photons were each strong enough to release the electron and cause a current flow.”
This dualism asserts that light is both a wave and a particle, but not at the same time. These opposing states of light are dualistic in each other, that is, there difference exerts their unity. How is light both a particle and a wave, but not at the same time? This question is asserts a conceptual analysis about the nature of light. That light cannot both be a particle and a wave as the same state. This however does not exclude this unity in the atom. According to Bohr, bohr model…
The laws of quantum assert that Particles act as waves. For example, the nature of electrons exists as possibility everywhere in the wave before the electrons takes on its form I.e, probability wave: where the wave is big in size it is not where electrons are most gathered, rather it is where the electron is most likely to be. It’s “quanta” (amount) is left undetermined as possibilities. This latter takes on the logical necessity constituting Reason. These sets of possibilities are not random, nor empty. Each set of possibility necessarily presupposes actuality. The latter predicates the former. Quantum is actuality constituting every possibility as itself. Everything that can happen, does happen, as every thing happens as everything else. In the laws of quantum, reason governs as reality.
Quantum is based on the claim that Reason exists as probability, which already presupposes certainty as existence. But where in existence is claimed to be governed by chance. Enstien, whom implicitly appropriates Hegel’s Reason, claims that existence is governed by pure certainty, that is, ultimate reality. Enstaines notion of general relativity conceives the inverse of quantum, that every set of probability is necessarily certainty. This however by its very natural claim adopts certainty as corporeal reality, the most explicit form of certainty. This enabled an understanding of physics in the macroscopic sense, astronomy is the practical implications.
Quantum however remains the governing laws of Reason. The development of the latter is implicate, for example, every form of technological achievement is the concrete actuality from the abstract probability. Technology is always an extension from the mind. This extension is the actuality of reason in its consciouses form. It is in turn developmental towards consciousness. This internal relation occurs between the abstract mind and its concrete extension as dialectic. It’s resolution is the same consciousness is directed in relation to general relativity. The latter no longer becomes the application of certainty from its immediate reality, but rather from its rational actuality. In the same way sexual reproduction produces itself so as to contradict itself, this process bearing further qualitative development than its predicate, self- reproduction, the quantum development to consciousness produces the extension of the concrete from the abstract. This has always been the truth for Reason in the world. General relativity will be guided by the laws of quantum in its certainty.
General relativity always remains to the claim that quantum is not wrong, but incomplete. Classical Theory of “entanglement” states that every particle in every possible location is internally related to every other particle in the opposing location. Not only is every particle related, but related everywhere. Einstein claims that entanglement does not operate this way in the explicate sense, that is, in the general level. Einstein however takes entanglement to be always determined in a particular form at the general level. For example, the macroscopic inorganic nature of the solar system operate as determined cycle. Einstein sees that every particular nature of entanglement is externally related from every other particular configuration. The difference between the particular configuration atoms take form as exclude any process of internal relation?
This problem that Einstein poises contradicts the very initial notion of general relativity, that perception of a particle does not determine its existence, it’s existence is determined prior to its conception. The particle is probability only for the mind, in the concrete reality it is always actuality. The theory of relativity involves the subjective nature of the mind as always bearing unity with its objective relation. The subjective mind is brought into unity with every objective truth derived from external experience. For example, Theory of special relativity explains that Motion acts in the same manner in different circumstances.
That Motion functions as universality in its infinite relation with its necessity, that is, inorganic substance. In the quantum state, atoms act universally in relation to each other but are not determined by a particular relation. Motion is determined in a particular manner and that constitutes its universality. Atoms unlike Motion are not determined in a particular way but rather in a universal form. That its universality constitutes its particularity, whereas Motion is inverse in this process, that its particularity necessities its universality. the atom is not determined in a particular manner General relativity is the advanced sublation of atomism. It always serves as necessity, but by virtue of its nature, it ignores its own necessity, that is, universality. Quantum is brought into the equation as universality.
