“Our every starting-point must necessarily be something relative. …Our task is to find in all these factors and data, the absolute, the universally valid, the invariant, that is hidden in them”
—max planck
The case presented by nano-phenomenology states that everything in the universe exists. Our presence in and interaction with the world are undeniable. Our perception of reality is authentic, regardless of the underlying mechanisms at play. As we look closer at the concept of nano-phenomenology, it becomes clear that it’s not just about examining individual pieces of the puzzle, but understanding how they interact and connect with each other. Imagine trying to understand a complex puzzle by looking at individual pieces, rather than the entire picture. This is similar to how nano-phenomenology approaches our physical reality by examining the smallest units of experience and how they interact with each other.
While the plausibility of the nano-phenomenology philosophy may be questionable, alignment of the framework with observed quantum behaviors is undeniable. This interpretation is in need of a champion who can translate this visual model into the equations that predict how quantum phenomena will move through the proximital plane. I believe the equations for fluid dynamics, Kuramoto oscillators as described by Steven Strogatz, as well as Riemann Surfaces and Homomorphism offer clues to to the math required to predict how these reflections will move through each respective dominant universal plane simultaneously.
“The history of science is marked by the vehement, dogmatic denial of such differences, until they are found out” (Whitehead, A. N., Process and Reality, p. 100, 1929, 1978.) This is a reminder that embracing new perspectives can have a transformative power, ultimately paving the way for scientific progress and deeper understanding into the nature of existence.
This illustration of the nano-phenomenology model aims to visualize how reflections move through the dominant universal plane to maintain proximity in all frames of reference. I look to physicists to validate the model against their equations, seeking to invalidate this interpretation and ensure its consistency with the underlying physical laws. The Pauli Exclusion Principle stands as a guardian, ensuring the integrity of quantum states as the model is explored.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons in an atom can have the same set of quantum numbers, which determines their energy, spin, and spatial distribution. This means each energy level in an atom can only hold a specific number of electrons, depending on the energy level and atom type. This principle, proposed by Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958) in 1925, is crucial for understanding atomic properties and the periodic table. The principle as stated, supports the nano-phenomenology framework as illustrated.
Figures 1 below represent the transition to similar proximity with 2 ensuing descendants. So Figures 1a to 1d equal [[A] ↠ [A1] ↠ [A2] ↠ [A3]. You can see in this progression that no reflection is repeated at any scale. All subsequent similar proximity propagate a unique set of reflections during transcendence, ensuring adherence to The Pauli Exclusion Principle.
To further emphasize adherence to the Pauli Exclusion Principle Figure 2 illustrates four sovereign proximity transcending inertia at various scales and energy levels from [[DU] ↠ [DU1] ↠ [DU2] ↠ [DU3] ↠ [DU4] within the nano-phenomenology framework. This clearly shows that no reflection is duplicated at any level. They all exist as a distinct frequency at every proximity in corporeal reality.
As we begin this exploration of the nano-phenomenology framework, it becomes clear that its principles can be applied to a wide range of phenomena, from the smallest scales to the largest. One of the most fascinating examples of this is the bucket experiment, a thought-provoking exercise that has puzzled physicists and philosophers for centuries. By examining the bucket experiment through the lens of nano-phenomenology, we can gain a deeper understanding of the intricate dance between observer and observed, and the role that perspective plays in shaping our understanding of the world. Let us now turn our attention to this iconic experiment, and explore how the principles of nano-phenomenology can shed new light on the nature of motion and the universe.
Figure 2
Figure 2 illustrates how the framework can be applied to the famous bucket experiment imagined by Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727), a thought experiment that illustrates the concept of absolute motion and the relativity of motion. He sets up the experiment as “... the surface of the water will at first be flat, as before the bucket began to move; but after that, the bucket by gradually communicating its motion to the water, will make it begin to revolve, and recede little by little from the centre, and ascend up the sides of the bucket, forming itself into a concave figure (as I have experienced), and the swifter the motion becomes, the higher will the water rise, till at last, performing its revolutions in the same time with the vessel, it becomes relatively at rest in it.“ This experiment led to a long-standing debate about the nature of motion and the role of absolute motion in the universe. Ernst Mach (1838–1916), an Austrian physicist and philosopher, challenged Newton's interpretation of the experiment, arguing that the rotation of the bucket is relative to the observer and that there is no absolute motion. Mach's critique of Newton's bucket experiment highlights the importance of considering the role of observation and perspective in understanding the nature of motion and the universe.
