Theory of the Children Reality
 
imageimage
 
 
image
 
image
Physics Sample
imageimage
Expand
 
 
imageimage
 
image
 
image
 
image
imagePrintable Version





Physics Sample

PROOF: Quick Link

The correct explanation of the constancy of the speed of photons has never been produced before.  Here is the correct explanation given as a promotional sample.

To understand why the speed of photons is constant, one must first correctly understand the duality of the pair (Abstract, Implementation).  For example, the seed is the abstract, the tree is the implementation of the abstract.

Consider an inch.  An inch is a unit of length for measurement.  That is, an inch is an abstract of length for measurement.  The two most important features of abstract to notice are the abstract assumes the definition or role of single and constant.  The inch is a unit of length, and unit means SINGLE.  As the abstract of length, the inch must remain a CONSTANT length.  On the other hand, the lengths there are to measure (implementation) are PLURAL and VARIABLE. Other examples can be given, but they all yield the same standard definitions.  With the seed and the tree, the seed as the abstract is a SINGLE and CONSTANT type of cell.  The tree as the implementation has PLURAL and VARIABLE types of cells.

ABSTRACT = CONSTANT
IMPLEMENTATION = VARIABLE.

ABSTRACT = SINGLE
IMPLEMENTATION = PLURAL.

Such paired simultaneous equations are called logical constructs.

ENERGY is the most basic particle property of SEPARATION or PLURALIZATION into PARTS.  This was the initial motivation of the fundamental GLOBAL set emission/manifestation of particles (a.k.a. the big bang).  The single fundamental GLOBAL set emission of particles as the foundation of the physics of the universe is proven based purely on equations in the webBook.  SPACE has the opposite property from energy, which is, as a LOGICAL CONTEXT, space SINGULARIZES the entire universe of separated particles into a WHOLE context.  This is precisely the opposite of how space was perceived previously in physics, where it was believed space separates (pluralizes) particles, as opposed to "separation" being an exclusive property of particles, and NOT a property of SPACE at all.  In other words,

SPACE = INTEGRATES (singularizes)
= WHOLE = Fundamental GLOBAL set
[Fundamental] ENERGY (particle) = DISINTEGRATES (pluralizes)
= PART = Fundamental LOCAL set.

Space is NOT identified by pluralization and, therefore, there is no way space could SEPARATE particles, where SEPARATION = PLURALIZATION.  Particles are identified by pluralization, and space is identified by SINGULARIZATION.  In other words, in the past, SPACE was thought of as SEPARATING two particles.  However, that's not logically possible, since SPACE = SINGLE.  The separation of the two particles is purely a property of the two particles and is NOT a property of the SPACE.  Therefore, space does not separate two particles.  The separation of two particles is exclusively a property of the two particles and not a property of space.  The simple proof is this: Look at the space between two particles and tell how many particles you see.  Answer: NONE.  The only way you could know there are TWO particles, TWO = PLURAL = SEPARATION, is by looking at the PARTICLES.  The only way you could know particle A is separated from particle B is by looking at the two particles and, therefore, the separation of the two particles is exclusively a logical property of the particles.  Therefore, two separate particles are NOT separated by space - the logical property of the separation of the two particles is exclusive to the two particles.  PARTICLE = PLURAL, SPACE = SINGLE.  So given SEPARATION is NOT a logical property of SPACE, the logical negation is INTEGRATION is the logical property of space, which makes sense given SPACE = SINGLE.

Obviously, the fundamental GLOBAL set emission of particles starting from a singularity, separation into PARTS would have to be the most BASIC particle property, which is commonly called "energy."  However, in order for energy to PLURALIZE into PARTS, that requires for those PARTS to exhibit SPEED.  That establishes the logical relationship of

ENERGY = SPEED   (read "energy defined by speed" or just "energy equals speed").

However, by the rules of the general theory of equations, we can add the term "energy" to the left sides of both of the previous logical constructs for (Abstract, Implementation), and we can add the term "speed" to the right sides.  That yields

ABSTRACT energy = CONSTANT speed
IMPLEMENTATION energy = VARIABLE speed.

ABSTRACT energy = SINGLE speed
IMPLEMENTATION energy = PLURAL speed.

That's the correct explanation for the strange constancy of the speed of photons and NOT other particles, which seems to defy GEOMETRICAL reasoning, but does NOT defy LOGICAL reasoning at all.  And that's because, while the Universe does exhibit some geometry, it's really a LOGICAL CONTEXT.  That is, the physics of the Universe is more abstract than geometry. Geometry is really a special type of implementation of the physics of the universe.  The Universe is not really a geometrical context.  Rather, the fundamental principles of the universe are based upon the universe being a LOGICAL context.

Also interesting is the second equation of the first resultant logical construct there.  So-called "mass" particles are really IMPLEMENTATION energy and their identifying type of MOTION is VARIABLE speed.  However, VARIABLE speed is ACCELERATION.  Therefore, ACCELERATION is the true identifying type of motion of IMPLEMENTATION energy (mass).  That means a very complicated mechanism, like curved spacetime theory, to explain the phenomenon of the type of motion of ACCELERATION is NOT required.  The physics explanation for the phenomenon of ACCELERATION is simply that is the IDENTIFYING type of motion of IMPLEMENTATION energy.  CONSTANT speed is the identifying (defining) type motion of ABSTRACT energy.

ENERGY = ABSTRACT energy = CONSTANT speed = SINGLE speed
MASS = IMPLEMENTATION energy = VARIABLE speed = PLURAL speed.

The DUALITY of MASS and ENERGY is really the duality of IMPLEMENTATION energy and ABSTRACT energy.  Since (Abstract, Implementation) is a logically complementary pair, then (ABSTRACT energy, IMPLEMENTATION energy) is a logically complementary pair.  Also, (Mass, Energy) is a logically complementary pair.  We also have,

INTRINSIC energy = INTRINSICALLY defined energy
EXTRINSIC energy = EXTRINSICALLY defined energy.