The laws of quantum constitutes Reason as universality, which serves as necessity to relativity. Each relative particle is related to the other by Reason. Einstein held the question of quantum as “philosophy”. The latter however takes the “abstract” to be not of the concrete. Philosophy is attributed to the idealist notion as non-scientific. The idealist notion according to hegel is actually the practical notion. According to hegel, every truly scientific subject matter is invariably idealist, if it is to be practical, the latter is its truth because of the former. Mathematical logic proves that the laws of quantum are mathematically true. Technology is the concrete manifestation of mathematical logic, it’s existence by its very nature is practical.
There exists a quantum paradox; why is it that atoms in the quantum level exists as infinite, while the same atoms constituting the macroscopic level exists as only finite? Why are inorganic and organic matter exists as such particulars while, electrons exists as universals? This question is still unanswered by modern science today. A synthesis between quantum physics and general relativity is still left to be discovered.
What causes the transaction from quantum to general? This question is only answered by the dialectic. The latter cannot include the answer of parallel universes, where every result is actualized. The latter results in an infinite regress leaving the question unanswered. Quantum atoms becomes general objects by means of the dialectic.
Atoms in the quantum level act as infinite because they are in contradiction with each other. This contradiction for example constitute the strange mechanics of electrons in the quantum state. In the quantum level, contradiction is invariably the resolution. Every contradiction is at the same time the resolution in the quantum state. The resolution necessities existence. Existence necessarily assumes quality, in fact, existence is itself a quality. Quality also however assumes the opposite of itself, non-quality, which is itself also a quality. This elusive nature only exists as part of the contradiction. The resolution is not so elusive as the contradiction. The resolution is truth of general relativity. In the general state, the infinite sets of atoms take on a finite quality. This finite quality is explicitly the resolution, implicitly the contradiction.
This process of evolution is the result out of quantum mechanics. The process of evolution indicates a teleological process. So while quantum mechanics is infinitely universal, it is finitely determined. This finite determination is infinitely determined constituting universality. The “slit experiment” elucidates how quantum is finitely determined in the infinite way. The laws of quantum are rationally determined, the experiment follows like; (explain). Observation determines the nature of the atom in the quantum level. I.e, either being in one place or another when looking, or being everywhere place at once when not looking. This indicates that the internal relation between the consciouses and the unconscious is Reason, that is, logic is organic. This constitutes the “quantum enigma”. That our consciouses ascertainment of the atom determined the prior nature of the atom. Consciouses reason and reason in the quantum state is the same. This is no enigma if quantum is taken to be in unity wit the laws of Reason, necessitated by logic. The reason why the atom is everywhere and not somewhere when not looking
The uncertainty principles- the laws of nature naturally are not consistent with the laws of quantum. Both are inversions of each other. The human mind is the inversion of this inversion.
super symmetrical forms.
The difference in mass between particles and their shadow particles is not merely a difference in mass. Supersymmetry predicts that particles in the standard model are internally correlated with implicit “undiscovered” particles and it is the relation with the “shadow” particle that explain quantitative measures because properties like the mass of a particle is a shared distribution rather than an isolated allocation. The Higgs boson for example should theoretically be heavy because it interacts with so many particles and as a particle gives all other particles their mass. The Higgs field interacts with particles by constantly decaying into them and in this way as a wave spectrum remains relatively massless because the extra particles predicated by supersymmetry would cancel out their partners’ contribution to the Higgs mass making the Higgs very light as perceived by empirical observation. To understand how this works it is very important to clarify how the Higgs boson challenges the standard particle by explaining the nature of particles as form, which is really what the wave property of a particle insinuates.