Through the lens of nano-phenomenology when the bucket is still, each element in the water and each element in the bucket is simultaneously transcending inertia as one thing, the singularity persisting in the relative frame of reference in similar proximity as duplicity. Each element persisting in similar proximity in the configuration of the bucket and each element persisting in similar proximity in the configuration of the water is illustrated as the singularity, a single element in Figure 3. Each of the four sovereigns are in a relatively inert state as its position and momentum within the bucket is stable and the surface of the water appears smooth because the stillness of the bucket requires minimal friction to transcend inertia. It is experiencing ensuing proximity as time passes (not illustrated) but it is not experiencing motion. This is a relatively inert state.
Figure 3
As the bucket starts rotating friction increases which compels ensuing proximity to rush in, filling the void left in the wake as each similar proximity is compelled out of the “now” moment that it existed in. All subsequent proximity square the number of reflections being captured or propagated into all frames of reference, as illustrated in Figure 4. This means each and every quantum phenomena in the bucket and the water contained within it, is subjectively expanding so it can “move” through space and time with its cohorts. Coupling with more and more similar proximity as each subsequent proximity changes frequency in all frames of reference. This rapid succession of ensuing proximity, all compelled to maintain the same frequency with a reflected cohort in all frames of reference, concurrently and simultaneously, is what causes the sensation of centrifugal force for each element that is transcending inertia to become the bucket and the water it holds at this exact moment in time as a whole.
Figure 4
As the bucket’s rotation increases the speed at which alternating proximity propagate reflections into all relative frames of reference increases. All of those reflections are compelled to maintain proximity by coupling with a reflected sovereign’s frequency in all frames of reference. Each subsequent proximity squares the number of reflections being captured or propagated until the speed of the rotation slows, which reduces the number of ensuing proximity causing the number of similar proximity excited to transcend inertia to subside, reducing the number of reflections compelled to maintain proximity in all frames of reference. This never ending process ensures continuity will persist in each sovereigns actual world, ad infinitum.
Figure 5
The sovereigns becoming the bucket and the water can only connect with the proximity they actually observe. All quantum phenomena can only observe the reflections it captures in its own inertial frame of reference. This means the quantum phenomena that make up the bucket only connect with the water that exists next to their proximity within the bucket. The bucket has no need to connect with the water at its center. Each quantum element only connects with the reflections it observes in its own inertial frame of reference. Everything still exists outside its inertial frame of reference, in duplicity, but each sovereign only transcends inertia when it is sufficiently excited. If something is outside its field of vision (its inertial frame of reference) then it is too far away to excite.
Articulating a concept that is abstract in the extreme merits some amnesty. The image in Figure 6 represents two sets of congruent cohorts expressing isness. All are idle, so there is no spatial extension or element of time; basically, there is ‘nothing.’ Whitehead expressed this idea as, “The realization of a sensum in its ideal shallowness of intensity, with a zero width, does not require any other eternal object, other than its intrinsic apparatus of individual and relational essence” (Whitehead, A. N., Process and Reality, p. 115, 1929, 1978.)
Figure 6 uses four circles to illustrate four sovereign proximity, or two sets of congruent cohorts, persisting in an inert state simultaneously. The four circles represent one thing, the singularity, at four distinct, similar points in three-dimensional spacetime, concurrently. This means that each sovereign has a unique proximity with respect to all others. Whitehead again seems to agree with us, writing, “A and B, are mutually contemporary, when A does not contribute to the datum for B, and B does not contribute to the datum for A, except that both A and B are atomic regions in the po-tential scheme of spatio-temporal extensiveness which is a datum for both A and B.“ (Whitehead, A. N., Process and Reality, p. 123, 1929, 1978.)