So by the general theory of equations, we also have this logical construct:

Under the context of  IMPLEMENTATION energy (mass):
INTRINSICALLY defined energy = CONSTANT
EXTRINSICALLY defined energy (relative speed) = VARIABLE.
Under the context of  ABSTRACT energy (energy):
INTRINSICALLY defined energy = VARIABLE
EXTRINSICALLY defined energy (relative speed) = CONSTANT.

That's why a fundamental particle of MASS, such as an electron, has an INTRINSICALLY defined energy, called it's "rest-mass," that is CONSTANT, while its EXTRINSICALLY defined energy (relative speed) is VARIABLE.  The photon (abstract energy) has the exact opposite properties.  The photon's INTRINSICALLY defined energy is VARIABLE, while its EXTRINSICALLY defined energy (relative speed) is CONSTANT.  A particular particle's rest mass is CONSTANT.  Rest mass is really a reference to the INTRINSICALLY defined energy of IMPLEMENTATION energy, which is CONSTANT.  A photon is said to be a massless particle and sometimes referred to as pure energy.  However, that's really a misnomer.  That's because a photon DOES have an intrinsically defined energy, but it is VARIABLE rather than constant.  Since STANDARD = ABSTRACT = CONSTANT, the abstract energy's VARIABLE intrinsically defined energy cannot be used as a STANDARD to identify different types of abstract energy.  There is only ONE TYPE of abstract energy, the photon, which is due to it's LACK of a CONSTANT intrinsically defined energy.  For example, the electron and the proton are two different types of IMPLEMENTATION energy.  This is DUE to each having a different INTRINSICALLY defined CONSTANT energy.  Thus,

IMPLEMENTATION energy = PLURAL types (e.g., electron, proton)
ABSTRACT energy = SINGLE type (e.g., photon).

Note, by the general theory of equations, we can eliminate common words in common places on the left sides, and similarly on the right sides of both equations.  This leaves

IMPLEMENTATION = PLURAL
ABSTRACT = SINGLE.

Which are the standard definitions for (Abstract, Implementation).  That's why there are PLURAL types of IMPLEMENTATION energy, while there is only a SINGLE type of ABSTRACT energy.

One might argue to the contrary, the neutrino might be a type of ABSTRACT energy, and there are PLURAL types of neutrinos.  However, in that case,

PHOTON = Fundamental GLOBAL set abstract energy
NEUTRINO = Fundamental LOCAL set abstract energy.

However,

GLOBAL set = ABSTRACT = SINGLE [type]
LOCAL set = IMPLEMENTATION = PLURAL [types].

Therefore, substitutions yield

PHOTON = SINGLE type of abstract energy
NEUTRINO = PLURAL types of abstract energy.

The difference would be abstract energy relative to the fundamental GLOBAL set or relative to the fundamental LOCAL set.  The neutrino is clearly significant to the fundamental LOCAL set, but not the fundamental GLOBAL set.  As is explained in the Theory of the Children Reality webBook, the neurtrino is at a deeper abstract level than the photon.  That's because a neutrino does not give implementation to a lepton in the fundamental Global set, but does give implementation to a completely abstract lepton bound to the fundamental hadron local set, that is, a lepton in a state of complete potentiality.  It is believed leptons are not bound to hadrons, but that is not entirely correct.  Leptons are bound to hadrons while in a state of complete particle potentiality.  In fact, a lepton in a state of complete particle potentiality (completely abstract) requires a unique type of particle that enables it to change states from completely abstract (potentiality) in the fundamental hadron LOCAL set to implementation (effect) in the fundamental GLOBAL set - that's the very reason for the neutrino.  In other words, the photon is at too high of an implementation level to be able to give implementation to a completely abstract lepton.  The reason an electron in the fundamental Global set absorbs a photon, but a photon does not absorb an electron is because electron = implementation, photon = abstract.  But an electron bound to a hadron solely as a particle potentiality is at too deep an abstract level for a photon to change its state to implementation such that it can be free in the fundamental Global set.  Instead, that's what a neutrino does, which means the neutrino is at a deeper abstract level as a particle than the photon.

This also yields the LOGICAL reason for the well known conversion formula  E = MC2.  E = ABSTRACT energy, M = IMPLEMENTATION energy.  It can be proven the meaning of the "=" sign used in classical quantitative equations is the same as the "=" sign used in the general theory of equations.  "=" means "is defined by," "is identified by," or "is defined as."  The equation E = MC2 looks like E = M, which would be a contradiction, since ABSTRACT energy ≠ IMPLEMENTATION energy.  In other words, ABSTRACT energy is not identified by IMPLEMENTATION energy.  However, this is a quantitative use of the equal sign.  The quantitative variable E is identified by SPEED and NOT by MASS.  Expanding out the equation for M, we have

M = M0 / √(1 - (v/c)2).

Therefore,

E = M0C2 / √(1 - (v/c)2).

Since M0 and C are CONSTANTS, E as a VARIABLE is really only defined by the VARIABLE v (velocity or speed).  However, the reason for the conversion is due to the duality of ABSTRACT and IMPLEMENTATION as an integral part of the object reality.

MASS = M, as in E = MC2, is VARIABLE, while MASS = M0 is CONSTANT.  Those are contradictory definitions of MASS.  The definition of mass cannot be both CONSTANT and VARIABLE.  M is purely a mathematical entity and is NOT a physical property of particles.  M0 is a CONSTANT and is a valid INTRINSIC definition of Implementation energy.  The intrinsically defined energy of Implementation Energy is CONSTANT.  There is no such thing as relativistic mass, because that would be attempting to define EXTRINSICALLY defined (relativistic) INTRINSICALLY defined energy of Implementation Energy.  Those are contradictory specifications for mass.  ENERGY and MOMENTUM are relativistic, while MASS is not.  The former are due to being identified by speed which is relativistic.  Abbreviating the pure mathematical entity
M0 / √(1 - (v/c)2) as M and calling M the relativistic MASS = VARIABLE, while calling M0 the REST (constant) MASS assigns contradictory definitions of CONSTANT and VARIABLE to the property of MASS.  There is no such property as relativistic mass in the universe.