Higgs particle is the form of mass distribution and in this way we have allocation
Supersymmetry
Mexican hat potential
Supersymmetry is normally said to describe how each particle from one group would have an associated particle in the other, which really does not tell us what the nature of the association between particles might mean especially if particles are viewed as merely material entities like a piece of stone is an object. When we talk about the physics of a certain material object, it is defined by its dimensions. Supersymmetry looks at the association between particles as an avenue of describing levels of dimensions. In broader terms how the object is composed out of varying levels of dimensions. With perfectly “unbroken” supersymmetry, each pair of the particles known as superpartners would sometimes share the same mass and internal quantum numbers and other times supersymmetry consists of a spontaneously broken symmetry allowing superpartners to differ in mass.
The term supersymmetry and super-partner denotes the meaning of transcendental in philosophy (add here going beyond in matter is being more fundamental in abstract because this relates to law of mind, that going forward in matter is the realization of the preconceived idea determining the motion for its actualization)
(Add to above mass generation)The notion of mass in the idea of supersymmetry postulates the one part of the definition concerned with measuring the aspect of a matter with no definite shape; as properly explained by the other part of the definition where mass is the number of objects collected together forming the quantity a body contains. (Add weight) as we will see the latter definition of mass relates to the invariable concept of pattern- numbers are a behaviour. the quantity a body contains is enumerated by its form
Which is a question of not how many single distinctions of masses are contained in a body because each portion of a mass is the same continuous shape of the same body. Shape concerns how the mass of a body is accumulated together but shape so far as it changes to disclose the measure of mass always involves the element of discreteness where the shape is distinguishable from the mass within the same space and time of the object we identify as one thing and not an other. For example it is difficult to discern the shape of an arm by looking at microscopic image of its cells. The measure of mass into quantity is the measure of counting the steps during a sequential change. Arithmetic is basic for ac-counting because the keeping record of numbers as a form of tracking how many things, is really the keeping track of a behaviour, the rate of change in a pattern. For example, to record the amount of items a business sold is really keeping track of the general trend of its productivity and the and economy .
In this sense we have geometry as the as-ethical mathematics of arithmetic because in the realm of nature accorded by perception arithmetic is not an exact science but is only exact with the discernment of a pattern. For example, in the abstract 1 is 1 and 2 is 2 and so on and so forth, but when we ask how many cows? it is only approximate to give the number of 4 cows based on a pattern made distinct by a form shared by each single cow, but independent of that form and only looking at the quantitive numeracy, each single cow also has 4 limps, and 2 eyes and millions of hair etc. When we count 4 cows we are only grouping them together based on geometric pattern they share and that constitutes their quantitive measure, otherwise in terms of their pure quantity each single cow is an indefinite number beyond 1.
(Asymmetry is motion when an object is already maintained as symmetric body, in nature we only see asymmetry because every object is in locomotion-low energy, but maintaining the symmetry of the body’s mass is done by high energy that is massless, in other words the formal activity of the body.
The asymmetric notion is low energy because it is stabilized efficient energy that solidified into determinative mass, whereas its determination is massless indeterminate state because that is the objects potentiality for an indefinite set of possibilities in which it can act towards an aim, and so a high level of energy is required to sustain the invariance of possibilities. Common observation deduces the conclusion that high energy is inherently unstable because a collapse towards lower energy levels is always observed. The observation that high levels of energy collapses to lower levels is therefore taken as proof for the fact that high levels of energy are inherently unstable.
This is a common problem of induction which normally has twofold distinct meanings: first, inference from repeated observation is Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class. For example because every swan seen so far is white all must be white. Inductive reasoning makes a series of observations and infers a new claim on them. This is really how facts are derived but the problems is in the manner positing that a universal rule could not be established from an incomplete set of particular instances, the ancient Sextus Empiricus says: “When they propose to establish the universal from the particulars by means of induction, they will effect this by a review of either all or some of the particulars. But if they review some, the induction will be insecure, since some of the particulars omitted in the induction may contravene the universal; while if they are to review all, they will be toiling at the impossible, since the particulars are infinite and indefinite.” ( Sextus Empiricus. Outlines of Pyrrhonism, trans. Robert Gregg Bury p. 283.)