Each sovereign proximity exists in a subjective inertial frame of reference. The circle around it depicts its inertial frame of reference or ‘intrinsic apparatus’, as Whitehead calls it. A theoretical construct, the inertial frame of reference, is what defines the scope of each sovereign’s proximity juncture, or its actual world.’ The glow around each circle represents its distinct proximity signal (isness) or ‘individual and relational essence’ that it persistently expresses, to attract similar proximity. Like a mirror, it captures all reflections being propagated into all frames of reference during each jaunt it takes into spacetime. As Whitehead says, “The relevance of an eternal object in its role of lure is a fact inherent in the data. In this sense, the eternal object is a constituent of the ‘objective lure.’ (Whitehead, A. N., Process and Reality, p. 86, 1929, 1978.)
In Figures 7 each set of sovereigns [[A], [B]] in Figure 7a and [[C], [D]] in Figure 7b, are in proximity and congruent, but are not sufficiently excited to transcend inertia and compel similar proximity. The glow around each sovereign indicates that it is in the dominant universal [A] position, which is how it wields command and control over its domain. The glow also indicates that these four proximity are actually one thing, the singularity in an inert state, with no extension of space or time. When sovereign proximity is excited to transcend inertia, it becomes duplicity. Distinct sovereigns united into an experience beyond inertia for a split second in time. But until that genesis moment arrives, all sovereigns exist as an idle element in the singularity’s temporal pilgrimage, while also having a subjective privy temporal experience, concurrently.
The proximity signal or isness is a determining factor in all sovereign interactions. Its signal contains a complete accounting of the sovereign’s experience with friction. Friction for proximity is focused on the ease of attracting and sufficiently exciting similar proximity. Proximity compulsively expresses a signal, or isness, to realize the most effortless experience possible given the respective state of all cohorts in the relative frame of reference.
Ease of transcendence indicates frictionless qualities like aligned, consistent, perpetual, or persistent. Features that require a greater effort to excite transcendence increase friction and embody elements like inconsistent, convulsive, cauterized, or fragmented. Navigating friction is how the singularity demystifies the path of least resistance. Duplicity persistently compels the next best action on the least resistant path to create the most equitable experience for all sovereigns within the expanse of spacetime, incessantly adhering to the Principle of Equality for All.
The inertial frame of reference, presumed to embody a wave function, preserves all junctures of experience in the temporal proximity signal. All ensuing similar proximity inherit the frequency of a predecessor, then pass the sum of all reflections captured as it persists in the “now” moment on to a descendant or successor. The successor inherits the antecedent’s complete temporal frequency as its ancestor loses proximity with the relative frame of reference. As this process unfolds, each subsequent proximity is compelled into the “command” position within a respective dominant universal plane, all moving at the speed of light simultaneously and concurrently. This perpetual cycle continues without end, generating a whirlwind of activity that never ceases.
“The qualitative heterogeneity of our successive perceptions of the universe results from the fact that each, in itself, extends over a certain depth of duration, and that memory condenses in each an enormous multiplicity of vibrations which appear to us all at once, although they are successive. If we were only to divide, ideally, this undivided depth of time, it distinguish in it the necessary multiplicity of moments, in a word to eliminate all memory, we should pass thereby from perception to matter, from the subject to the object. Then matter, becoming more and more homogenous as our extended sensations spread themselves over a greater number of moments, would tend more and more towards that system of homogeneous vibrations of which realism tells us, although it would never coincide entirely with them“ (Bergson, H. Matter and Memory, p. 76-77, 1911).
I am not a scientist and science has never been a hobby of mine. The scientists must validate these ideas before nano-phenomenology can be considered a serious approach. This knowledge assaulted me. This is my best attempt to couple these ideas with quantum terms. I look to the scientists to accurately predict how these reflections will move through the proximital plane providing insight into the predictive nature of quantum behavior. The wavefunction is the only resource quantum phenomena have, understanding how to measure its many frequencies is key to predicting quantum behaviors.