Note the physics of the universe cannot be LOGICALLY understood without giving things LOGICAL names as opposed to PET names.  For example, UNIVERSE, PARTICLE and even SPACE are really PET names.  The correct logical names are

Universe = Fundamental GLOBAL set
Fundamental particle = Fundamental LOCAL set.

The Fundamental Global Set is identified by Space.  That is,

SPACE = Fundamental GLOBAL set.

GLOBAL set = SINGLE
LOCAL set = PLURAL

For example, G = {3, x, 7}.  Here G is the SINGLE global set, while 3, x, and 7 are PLURAL local sets of G.  By the general theory of equations, we can now add the term "Fundamental" to just the left sides, which gives

Fundamental GLOBAL set = SINGLE
Fundamental LOCAL set = PLURAL

Now translating the LOGICAL names back to the PET names, we have

UNIVERSE = SINGLE
PARTICLE = PLURAL

As simple as that might seem, that's the correct explanation on why there are PLURAL particles in the Universe, but only a SINGLE Universe containing those particles and also only a SINGLE SPACE to the entire Universe.

The Universe is STILL a singularity, just as it was at the moment of the big bang.  The difference is the PARTICLES (energy) are now PLURALIZED.  However, SPACE is still SINGULARIZING the entire Universe of pluralized particles.

Here is the explanation for the general instability of hadron particles and why the proton is the only stable hadron particle based upon REALITY THEORY.

The "=" sign means "is defined as" or "is defined by" or "is identified as" or "is identified by" where A = B can simply be read, "A equals B."  ~P means "the complement of P," where ~P = NOT P.  For example, if P = LEFT, then ~P = ~LEFT = NOT LEFT = RIGHT.

Assume a property P occurs in a logical context R, but does NOT have an immediate logical complement of ~P in the logical context R.  In that case, we have

(1) NOT a case of ~P in R.

However,

(2) ~P = NOT P.

Therefore, we can substitute the entire equation (2) for ~P in (1), which yields

(3) NOT a case of ~P = NOT P in R.

"= NOT" is equivalent to "≠".  "≠" is actually correctly read as "not defined as" or "not defined by" and can be read as "not equal to."  Therefore, substitution into (3) gives

(4) NOT a case of ~P ≠ P in R.

Reversing sides in the non-equation gives

(5) NOT a case of P ≠ ~P in R.

Applying the term NOT, this statement reduces to

(6) A case of P = ~P in R.

However, it can easily be shown any logically complementary pair (P, ~P) is based upon the fundamental complementary pair (Existence, Non-existence).  For example, letting P = EXISTENCE, then ~P = ~EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE.  The proof is simple because P generally is something that has EXISTENCE.  It can also be shown on a case-by-case basis, if P = EXISTENCE, ~P = NON-EXISTENCE given the standard definitions for (Existence, Non-existence).  NOTE: In this case, P EXISTS in R, while ~P does NOT EXIST in R.

Therefore, letting P = EXISTENCE, and ~P = NON-EXISTENCE, substitution into (6) yields

(7) A case of EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE in R.

EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE means the termination of a reality.  Here is the PROOF:

(8) NON-EXISTENCE = NOT Existence.

Therefore, substituting from the right side of (8) into EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE we have,

(9) EXISTENCE = NOT Existence.

Reversing sides gives

(10) NOT Existence = Existence.

(11) NOT = NOT a case of.

Substitution from (11) into (10) gives,

(12) NOT a case of Existence = Existence.

However, the term "Existence" on the right side of this equation is redundant to the term "Existence" on the left side and, therefore, the right term can be dropped along with the equal sign.  That is, the equal sign and the additional "Existence" term on the right do not contribute any additional information to the whole statement.  So we are left with

(13) NOT a case of Existence.

Conversely,

(14) EXISTENCE = NOT Non-existence.

Therefore, substituting into EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE, yields

(15) NOT Non-existence = NON-EXISTENCE.

Similarly, this means

(17) NOT a case of Non-existence = Non-existence.

Again, dropping the redundant information from the whole statement, we are left with,

(18) NOT a case of Non-existence.

Therefore, the complete meaning of EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE is this:

NOT a case of Existence
NOT a case of Non-existence.

These two conditions must both simultaneously be satisfied in order to satisfy the equation EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE.  That is NOT a possible situation for a REALITY, which PROVES the meaning of EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE is the termination of a reality. What this proves is absolutely every REALITY must be the hybrid of an integration of EXISTENCE and NON-EXISTENCE such that the distinction between the two is preserved in the integration, that is, EXISTENCE ≠ NON-EXISTENCE.  That's also the explanation on why ALL reality is based upon logical complementarity.  That is, if a property P occurs in the context of a reality R, then ~P = NOT P (immediate logical complement) must also occur in the context of the reality R.  Otherwise, P defaults to being its logical complement, that is, P = ~P.  Which is equivalent to EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE, which is not a possible situation for a reality to occur.

The ELECTRON is the immediate complementing particle to the SPECIFIC hadron of the PROTON relative to fundamental LOCAL set manifestations of particles (e.g., a neutron is a fundamental LOCAL set decays and manifests a proton, an electron and electron-neutrino).  None of the other hadrons have an immediate complementing particle in the LOGICAL CONTEXT of the reality of the universe.  Thus, for an unstable hadron H, since its immediate logically complementing particle ~H does not occur in the logical context of the universe, H defaults to being its logical complement, that is, H = ~H, as was just proven.  Letting H = EXISTENCE in H = ~H yields

EXISTENCE = ~EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE.

As was previously proven, this equation means the termination of a reality.  In this case, it means the immediate termination of the hadron particle's reality.

This is similar to what happens when a particle and antiparticle collide.  An antiparticle is the NON-EXISTENCE type of particle relative to the fundamental GLOBAL set manifestation of particles (a.k.a. the big bang).  That's because the antiparticles were NOT present during the initial fundamental Global set manifestation of particles, but only their POTENTIALITIES.  That is, at the exact instant of the big bang,

PARTICLES = In a state of EFFECT
~PARTICLES = In a state of POTENTIALITY.