The second definition of the problem of induction called by Hume the “uniformity of nature” is presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past.
These distinct definitions of the problem of induction are not arbitrarily indicative but synthesize in a very interesting manner.
the very first error of generalizing a property from a set of particular instances, is to restrict the generality of everything to a single particular thing within it, yet this is exactly how the nature of a conception arrives at knowing anything restricting the infinity of objects within a single observation, but of course only a depth of finitude are ever conceived within a particular conception. Is to conform the sequence of events in time to the duration of the observation disclosing them. is to limit the sequence of time to the capacity conceiving that sequence of time. (Add consciousness is concentrate here, why consciousness is situated within what seems to be a complex allocation, like the human body, is because
The conclusion that high energy is unstable is inferred from a limited observation conceiving a specific kind of symmetry, in this case asymmetry is seen when the dome and the parameter are seen as fixed shapes of the same static object, then there is freedom to choose whether the low energy of the perimeters determines the high energy on the dome by seeing the ball always collapsing to the lower state, in this way we see the pattern of high energy as always recoursing to a lower state which of course leaves unanswered how a high energy state in the first place is reached. But if we see the dome as dynamically extending outwards from the perimeter than we can see that is the point of high energy determining the lower by expanding beyond it.
High levels of energy are not inherently unstable but only so from the perspective that sees energy as going in the recourse from high to low, but from the perspective that energy is the growth from low to high, then increasing levels of energy are inherently the most stable form of energy, keep in mind energy growth here is not in size but in concentration. (Law of irreversibility)
In physics, the principle of covariance emphasizes the formulation of physical laws using only those physical quantities the measurements of which the observers in different frames of reference could unambiguously correlate.
Concept is the inverse of the notion
Empirical Observation of the phenomenon is an inverse conceptualization of a natural recourse because we examine the phenomenon after it already emerged as what it is for observation and so we work back words from the peak point of where it ended reverting that as the initial point of its beginning and then advance backwards to the supposed end point which is really its actual beginning. In other words we think that the end of the phenomena is its beginning and its beginning is the end, and from this reversion we deconstructs understanding of the thing. (Critique post modernism theory of deconstruction, is not a critique or the attempt to dismantle a theory. Also critique weber rationalization as meaning to justify something, instead when we understand something we rationalize it. Fallacy to confuse honest explanation of something as equivalent to justifying it as morally valid. When we say that the cup has hallow interior to hold water, that is a rationalization of it because it is revealing of its functional properties)
The Mexican hat potential is a good example of this because the two balls are modes of understanding implanted on the phenomena to track backwards its natural movement. To frame that the ball on the peak due to the instability of its high energy excretion collapses down to the lower energy levels of the perimeter, is really the understanding opposite to what is actually happening. The inverse is that from the lower energy levels of the perimeter there is an intense high energy outward protrusion and this individuality exhibits the form of a dome.
Caution needs to be taken when using the Mexican hat potential illustration because the distinction between symmetric and asymmetric becomes superficial when we see energy, e.g the ball, as a result of its location on a mass. If we take the latter approach to say that mass is distinguished into a plain and point, and then have their relation as one mass separated by the relativity to the other based on the difference of their quantitive measures, there is failure to discern their initial indifference wherein both constitute mass in the sense of a coherent substrate with no definite shape and this is what they contain as their content.
If we take the feature of a Plain external from a point, then we have the quality of a sheer character bearing no indication as to a source, yet being that way the plain is found as the internal diameter of the point against the circumference. The point is simply the punctuation of the plains neutral indifference but as an indication of it, the plain is now disclosed as a source of the nature that is initially sourceless. In the same way that the geometric function of what the ancient Greeks refer to as rhythmos“arrangement, order, proportion” defines arithmetic or arithmos “number”, It is important to see geometric shapes in motion, shapes are not merely objects but are moments of a movements firing a formal transformation. Applied geometry already conceives the shapes as movements leading into each other but this is usually done without the ontological significance of what this might mean as a living phenomena. For example, a polygon is defined by a plain bounded by a finite chain of straight line segments closing in a loop to form a closed polygonal chain or circuit. A line segment is an abstraction of a continuously infinite extension.