The inertial frame of reference is likened to a mirror that captures reflections, which are presumed to be wave functions. These reflections are harmonically coupled within this wave function to maintain proximity with a reflected sovereign in all frames of reference creating the continuity we experience in physical reality. The inertial frame of reference is represented by [[Ab], [Ba]], where [Ab] and [Ba] are the wave functions of the system that enable macroscopic phenomena to experience corporeal reality.
In this model the reflections are quarks and other particles that become entangled, compelled to maintain proximity or the same frequency as their reflected sovereign. This ensures that the “location” of the reflection matches the “location” of its reflected proximity at all times. The harmonic coupling of the inertial frame of reference with the reflections it captures or propagates is what causes the entanglement we observe between the wave functions [Ab] and [Ba] and the wave functions [Aa] and [Bb]. This is how quantum gravity is generated within the nano-phenomenology framework.
All reflections are harmonically adjoined in the inertial frame of reference, meaning they are coupled with the wave functions [Ab], [Ba] and [Aa], [Bb], respectively. This harmonic connection is like a spring that allows the reflections to maintain proximity with a reflected sovereign in all frames of reference, as the reflections move through each subjective dominant universal plane. These planes are the underlying structure of the universe, and as each sovereign embarks on a journey, its reflections are propagated into the subjective “now” moment for all congruent cohorts to observe. This constant propagation of reflections moving through each subjective now moment is how phenomena create a sense of progression through space and time. It sounds like Carl Bender, an American applied mathematician and mathematical physicist, is trying to explain a complex plane that is similar to the proximital plane in this video Why Does Mathematics Describe Reality?
“There is no need to assume an infinite series of acts of becoming, with a first act, and each act with an immediate successor,† is inexhaustible in the process of becoming…The modification of the ‘Arrow’ paradox…brings out the principle that every act of becoming must have an immediate successor, if we admit that something becomes…The conclusion is that in every act of becoming there is the becoming of something with temporal extension: but that the act itself is not extensive, in the sense that it is divisible into earlier and later acts of becoming which correspond to the extensive divisibility of what has become.” (Whitehead, A. N., Process and Reality, p. 69, 1929, 1978.)
Exploring the nano-phenomenological visual model prompts a reflection of the concept of simultaneity. Whitehead eloquently captured this notion, remarking, “According to the philosophy of organism, in the present cosmic epoch only one duration includes all M’s immediate present; this one duration will be called M’s ‘presented duration.’ But M itself lies in many durations; each duration including M also includes some portions of M’s presented duration“ (Whitehead, A. N., Process and Reality, p. 125, 1929, 1978.)
This statement establishes simultaneity, where all elements in the set are inert and express proximity as the dominant universal, denoted by [DU] = 0. The transition to similar proximity is illustrated as [DU] ↠ [DU] ↝ [DU] = ∞. Resulting reflections [du] are observed in the internal frame of reference [DUdu]^∞ and compelled to maintain proximity with a reflected sovereign [DUdu]^∞. Simultaneous sovereign proximity is indicated by capital letters ([[A], [B], [C], [D],…]), while sovereign proximity reflections are represented by lowercase letters ([[a], [b], [c], [d],…]). Transcendence spawns antithetical wave functions represented by ψ^2 = √1. This transition is illustrated by [DU] ↠ [[A], [B], [C], [D],…] = [A] ↝ [B] = ∞ = [[Ab], [Ba]]^∞ = ψ^2 = √1 = 1 + 1 = 2, symbolizing the singularity transitioning into simultaneous duplicity.
As we reflect on the interconnectedness of reality, we’re compelled to acknowledge the intricate interplay between the singular moment and its manifold expressions. Each proximity, in its inertial frame of reference, contributes to this complex tapestry of simultaneous existence, striving to resonate with congruent observers to compel proximity in the most effortless way possible. A symphony of synchronicity culminating in a crescendo of concrescence, reaching a triumphant climax that reveals the harmony of the universe in all its glory. An intricate dance of particles and waves converges in a majestic celebration of existence, reminding us not only to appreciate the beauty of our corporeal experience but also the critical importance of respecting the fundamental principles governing the behavior of particles within the quantum realm.
