### What happens to the QSN in the case of extreme spacetime curvature, in which a black hole forms?

Recently I was asked what happens to the Quasicrystalline Spin Network (QSN) in the case of extreme spacetime curvature, in which a black hole forms. I'm going to preface my answer by pointing out that assumptions from the most powerful models in physics can be hidden assumptions in discussions. I want to un-imply two now.

ONE: I suggest that reality does not have any curved spacetime. Curves are expensive computationally and the code theoretic axiom, as restricted by the principle of efficient language, implies that nature doesn’t do circles… only polygons. Angles, no curves. The twist isomorphism to curvature is what the QSN toy approach is about.

TWO: Isolate (1) experiment from (2) powerful models and ontological interpretations from those models about what the numerical data of experiments means. The strong evidence is that massive particles attract to other massive particles. And photons near a strong mass change their vectors the way general relativity predicts.

Let me build up this answer in a stepwise fashion.

What is attraction in the QSN toy model?

It is a computation theoretic concept – a savings of a trit or frame. In the QSN view, when a particle accelerates under an attractive force, it is always because of a sequence of one or more trit coincidence events – a quantum of acceleration/attraction. As we know from the toy model, all four of these things are made of trits: (1) space, (2) time, (3) fermions and (4) bosons.

Now, the rotation has been shown to be isomorphic to 3-space curvature, specifically, a quantum of such curvature. And ALL trits have a relation to other trits that is exactly this rotation isomorphic to curvature. With that being true and giving us some deep feel for why Einstein’s GR is so beautiful and powerful, we can still hold his isomorphic value called spatial curvature is being an isomorphic way to model what ACTUALLY happens in the geometric code that the universe uses – rotation/twist.

OK. With that all stated, I can now try to answer an excellent question – a question that worried me at one time until I realized a good answer.

Let’s work with the concept of pretending the QSN is an ordered set of 10^44 graph states in what we experience as about one second.

Let’s say you are an electron 57-group quasiparticle pattern moving though a volume of space over that duration that is 12 inches long.

Let’s say that at some distance from you is me, another electron-57 group. You have an empire wave field of trits around you that defined by your helicity (the handedness of your helical path) and your spin, the direction of your Hamiltonian clock circuit.

Now, there will be come probability at this distance that, at Planck time #2, we will each need, say, an on-right trit at XYZ in the QSN. We experience a quantum of acceleration along the same directions. A trit is saved. We can spit the savings 50/50.

Let us pretend we are exploring the assumption that any attraction is a trit coincidence event – a quantum of acceleration. Obviously, then, it is meaningless at this point in the thought experiment to label this event as gravitational or electromagnetic attraction. We’re suggesting a unification. For now, I’ll call it gravity because of the deep fact that:

THE SAVINGS OF A TRIT IS A SAVINGS OF A QUANTUM OF TWIST ISOMORPHIC TO 3-SPACE CURVATURE – A QUANTUM OF GRAVITY

I’ll expand the thought experiment, let’s say that there are a large number of my electron buddy 57-groups packed closely with me. Let’s say that there is no dimensionless point as a singularity in a black hole and that our model would predict something more akin to LQG, where the “singularity" is just an enormously dense state of matter at the core of a black hole. Imagine something denser than a neutron star – an electron star. I will suggest quarks and electrons are both composite particles made of 20-groups. So let’s call it a 20-group star – a black hole. This is the mathematical limit within the code of the density of matter.

Accordingly the ratio of the empire fields around a density of 20-groups to volume that is this extreme will have a LOT more trit coincidence events with your electron field from above, as compared to just an interaction with my field.

So, let’s go back to the first case when it was just you and me at that same distance of you to this black hole. Let’s agree that it’s reasonable to say that, because of our distance to one another in the two electron case as you and me, that in 10^44 frames, we only enjoyed 1 trit coincidence event. We had one acceleration event. Remember, each time there’s an acceleration event, the ratio of trits used for clock cycles versus forward propagation decreases.

Now, change back to the other case with the black hole at the same distance that you and I were to one another when we only had 1 quantum of attraction in one second.

What would be the physical meaning of, say, 10^33 out of 10^44 graph state changes over that second? Of course, it would be exactly 10^33 times more gravitational influence or acceleration than when it was just you and me at that distance.

WHAT A MINUTE!

I’m trying to equate EM here with gravity. But we know gravity is 10^39 times weaker than EM. Why?

Also, EM has attraction and repulsion. Why do we so faithfully observe gravitational attraction but don’t see an equal but opposite force of gravitational repulsion (no need to discuss anti-gravity in this toy build up right now)?