It is important to view the segments as part of a moving direction that when the direction of the segment changes relative against its initial position we have the arrival of another segment. The change in the direction of the segment constitute the points where two edges meet known as the vertex or corners. The plain interior to these relation is sometimes called the body of the polygon.
The principle of geometry is that any complex shape is the movement of a simple objects in the moment of transforming.
The line in order to be segment is predicated by the more fundamental property of self identity which the point extended outside itself characterizes. A line is constructed by a point extending externally outside itself while maintaining an identity but this conception when reversed concerns the two end points forming a line segment to collapse together into the same point, the curvature of a point is an abstraction of it reverting with another point to the same point. The two ends of a line revert to each other to form the same point. This same process is demonstrable from a first person point of view, the first perspective is one point and the object of the conception of the other point. At this level of abstract analysis where there are no objects for the conception, the conception takes itself as its own object, and therefore we have the first dialectical relation; the conception is the object, the conception is distinct from itself as an object, and finally in distinction from the object there is a conception.
A point growing in size which is indistinguishable from coming closer. This means that if there is only a conception and nothing else, consciousness is the recognition of this nothing from which conceives itself outwardly as an object, which so far from what it was, is foreign to itself, must understand itself by consciously reproducing itself as an other, and during this pursuit becomes the life of a duration whose content is a potentiality that exists as an invariant alternative to the initial condition of nothing, which from the being of a particular life nothing is always only an im-possibility.
(Add to electron passing through a wave above)
A point infinitely coming closer in a vacuum is identical with growing in size, is the principle of identity and this is the origination of consciousness.
In religious insight the light at the end of the tunnel or the feeling of coming out of the womb.
(Add to light at the end of tunnel- the end Point is the birth point)
Explain Gauge theory
Spinners
The ball at the peak of the dome as opposed to the one down at the perimeter are not different objects or rather not only distinct masses because they are points abstracting the varying levels of energy distribution of the determination. Socrates as the gadfly acts as the stimulant to Athens of which otherwise is a lazy horse due to its big size. The ball at the end of the dome is a point of high energy and lower mass as opposed to the lower energy with greater mass. There is individuality to energy and this constitutes both form and symmetry.
For example if we say that the relation of the ball with the slope of the dome is to fall down to the flat perimeter, then this alone does not explain how the curve of the sphere result in the formation of the dome from the perimeter. A dome is just an extended sphere from the plain. A dome is a protrusion of a sphere emerging from a plain.
Deeper analysis shows that the potential energy distribution constitutes the quantitive measures of the mass itself. In the Mexican hat potential example the ball at low energy has potentially any place on the perimeter and this is why it is asymmetric.
When it falls from the symmetric point it has the possibility of falling anywhere on the perimeter. The collapse from a symmetric state into possibly any place on the perimeter tells us two important features of supersymmetry: first, what defines a symmetric state is that it is an ideal, a symmetric state is really an ideal, because any energy attaining it collapses back into what we have as the second point, the possibility of falling into any point in the perimeter, which is an asymmetry because it is not at two different places at the same time or when it is in one place it is not in another place, is itself the energy state constructing the symmetry of the perimeter.
The possibility of falling anywhere on the perimeter is itself the gradient that is the perimeter.
Mass and size are incongruous when the object is maintained in motion by mass excreting its energy. For example a single animal body moves due to the supersymmetry of their cells excreting energy for their daily operations. This is why a single body has more mass than each of its cell but its cells being itself a mass are more numerous.