Where ~PARTICLES = ANTIPARTICLES, and

EFFECT = EXISTENCE type
POTENTIALITY = NON-EXISTENCE type.

So when a particle and its ~particle coincide in space, the event yields the equation

(19) PARTICLE = ~PARTICLE

However,

PARTICLE = EFFECT type
= EXISTENCE type = EXISTENCE
~PARTICLE = POTENTIALITY type
= NON-EXISTENCE type = NON-EXISTENCE.

Substitution from the definitions of these equations into (19) yields

(20) EXISTENCE = ~EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE

Therefore, the two particle realities terminate.  That is the correct explanation on why the REALITY of a particle and it's ~particle terminate upon coinciding.  Although, the explanation of the conservation of energy is another explanation tangent.

The unstable hadron terminates for the exact same reason, except no other particle is involved in producing the equation EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE.  That equation is produced by the unstable hadron H, that is, H = ~H, because it defaults to being its logical complement due to the absence of ~H in the logical context of the reality of the universe.  That is the correct explanation for the general instability of hadron particles.  The proton P has an infinite half-life due to having an immediate complementing particle ~P (electron) relative to fundamental LOCAL set manifestations of particles in the logical context of the reality of the universe.  The explanation on why an unstable hadron at least has a very short finite half-life is a little more involved.

Note, the complementarity between the proton and electron is relative to fundamental LOCAL set manifestations of particles.  The complementation between a particle and its antiparticle is relative to the single fundamental GLOBAL set manifestation of particles (the big bang).

The PROOF the antiparticles assumed a state of POTENTIALITY at the instant of the big bang is, otherwise, there would have occurred a case of

PARTICLES = ~PARTICLES

at the exact instant of the big bang SINGULARITY, because there would be nothing to preserve the distinction between the two logical complements.  This is equivalent to EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE, which would have meant the instant termination of the universe at the same instant of manifestation and, therefore, there would be no universe.  That there are antiparticles actually PROVES the universe is based upon the logic of an initial big bang, even without looking out at the macro universe to see if the universe is expanding, which it is.  That is, without antiparticle potentialities, there would be no universe.  However,

(21) EFFECT ≠ POTENTIALITY.

Where (Effect, Potentiality) is a pair of immediate logical complements.  Therefore, with the following occurring at the exact instant of the big bang singularity,

PARTICLES = In a state of EFFECT = EFFECT
~PARTICLES = In a state of POTENTIALITY = POTENTIALITY

substitution from the equations of this logical construct into (21) yields

(22) PARTICLES ≠ ~PARTICLES.

Which in turn is equivalent to

EXISTENCE ≠ NON-EXISTENCE.

Which is the necessary condition for there to occur a REALITY, such as the reality of the universe.

Therefore, the antiparticles (~particles) necessarily had to assume a state of potentiality in order to preserve EXISTENCE ≠ NON-EXISTENCE.  Conversely, the reason there had to be antiparticles, is because the PARTICLES would, otherwise, default to being their immediate logical complement in the logical context of the instant of the big bang due to not having an immediate logically complementing class of particles.  That is, PARTICLES = ~PARTICLES by default.  If the equation, PARTICLES = ~PARTICLES occurred at the exact instant of the big bang, there would be no universe, because it's equivalent to EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE.  There are antiparticles because the universe is based upon an initial big bang, but they were in a state of POTENTIALITY at the instant of the big bang singularity.  That's also why there are far more PARTICLES in a state of EFFECT than antiparticles in the entire universe - which conversely PROVES the ~particles assumed the state of POTENTIALITY at the instant of the big bang, and actually still do in general.

It would be incorrect to think of an antiparticle potentiality as there being PLURAL potentialities of a specific antiparticle.  For example, there are many PLURAL protons in a state of EFFECT in the universe, so there must be PLURAL antiprotons in a state of POTENTIALITY in the universe, right? Wrong.

EFFECT = EXISTENCE = PLURAL
POTENTIALITY = NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE.

These are standard definitions for (Existence, Non-existence).  Thus, there are NOT plural antiproton potentialities in the universe.  Rather, there is only a SINGLE antiproton potentiality in the entire Universe, which is simply there is a POTENTIALITY for an antiproton to go into a state of EFFECT in the Universe. So there is only a SINGLE antiproton potentiality in the universe, although, there are PLURAL protons in a state of effect in the universe.  One can think of antiproton potentiality as being plural though due to the potentiality always being associated with particles in a state of effect which are plural. However, correctly stated, there is only a SINGLE antiproton potentiality for the entire universe.

Example of POTENTIALITY: Hold a ball above the floor.  The gravitational acceleration of the ball is in a state of POTENTIALITY (non-existence).  Yet, you'll notice the ball has weight, meaning the acceleration is still there, yet the ball remains in a SINGLE and CONSTANT position.  The SINGLE and CONSTANT properties actually come from NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE = CONSTANT, and POTENTIALITY = NON-EXISTENCE type.

Example of EFFECT: Now let the ball go.  The gravitational acceleration of the ball is in a state of EFFECT (existence).  The ball is now assuming PLURAL positions and VARIABLE positioning.  The PLURAL and VARIABLE properties actually come from EXISTENCE = PLURAL = VARIABLE, and EFFECT = EXISTENCE type.

Note the so-called WAVE / PARTICLE duality of fundamental particles is really their POTENTIALITY / EFFECT duality, where

WAVE behavior = POTENTIALITY state
PARTICLE behavior = EFFECT state.

No one has ever resolved why fundamental particles have this nature.  The reason is it is a RESIDUAL property coming from BEFORE the big bang birth of the universe where there could ONLY have occurred particle POTENTIALITIES.  So at the exact instant of the big bang, the particle POTENTIALITIES changed states to EFFECT and the universe was born.  Therefore, particles would NECESSARILY have a residual nature of being able to change states from POTENTIALITY to EFFECT and back again and so forth, which is the so-called wave/particle duality of fundamental particles, which is really the (potentiality, effect) duality of fundamental particles.