Let’s go back to that black hole or even a massive planet. What defines the ability of two trit fields to have either a repulsive or attractive trit anti-coincidence or coincidence event, versus a null interaction event (e.g., that’s when you need an on right at XYZT and I don’t need anything at that coordinate)?

Dipole is key. The helical axis of the particle is in-line with its direction of propagation. As the little electron, Mike Rios is 1,000 miles from, let’s say, planet Earth and moving closer by the moment under an increasing density of trit coincident events.

What is the percentage of “North” = helicity relative to the direction of trit dipoles of electrons on Earth that have the South side of their dipoles in-line with your dipole (which is the direction of your vector toward Earth) RELATIVE TO the dipoles of electrons on Earth that have the “South” side of their dipoles inline and facing the “South” side of your dipole?

Clearly, it should be about 50%.

Now, the trit-anti coincidence event is a repulsion.

The trit coincidence event is an attraction.

What is the fundamental difference between repulsion and attraction?

Repulsion generally causes deflection and deceleration.

Attraction generally causes acceleration along the same direction.

Staying focused on the toy model thought experiment, what does all this mean?

Well, at first thought, it should mean that there’s no attraction as a net result because there is about a 50/50 split of trit coincidence to anti-coincidence events.

But not so fast.

The trit coincidence events keep the dipole directions of the two distant fermions in-line.

And this leads to a higher probability of a second trit coincidence event at time-2.

Let me clarify something that I tried to say above:

Not all trit states of the electron approach Earth will be either a trit coincidence or anti-coincidence event. In fact, the vast majority of them are null-interaction events.

Not all trit states of the electron approach Earth will be either a trit coincidence or anti-coincidence event. In fact, the vast majority of them are null-interaction events.

I hope the story now is coming together in your mind.

Trit coincidence events at time-1 lead to a higher probability for a trit coincidence event at time-2 because there is generally no deflection.

However, trit repulsion events at time-1 lead to deflection or dipole direction change, which does not lead to a higher probability for a trit coincidence or trit anti-coincidence event at time-2.

The QSN MUST move particles about in a computationally efficient manner. It must have quasiparticles discretely hop about in order to be most efficient to express the approximate information of a particle moving along some vector.

Accordingly, even N/S dipole alignments at time-1 DO NOT generate a very high probability for alignment at time-2. It generates a higher probability than in the case of, say, N/N alignments for an alignment at time-2.

Long story short, I have provided a plausible toy model suggestion here for:

- Why we observe gravitational attraction and not repulsion.
- The idea that EM and gravitational attraction are each a SAVED quantum of twist isomorphic to a quantum of 3-space curvature.
- And EM and gravitational repulsion are each (clearly one and the same) a NOT SAVED quantum of twist isomorphic to a quantum of three 3-space curvature.
- When it comes to just one electron to one other electron, they can align dipoles North to South much like any two magnets will align and stay aligned. But when there are very large spherical volumes of such electrons/quarks, there will be a 50/50 ratio of the ones that are aligned N/N at time-1 and then a better than 50/50 ratio of alignments at time-2 and an even better ratio at time-3 and so on, such that the percentage of trit coincidence events will increase as 1/r^1.

To be continued...

Some Resources:

The Code Theoretic Axiom: The Third Ontology paper & video

شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض بالاحساء

ReplyDeleteVery interesting I'm amazed that you can discuss this stuff and have mathematical descriptions a tremendous translation. as a complete amateur here can you tell me why it's possible for a particle of anything being projected through space naturally be in a waveform when everything is rotating, is it that the methods of mathematically calculating hasn't developed or does existing theory nclude the helical path, and I haven't noticed? Thank you for your patience in reply kind regards Andrew

ReplyDeleteMy condensed theory of gravity, as in what is gravity, is this. I say all particles have mass and polarised therefore there is a field associated with every particle. as I believe all particles are rotating no particle can occupy the same space but as the density of a material increases the energy in field associated with accumulated mass remains associated. No doubt this is widely known. I'm figuring you're e8 crystal lattice is a mathematical description of density of a substance. Is your idea with the eight crystal to develop multifunctional non binary switches and is the quasi business about code and programming the the outputs.?

ReplyDeleteI would really like to be able to explain things as clearly as you can Klee, your mastery of this subject is enthralling.

ReplyDeleteJust a point to add, if I may be so bold regarding dipoles n/s . Reality is, east/west are the areas of interactivity on earth. If down is south, then logically under the emence pressure of a dense planet the the opposite field of each electron is that what creates suck relative to free mass. The south or compressed field, being lost in the heat of earth's core. The by-product, gravity?