This occurs when there is a change in the extent of energy excretion, known as “symmetry breaking” is a phenomenon in which infinitesimally small fluctuations determine the end point of a systems phase equilibrium curve, I.e. Its critical point, by deciding which branch of bifurcation is taken. For example heat transforms liquid to vapour. This is a symmetry breaking because this transitions brings the system from a symmetric but disorderly state into one or more definite states. Disorderly because from the outside observation the change of the liquid into vapour will appear arbitrary.
The appearance of the change is arbitrary not merely because the heat waves in the liquid are microscopic to be seen as causing fluctuations changing the liquid to vapour, but this symmetry change is also called spontaneous due to the phenomena of “thermal noise” which describes from the phenomena that inside an electrical conductor at equilibrium there is an inherent disturbance in an electrical signal irregardless of any applied voltage, the fact that there is an inherent impulse for energy to fluctuate. For example electronic devices exhibit varying degrees of static noise. Take for example what is known as the “Mexican hat potential” as an inherent energy fluctuation due to symmetry change.
The ball is at the very peak of the dome and the system is symmetric with respect to a rotation around the centre of the axis, the difference is the symmetry, turning the dome upside down or downside up (is the up side down the peak down or is the down side up) . The Mexican hat potential or broken symmetry is distinct from the ordinary former dome because the ball on the peak is excreting more energy maintain its place on the peak rather than falling to some point in the perimeter.
The Mexican hat potential shows the basis of energy conservation laws are examples of consciousness having a basic logic of self-determination and the exhibition of this is built into the very Supersymmetry forming the relations of a geometric structure.
The ball falling to the perimeter is more possible due to the extent of energy being exerted. (Whitehead chapter 1 function of reason 21-22) law of fatigue- is relapse progressive or not is derived from the inherent nature ofrepetition of cycle. Whenever a step progresses there is innate inertia which is the very movement forward of it brings it back to prove the change having moved forward In the first place. This is how a movement can be discerned relative to a vacuum.
Energy and symmetry are connected with the idea of broken symmetry as basis for asymmetry because where the motion of energy excretion lies constitutes the boundary line between a particle and its “shadow” particles. The boundary is not a distinction but a relative point of what constitutes the centre in a sphere. At a macroscopic scale the “Mexican hate potential” demonstrates a very fundamental symmetry of energy motion. The peak is where the most energy excretion exists and at the same time this point is the most infinitesimal point underlined by a supersymmetry constituting it. The peak of the point is any particle object exerting energy to move and the parameters are all its internal microscopic structures maintaining it as an unbroken symmetry
known as its superpartner. Super symmetry explains the association of quantities to their quality in light of how the idea of a function is treated in mathematics. Function defines how a quantity depends on another quantity by being related to it. For example, the position of a planet is a function of time. Supersymmtery is a synthesis of how an infinite asymmetrical relation constitutes a finite symmetrical quality (add o he asymmetry is potential in motion- and so it is the same symmetrical quantity transitioning into a different form. (Add to running picture below- the idea is the next form in the sequence of change)
(Add DNA paths consciousness)
“Function”
A function in dynamic theory is illustrated as meditation of an input and output.
The mathematical usage of an input and output is a philosophically primitive explanation of function because its pragmatic utility of relating variables together sometimes confuses the relationship between variables as externally grouped together. An ontologically valid definition of function must discern how an innate capacity to externalize variables is instrumental to the aim of grouping them together to rationalize the internal structure characterizing them.
In the above illustration the function is the association of the shape with its colour. One difficulty is that in order to associate the shape with its colour it must already be that colour otherwise a colourless shape is potentially any colour and prior to being a specific one is arbitrarily any colour. It is only after a shape is a colour the association of the one with the other is made to prove the relation. The colour associated by the function to the shape is not externally imposed because then there is the arbitrary principle of what colour to what shape we ought to associate. The function is instead innate because the possibility that all shapes involve all colours is first attained prior to the abstraction of one shape to a specific colour.