The standard definitions for (Existence, Non-existence) are

NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE
EXISTENCE = PLURAL.

NON-EXISTENCE = CONSTANT
EXISTENCE = VARIABLE.

Consider the logically complementary pair (Left, Right).  First I'll prove the pair is really based upon the pair (Existence, Non-existence).  FIX a SINGLE point and call it L1 = LEFT.  Using L1 as the point of reference, ALL the PLURAL and VARIABLE points to the right are called RIGHT.  That proves,

LEFT = SINGLE = CONSTANT (fixed)
RIGHT = PLURAL = VARIABLE.

Therefore, in this case,

LEFT = NON-EXISTENCE
RIGHT = EXISTENCE.

Now to prove

LEFT = OLDER
RIGHT = YOUNGER.

Note it is logically IMPOSSIBLE to define the plural and variable points as RIGHT without FIRST establishing a point of reference.  That is, the point of reference L1 must be established FIRST.  Thus, L1 = LEFT = OLDER, RIGHT = YOUNGER. So, in this case, we see

LEFT = NON-EXISTENCE = OLDER
RIGHT = EXISTENCE = YOUNGER.

This is the general case for the pair (Existence, Non-existence).  This should make sense as the general case, because NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE = ONE, and EXISTENCE = PLURAL = TWO or more.  And ONE (single = non-existence) generally comes before TWO (plural = existence).

State of POTENTIALITY = NON-EXISTENCE = OLDER
State of EFFECT = EXISTENCE = YOUNGER.

Thus, the state of potentiality for fundamental particles is OLDER, which was their state BEFORE the big bang.  Basically, a particle is a POTENTIALITY which goes into a state of EFFECT as a particle.  Thus, again, the wave / particle duality is a residual nature from the big bang basis of the universe.

One might inquire, "How could NON-EXISTENCE be something EXISTING without being EXISTENCE?"  Answer: The existence of a NON-EXISTENCE as non-existence does not necessarily qualify that non-existence as existence.  The reason comes from how the two logical complements (Existence, Non-existence) are fundamentally defined in the logical context of a reality R.  For example,

NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE
EXISTENCE = PLURAL.

Since,

PLURAL ≠ SINGLE,

therefore,

EXISTENCE ≠ NON-EXISTENCE.

Now assume the two occur in the context of a reality R without being extended by fundamental definitions.

NON-EXISTENCE = Occurs in reality R
EXISTENCE = Occurs in reality R.

Since the right sides are identical, and both occur in the same LOGICAL CONTEXT R, we can substitute the left side of the first equation into the right side of the second equation, which yields EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE.  That is not a possible reality.  That's why the pair is extended by fundamental complementary definitions.

NON-EXISTENCE = Occurs in reality R as SINGLE
EXISTENCE = Occurs in reality R as PLURAL.

By the general theory of equations we can eliminate common words in common places on the right sides, which gives

NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE
EXISTENCE = PLURAL.

Since SINGLE ≠ PLURAL, then NON-EXISTENCE ≠ EXISTENCE, regardless of the fact the non-existence actually exists.

One might inquire, "The electron is a LEPTON and there are two other UNSTABLE leptons, the muon and the tau. Why is a muon lepton unstable?"

The LEPTON class of particles is the immediate logical complement of the HADRON class of particles.  Among these classes, there is only a SINGLE particle in one class that has an immediate complementing particle in the complementing class.  That is, there is only a SINGLE hadron that has an immediate complementing LEPTON particle.  That's why each class only has a SINGLE stable particle.  Consider

STABLE = CONSTANT
UNSTABLE = VARIABLE.

Therefore,

STABLE particle = NON-EXISTENCE
UNSTABLE particle = EXISTENCE.

However, we also have

NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE
EXISTENCE = PLURAL.

Therefore,

STABLE = NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE
UNSTABLE = EXISTENCE = PLURAL.

Thus, there can only be a SINGLE particle in a class that has an immediate complementing particle in the complementing class, the PROTON and the ELECTRON.

Since none of the other particles have a complementing particle in the complementing class, such a particle yields P = ~P, which is equivalent to EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE, which is the explanation for the instability.

At first thought, this would seem completely backwards, that a STABLE particle is the NON-EXISTENCE type, and the UNSTABLE particle is the EXISTENCE type.  That's because the unstable particle quickly no longer exists.  However, the reason the STABLE particle is the NON-EXISTENCE type is because to be a stable particle is actually NOT the identifying nature of particles.  That's because

PARTICLE = PLURAL = PLURALIZATION
SPACE = SINGLE = SINGULARIZATION.

PLURALIZATION is the true identifying nature of PARTICLES.  Thus, a STABLE particle does NOT have the identifying type of nature of PARTICLES.  The identifying type is the existence type.  Thus, the proton and the electron are actually NOT the identifying types of particles because they do not pluralize.

Thus, from the hadron class of particles, there can only be a SINGLE stable particle, and similarly for the lepton class of particles.  Otherwise, particles would NOT be identified by PLURALIZATION.  Therefore, there can only be a SINGLE particle in the hadron class which has an immediate complementing particle in the complementing lepton class - because stability is related to EXISTENCE ≠ NON-EXISTENCE, which requires complementarity.  HADRON = NON-EXISTENCE, LEPTON = EXISTENCE.  Since, LEPTON ≠ HADRON, then EXISTENCE ≠ NON-EXISTENCE.  Except HADRON and LEPTON are CLASSES of particles and not a specific particle.  A SPECIFIC particle requires a SPECIFIC complementing particle in order to be stable.

If there were TWO stable hadrons, TWO = PLURAL = EXISTENCE = IDENTIFYING type, that would mean the whole class of particles would no longer be identified by PLURALIZATION.  The identifying type is always the existence type and conversely.  That is, EXISTENCE type = IDENTIFYING type.

SPACE = STABLE
PARTICLE = UNSTABLE.