The function is the bare capacity for determination which is the quality of consciousness to interrogate and differentiate potentiality into actuality. Select and filter out.
But it is not a mere “differentiation” (see below) but also an “integration” anti differentiation.
In physics, the integration of acceleration yields velocity plus a constant. The constant is the initial velocity term that would be lost upon taking the derivative of velocity because the derivative of a constant term is zero.
A superpartner is characterized by a new and undiscovered
the spin of which differs by a half-integer. These superpartners would be new and undiscovered particles. For example, there would be a particle called a “selectron” (superpartner electron), a bosonic partner of the electron.
A hierarchy problem occurs when the fundamental value of some physical parameter, such as a coupling constantor a mass, in some Lagrangian is vastly different from its effective value, which is the value that gets measured in an experiment. This happens because the effective value is related to the fundamental value by a prescription known as renormalization, which applies corrections to it. Typically the renormalized value of parameters are close to their fundamental values, but in some cases, it appears that there has been a delicate cancellation between the fundamental quantity and the quantum corrections.”
The parameters that exhibit the boundary between one thing and an other is change. Change is itself the boundary separating one thing from another.
Why the quarks exhibit such an ideal spherical form but they consists of unstable imperfect shapes relates super symmetry to the notion of “initial condition” in chaos theory.
A double-rod pendulum animation showing chaotic behaviour. Starting the pendulum from a slightly different initial condition would result in a completely different trajectory. The double-rod pendulum is one of the simplest dynamical systems with chaotic solutions.
(Add to string theory)
Symmetry- Atoms dislocation in relation to asymmetry
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/research/imaging/dislocations/
This idea that there is no perfect geometry in nature is misunderstood. Atoms exhibit perfect geometric relations.
Feynman physics lecture quantum mechanics
12:00 (before and up to)
The fundamental meaning of Symmetry is the doing of activity in different manners while having the same result. What is fundamentally maintained with the change of activity. Like for example turning a crystal keeps the exact shape but there is a shine that indicates a motion in the body.
A primary symmetry is the irreversibility of time. In elementary physics, the physical laws are irreversible in time. This fact is on a basic level true especially in the context that the knowledge of something cannot be unknown. Or that there is only determination the lack of is itself determination. This law however is limited because it does not by its own merit explain how an irreversible activity is maintained? This question requires an answer especially in the case of how consciousness comes to derive knowledge of its reason.
Quantum mechanics challenges the law of irreversibility by showing that at the atomic level, atoms are in a state of vibration so that a scientist looking at this atomic activity would not be able to discern whether the activity is proceeding forward in time or backwards repeating some determining event. At the macroscopic level by contrast, sensation conceives a limited picture of the occurrence of some given event because once the event occurred the occurrence cannot be taken back. Even if we say for example we can rewind an event like we can do by a camera, the so called reversed event of the so called original still possess the irreversible effect of happening in the way opposite to what we take to be the original occurrence.
Keep in mind the interesting point that what we take by sensation as complete event like the sensory vision of some happening is in fact only a limited abstraction from indefinite state of atomic activity. Our ordinary sensations as plentiful as they are in providing the conceptions of many events, are in a constant state of change of shifting from one event to another. This is done without any explanation as to how the change in conception can guarantee the shift from one event to another. Interestingly in quantum mechanics for each of the rules of symmetry there is corresponding “conservation law”. The connection between the laws of conservations and the Symmetry of physical laws is a relation that cannot be made sense of by the empirical observation that discerned this fact.
The notion of symmetry so far as being the change in activity, having been different at one point in time from another preceding, explains what it means for energy to be conserved. The result enduring the change of the activity is the identity of consciousness that remains self identical while the inverse property of that same identity, the principle of opposition, proposes the contradiction. The crystal exhibiting the same conception of its self irregardless of the change in its motions is a bare example of the fact that something changing in motion maintains the same physical composition.