Stability is a general property of SPACE, but is NOT the general property of particles.  This makes sense, because if stability was the general property of particles or energy, then the big bang could never happen.  The big bang from a singularity would require for particles to have a basic nature of pluralization, basically, breaking up into parts called particles.  Space does NOT have the nature of breaking up into parts and is, therefore, stable, constant.  Therefore, the UNSTABLE particles actually have the true identifying nature of particles.

On the other hand, this also makes sense, there is a NON-EXISTENCE = NON-IDENTIFYING particle in each class.  In order for there to be a REALITY, that requires an EXISTENCE form integrated in logical relationship with a NON-EXISTENCE form in the logical context of the reality.  Thus, there MUST be a non-existence type of particle in each class.  The reason is, otherwise, what would happen is the particles would keep breaking up into smaller and smaller particles until nothing exists, which gives EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE, which is not a possible reality.  Thus, the breaking up of particles would have to eventually become the non-identifying types of particles, the non-existence types for each class, that is, the STABLE particles.  Basically, the stable particles put on the breaks to the breaking up of particles because, otherwise, a case of EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE would be rendered.

One might inquire, "Why the choice of HADRON = NON-EXISTENCE, LEPTON = EXISTENCE, that is, why not the other way around as standard?"

The answer is because the HADRON is made up of quarks, then a HADRON really does NOT EXIST, because the quarks exist, except the hadron does exist and, therefore, the hadron must be defined as NON-EXISTENCE.  In this case, the hadron is a GLOBAL set, and a quark is a LOCAL set.  In general, GLOBAL set = NON-EXISTENCE, LOCAL set = EXISTENCE.  Thus, HADRON = NON-EXISTENCE.

Interestingly, the term IN applied in the general theory of equations is similar to the term NOT, it changes the definition to the logical complement.  That's because the term IN changes to an opposite context, because, generally things are viewed from OUT, as opposed to IN.  For example,

In Existence = NON-EXISTENCE
In NON-EXISTENCE = EXISTENCE.

What is IN existence?  Answer: NON-EXISTENCE.  What is IN non-existence?  Answer: EXISTENCE.  That's because existence and non-existence are an integrated reality.  So we have

HADRON = NON-EXISTENCE
LEPTON = EXISTENCE.

In HADRON = In NON-EXISTENCE = EXISTENCE = PLURAL
In LEPTON = In EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE.

Thus, PLURAL occurs IN the hadron, which are the quarks.  However, SINGLE occurs IN the lepton, which is the lepton itself.

GLOBAL set = NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE
LOCAL set = EXISTENCE = PLURAL.

A SET is a GLOBAL set, and an ELEMENT of that set is a LOCAL set.  A proper SET contains TWO are more elements, which makes a distinction between the SET and the ELEMENTS, that is, a distinction between the GLOBAL set and a LOCAL set.

In GLOBAL set = In NON-EXISTENCE = EXISTENCE = PLURAL
In LOCAL set = In EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE.

We see here the term IN does change the meaning to the logical complement.  What is IN a GLOBAL set are the LOCAL sets = PLURAL.  What is IN a LOCAL set is a new reference to the set as a GLOBAL set = SINGLE.  That is, referring to what is IN an ELEMENT changes the meaning of an ELEMENT to a SET.  In SET = ELEMENTS, In ELEMENT = SET.

Thus, the choice of definitions, HADRON = NON-EXISTENCE, LEPTON = EXISTENCE was not arbitrary.  In fact,

NUCLEUS = NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE
SATELLITE = EXISTENCE = PLURAL.

For example, there can only be a single nucleus, and single = non-existence.  However, there can be plural satellites, and plural = existence.  However, for atoms

NUCLEUS = PROTON = HADRON
SATELLITE = ELECTRON = LEPTON.

Therefore, substitutions into the previous logical construct yields the consistent definition set of

HADRON = NON-EXISTENCE
LEPTON = EXISTENCE.

Ain't it cool?

One might inquire, "You've shown the WAVE / PARTICLE duality is really the POTENTIALITY / EFFECT duality as a residual from before the big bang where there could only have occurred particle potentialities. However, where does the wave probability distribution nature come from?"

Fundamental particles change states from ABSTRACT to IMPLEMENTATION and back again and so forth.  This comes from

POTENTIALITY state = ABSTRACT state
EFFECT state = IMPLEMENTATION state.

The WAVE / PARTICLE duality is really the POTENTIALITY / EFFECT duality of fundamental particles.  And that, in turn, is the ABSTRACT / IMPLEMENTATION states of fundamental particles.

The nature of MOTION requires an integrated complementarity of EXISTENCE and NON-EXISTENCE.  For example, in order for a particle to move from postion A to postion ~A, where ~A = NOT A, that requires for the particle to NOT EXIST at position A, and then EXIST at position ~A.  Thus, movement requires the integrated reality of existence and non-existence.

The WAVE / PARTICLE duality has been explained as really being the POTENTIALITY / EFFECT duality which is a residual from before the big bang birth of the universe, where particles could only have been in a state of POTENTIALITY.  However, the WAVE nature of fundamental particles is actually rather complex.  The wave probability distribution nature is related to when and where a particle in its ABSTRACT state will undergo IMPLEMENTATION.

ABSTRACT = NON-EXISTENCE
IMPLEMENTATION = EXISTENCE.

However,

NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE
EXISTENCE = PLURAL.

Therefore,

ABSTRACT state = SINGLE
IMPLEMENTATION state = PLURAL.

However, where a particle will undergo IMPLEMENTATION basically means WHERE will it MOVE to.  Movement requires for a particle to change states from EXISTING at position A to NOT EXISTING at position A, but EXISTING at position ~A.

Position A = NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE
Position ~A = EXISTENCE = PLURAL.

However, from the ABSTRACT / IMPLEMENTATION duality

Position A = Undergoes ABSTRACT state = SINGLE
Position ~A = Undergoes IMPLEMENTATION state = PLURAL.

Thus, a fundamental particle goes into an ABSTRACT state at a SINGLE position, because it requires to NOT EXIST at that position in order to move to a different position, and ABSTRACT = NON-EXISTENCE.  But the amazing thing about where it will move to is IMPLEMENTATION = EXISTENCE = PLURAL.  The PLURAL specification is where the PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION comes from.  If a particle moved from,

POSITION A = NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE

with only a SINGLE possibility for WHERE it will move to, position ~A = NOT A, then

POSITION ~A = SINGLE = NON-EXISTENCE = POSITION A.

A contradiction.  It must have PLURAL possibilities of WHERE it will MOVE to, that is, where it will undergo EXISTENCE, because EXISTENCE = PLURAL.  Thus, the PLURAL probability (possibility) distribution of when and where the particle will undergo IMPLEMENTATION when the particle is in its ABSTRACT state.

Therefore, we see the wave probability distribution nature of fundamental particles conforms to the Reality Theory format.

Classical mechanics assumes a particle EXISTS at postion A, then does NOT EXIST at position A, but EXISTS at position ~A, called motion, with only a SINGLE possibility for position ~A.  However, that does NOT strictly conform to the Reality Theory format, because EXISTENCE = PLURAL.  Thus, if the universe is founded upon the Reality Theory format, that requires PLURAL possibilities for position ~A.

Assume a particle EXISTS at position A.  Since the particle at that point is going to MOVE, then there is only a SINGLE possibility of where it is going to NOT EXIST at that time, which is simply position A, because that's where it presently EXISTS.

For a fundamental particle moving from position A, we have,

Position A = NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE possibility.

By the general theory of equations, we can add the term NOT to all sides of this equation set.

NOT position A = NOT NON-EXISTENCE = NOT SINGLE possibility.

NOT position A = Position ~A.

NOT NON-EXISTENCE = EXISTENCE.

NOT SINGLE = PLURAL.

Therefore, the following logical construct describes the motion of a fundamental particle.

Position A = NON-EXISTENCE = SINGLE possibility
Position ~A = EXISTENCE = PLURAL possibilities.

Thus, where a fundamental particle will undergo its IMPLEMENTATION state from its ABSTRACT state must be based upon probability, if the fundamental particle level of the universe is strictly based upon the Reality Theory format.

One might argue this model does not strictly conform to the Reality Theory format either - since EXISTENCE = PLURAL, then the particle should EXIST at PLURAL positions simultaneously when it undergoes its IMPLEMENTATION = EXISTENCE state.  However, if it did that, it would no longer be a PARTICLE, but would be SPACE, because SPACE is a single entity existing everywhere simultaneously.  Thus, if the particle underwent an IMPLEMENTATION state such that it EXISTED at ALL PLURAL positions simultaneously, it would become SPACE = NON-EXISTENCE.  Therefore, the particle would no longer exist at all, because that would yield IMPLEMENTATION = EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE.  Thus, the particle can only undergo implementation at a SINGLE position, but the POSSIBILITY of where it will undergo implementation = existence must be PLURAL.  Therefore, the model does strictly conform to the Reality Theory format.

Of what is a fundamental particle, such as the electron, constituted?  Answer: Literally NOTHING.  That a fundamental particle is something that EXISTS is afforded ONLY by the fact particles are PLURAL and VARIABLE and has nothing to do with any fundamentally existing substance.  In other words, there is NO such fundamentally existing SUBSTANCE called matter, energy, monads, strings or whatever that reality is supposedly based upon.  That is, if something fundamentally exists, its existence as EXISTENCE is afforded only by the fact it is PLURAL and VARIABLE and not because it is based upon a fundamentally existing substance.

That a fundamental PARTICLE (existence) is constituted of NOTHING and is differentiated from SPACE (non-existence) only because it is VARIABLE actually yields the correct explanation of gravity.  If there was no such thing as gravity, it can be proven because particles are NOT constituted of any substance, then PARTICLE = SPACE, which yields EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE.  In this case, that would mean the instant termination of the entire universe.  That is, the universe could NOT be a REALITY without gravity, a necessary VARIABLE, because fundamental particles have the exact same substance constituency as SPACE, that is, NOTHING.  Without gravity, the entire universe would NOT exist.  Conversely, the universe does exist, therefore, gravity.  The formal explanation and proof is beyond the scope of this sample.  The general theory I call Reality Theory.

In the past, gravity was thought of as something distinct from a particle and that acts on a particle.  That view is incorrect.  The correct view is a fundamental particle and gravity are one and the same - there is no distinction between the two.  That is, gravity is not something that acts on a particle, but is instead an act of a particle.  The correct theory of INTERACTION will not be given in this sample.

It is said the earth's GRAVITY holds the moon in place.  That's all a misnomer.  One imagines some kind of ARM stretching out from the earth and grabbing hold of the moon and holding it in place.  That is NOT the correct explanation of gravity, or any fundamental interaction for that matter.  Technically, the earth's gravity has little to do with the earth.  For example, the moon is held in place around the earth by it's OWN ACT and there is nothing that stretches out from the earth and grabs hold of the moon.  The moon ACTS gravitationally with respect to the earth and according to the earth's MASS.  This view is based upon a PROOF two particles necessarily must interact with each other and according to each other's properties, otherwise, the resulting equation is PARTICLE = SPACE.  However, PARTICLE = EXISTENCE, SPACE = NON-EXISTENCE.  Thus, EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE, which is NOT a possible reality.  On the other hand, if particle A did it's very own UNIQUE ACT around particle ~A, then the particle A's ACT has nothing to do with being an interaction with particle ~A but is entirely an intrinsic property of particle A.  No interaction, PARTICLE = SPACE, EXISTENCE = NON-EXISTENCE.  Thus, not only must particle A interact with particle ~A, but it must also interact with particle ~A according to particle ~A's properties, such as mass and charge.

To understand the reason there is a SINGLE stable hadron better,

NON-EXISTENCE type = BASIS type
EXISTENCE type = IDENTIFYING type.