This is direct evidence of the abstract nature of consciousness being the activity of knowledge so far as opposing and contradicting itself nevertheless maintains the identity that is able to be conscious of the differences it begets upon itself. What this fact of quantum mechanics proves is the opposite of our ordinary experiences. Normally it appears as if the composition of things are conserved at least for a certain period of times, whereas our thoughts and ideas are in constant activity of change. At the quantum levels the opposite seems to be true, that there are foundational principles of reason that are conserved whereas physical compounds of them are the contradictions between absolute rules them constantly mismatching and changing. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that there are absolute principles of form and these are what is being conserved but these rules are in their symmetry contradict each other.
The contradictions of these principles take on particular compositions the change of these does not effect what is being conserved. The contradictions of the absolute forms are the bodies and their motions of ordinary physics. Yet the fundamental forms themselves are conserved as the activity that is not limited to any particular compound of its contradictions. The nature of symmetry in relation to conservation exhibit the concept of experiment in its ultimate form. This is one of the tripartite principles of logic that Pierce calls hypothesis (explain). Hypothesis is the logical element of creativity in the notion of novelty. Experimenting conserved the abstract rule which it proposes to be absolute, and then aims to subject that that to contradictions which are the objects of change.
44:50
(Add this to DNA coming into and out of being) Nature is in an absolute state of being almost symmetrical.
The relation between matter and antimatter explain the asymmetrical principle of nature. All particles possess their antiparticles, but what exactly do we mean by “anti” and how does that relation to the asymmetrical property of nature? The relation between for example proton and its antiproton is that they annihilate each other. Putting aside the logical reasons why this is so, the physical reason for this is particularly interesting because the “anti” property of some positive substratum, by positive we mean having determinate duration toward some end, the negative of that is the ascension of this activity into nothing, but not only as the annihilation of ceasing to be, but rather exhibit the physical property of angular momentum, falling towards the centre. The centre being reference point, which is the symmetrical principle the concept, the gap between the asymmetrical and symmetrical is a point of hesitancy, that when the abstract idea is conceived there is a delayed reaction, this is the falling towards the concept, which is the centre.
The anti is not a property insofar as being an attribute it is in fact a duration. For example, neutrons also possess antineutrons but ordinarily we say how can something neutral have the opposite charge? The rule of “anti” is not that it has the opposite charge, the anti is rather a whole set that is opposite. A neutron with an antineutron causes an non-neutral state because The particle and antiparticle are equal in mass, but they are reversed in electrical charge, this means that both having the same mass, they bring to each other the same gravitational attraction ( make sure), but their difference in electrical charge makes one determination of the mass active towards one direction while the other passive towards that same direction. This is why at the fundamental atomic level there cannot really be any relativity between anti principles. (48:00) for example the right hand of anti-matter and the left hand of anti-matter are not the same, matter to the right works in the same way as antimatter to the left, this combination is symmetrical.
These inverse relations of inversions exclude the idea of relativity at the quantum level because the relative principle there is one of annihilation of inversions, leaving only the self-identical identity, maintained by the annihilation in this context the clasping into of its inversions. This is the edge where the generation of matter takes on the abstract idea of the form, the former is the asymmetrical entering into the abstract symmetry. This means that the antimatter is the point where matter falls infinitely into the form of its concept. By this fundamental account the entire universe is falling into the abyss of its negation. But there is a reason why the universe is falling into itself that goes beyond this physical description. The universe so long as having the asymmetrical principle as explained by the relation of matter with antimatter, the asymmetrical property is the motion towards the abstract idea which is symmetrical.
At the fundamental level, the direction of motion is towards some abstract ideal. But from the inverse point, the ascension of the imperfect towards the perfect is the limitation of the latter by the former. There is therefore an ultimate resistance by the symmetrical to never loose its perfect state that the condition of asymmetry works towards it. There is this edge in nature, a gap, where the material never fully crosses into the abstract, even if the latter is the very ideal drive for the motion of the former. This gap is void.