A REALITY is IDENTIFIED by it's EXISTENCE type.  However, the BASIS of the REALITY is it's NON-EXISTENCE type.  For example, the REALITY of the UNIVERSE is identified by fundamental PARTICLES (existence), but the REALITY of the UNIVERSE is actually based upon SPACE (non-existence).

BASIS type = SINGLE
IDENTIFYING type = PLURAL.

PARTICLES are identified by particles that BREAK UP into PARTS.  That's why there are PLURAL unstable particles.  But a REALITY requires a BASIS type, but the BASIS type is always SINGLE.  That's why there is only a SINGLE stable HADRON, and similarly for the LEPTONS.

Under the context of IMPLEMENTATION physics:
ANSWERS = COMPLICATED (difficult)
TO FIGURE OUT = SIMPLE.
Under the context of ABSTRACT physics:
ANSWERS = SIMPLE
TO FIGURE OUT = COMPLICATED (difficult)

This logical construct should make sense because ABSTRACT = SINGLE = CONSTANT.  So the answer would be SIMPLE.  While IMPLEMENTATION = PLURAL = VARIABLE, so the expected answer would be complicated.  However, the reason for the significantly greater level of difficulty in figuring out ABSTRACTION is ABSTRACT = SINGLE = CONSTANT, and that's not much to work with in the process of figuring out the answer.

To illustrate the difference between an IMPLEMENTATION question and an ABSTRACT question, consider the implementation question of how many inches are between point A and point B.  The process of figuring out the answer is simple, just get out a standard inch and measure the length between points A and B.  The answer might be some COMPLICATED answer like 327 or 562 inches.  Now here's the ABSTRACT question version.  How long is an inch given only the standard of an inch?  The answer in this case is incredibly simple, a single inch always (constant).  One does not even need to pull out a standard inch and measure.  Yes, but let me see you PROVE it.  The process of figuring out the answer to the abstract question of how long is an inch, given only the standard of an inch, would be expressed as a PROOF an inch is an inch in length.  That would be difficult to figure out because of having very little to work with in formulating the valid proof.  One might attempt to formulate the proof using the rule of logic called Reductio Ad Absurdum.  That is, assume the contrary and derive a contradiction.  Assume

INCH = NOT inch.

We have produced a contradiction by assuming the contrary.  Therefore, that proves

INCH = INCH.

Right?  Wrong.  In this particular case, this is NOT a valid proof an inch is an inch.  The reason is the original contrary assumption IMPLICITLY assumes an inch is an inch.  How's that?  The answer is the LEFT side of the equation contains the specification of "INCH".  However, because INCH = INCH is the only manner in which INCH is being defined in this particular case, anywhere INCH occurs, we can substitute in the redundant equation INCH = INCH.  Therefore, the fully qualified assumption to the contrary is this:

[INCH = INCH] = NOT [inch = inch].

INCH = NOT inch is merely an abbreviation for this expanded equation.  Therefore, the assumption to the contrary still implicitly assumes an inch is an inch.  Therefore, since the assumption to the contrary embeds the implicit assumption an inch is an inch, the PROOF is INVALID, regardless of the validity of an inch is always an inch (simple answer).  That is, the proof A = B must NOT contain the assumption A = B.

If we go to an even deeper abstract level, it can be proven the definition, INCH = INCH, is an absurdity.  Here is the proof.  This proof assumes no other definition is given than INCH = INCH.  Since the right side is redundant to the left side, then the right side does not add any additional information to the whole statement.  Therefore, the right side can be dropped, leaving

INCH =

To validate dropping the term INCH on the right side of the equation, note the right side INCH does not ADD any additional information to the whole statement.  Therefore, adding the term INCH to the right side is equivalent to adding NOTHING to the whole statement.

Clearly the specification of INCH on the left side is assuming the role of EXISTENCE, while the BLANK on the right side is clearly assuming the role of NON-EXISTENCE.  That is,

INCH = EXISTENCE

[BLANK] = NON-EXISTENCE.

Substitutions yield

EXISTENCE (inch) = NON-EXISTENCE (blank) = NOT Existence.

A contradiction.  Thus, a valid definition requires the defining specification (right side) NOT be identical to the specification it defines (left side).  Yet, INCH = INCH is valid, right?  Answer: Yes, depending upon CONTEXT.

[inch = inch] IS the only information given = [A CONTRADICTION]
[inch = inch] is NOT the only information given = [NOT a contradiction].

The proof of the first equation has already been given.  Now for the proof of the second equation.  Consider

INCH = INCH

under the context of some other information O given, where

INCH = O.

Substitution from this equation into the right side of the previous equation gives

INCH = O.

Note the original equation, "inch = inch," is not an assumption used in the proof, but is used only as the equation to be proved.  That formally proves INCH = INCH is valid under the context of some other information O given, where INCH = O.

One might attempt to formulate a disproof as was used when INCH = INCH is the only information given.  That is, from

INCH = O

one might be tempted to argue we can now substitute in [INCH = INCH], as before, for the left side of this equation which would yield

[INCH = INCH] = O.

So it is assumed the premise embeds the implicit assumption of INCH = INCH, disproving the validity of the proof.  What is to be proved cannot be assumed in the proof.  However, this substitution contradicts the premise used in the proof, which is some OTHER information O is given such that

INCH = O.

Thus, substituting in [INCH = INCH] into this equation is an invalid substitution as it contradicts the premise of the proof, because that's NOT some OTHER information than INCH.  Therefore, the proof is valid.

This proves FIGURING OUT (proving) how long is an inch (abstract) is significantly more complicated than figuring out (proving) how many inches are between point A and point B (implementation).  Although, the former has a simple answer and the latter has a complicated answer.  This illustrates how an ABSTRACT question generally has a simple answer that is complicated to figure out (prove), while an IMPLEMENTATION question generally has a complicated answer that is simple to figure out (prove).

imageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimage
 
 
 
imageimage
 
image
 
image
 
image
image
Copyright © 2007-17,  J. D. Graham
All rights reserved.
Valid XHTML 1.0 StrictValid CSS!
imageimageimageimageimageimage