Proximity exists in the inertial frame of reference. Direct perception between a proximity and its cohorts is absent; only reflections within their respective inertial frames of reference are observable. Whitehead describes this as, “No actual entity can be conscious of its own satisfaction; for such knowledge would be a component in the process, and would thereby alter the satisfaction“ (Whitehead, A. N., Process and Reality, p. 85, 1929, 1978.)
The concept of sovereign proximity is rooted in the idea that sovereign proximity is an objective phenomenon that gives rise to subjective experiences. In the same way that a person is self-aware and cannot see themselves or know what a peer is experiencing, a sovereign proximity signal is self-directed and cannot see itself or comprehend what its cohorts are experiencing. Bergson reiterates the concept as “Indifferent to each other because of the radical mechanism which binds them to-gether, they present each to the others all their sides at once : which means that they act and react mutually by all their elements, and that none of them perceives or is perceived consciously.“ (Bergson, H. Matter and Memory, p. 29, 1911). This suggests that the sovereign proximity signal is an element within an objective system, having a subjective experience that is shaped by its interactions with other elements in the system.
The claim we are making is that we, as people, are a shared resource the untold number of sovereign proximity that make up our body use to have an experience. Each subjectively transcending inertia to generate the universe of you at each point of your existence. This means we can reduce our experiences as people to better understand the subjective experience of our body's quantum phenomenon. In the same way we can see everything in our field of vision, sovereign proximity transcending inertia observe all reflections captured in an inertial frame of reference. It cannot choose to not experience them. If similar proximity is excited they are visible. To reduce friction a sovereign can either ignore a frequency or it must change its frequency to ‘look away’ or move out of proximity. The proximity that share our body also share our brain and our senses. These are the mechanisms sovereigns use to share their experiences with each other. Every time they excite a new frequency into similar proximity at a different point in spacetime they must propagate reflections of the new frequency to the entire collective that is enduring the experience of corporeal reality. This means that our experiences are not just individual, but may be connected to the experiences of others.
Opening our minds to the mysteries of the universe, we find ourselves at the threshold of a profound understanding of the cosmos. With our reduction firmly established, the entirety of the cosmos converges to its simplest form—the singularity expressing itself as simultaneous duplicity. This marks the starting point for reconstructing the physical reality we know and love.
“By positing the material worlds we assume an aggregate of images, and moreover because it is impossible to assume anything else. No theory of matter escapes this necessity. Reduce matter to atoms in motion : these atoms, though denuded of physical qualities are determined only in relation to an eventual vision and an eventual contact, the one without light and the other without materiality. Condense atoms into centers of force, dissolve them into vortices revolving in a continuous fluid : this fluid, these movements, these centers, can themselves be determined only in relation to an impotent touch, an ineffectual impulsion, a colourless light; they are still images“ (Bergson, H. Matter and Memory, p. 26 - 27, 1911).
All sovereigns transcend inertia from an inert state as a dominant universal, which has no inherent value. Inert phenomena are equal to zero. This means that at each inflection point, shown in Figure 9, the dominant universal’s initial state is equal to zero, causing the initial state of the system to revert to zero as each subsequent sovereign is excited into transcendence.
“We may imaginatively conjecture that…to be identified with actual occasion for which ‘presented durations’ are negligible ele-ments among their data, negligible by reason of negligible presentational immediacy. Thus no intelligible definition of rest and motion is possible for historic routes including them, because they correspond to no inherent spatialization† of the actual world.“ (Whitehead, A. N., Process and Reality, p. 177, 1929, 1978.)
Figure 8
The dominant universal excites all similar proximity simultaneously, within a subjective dominant universal plane. This can be imagined as all similar proximity simultaneously in an [A] ↝ [B] state, concurrently transcending inertia with congruent cohorts to become duplicity. Duplicity is how the singularity, in its primordial vastness, experiences everything, everywhere, all at once.
To have an experience, the sovereign must capture the reflections of all congruent cohorts in its inertial frame of reference, from the instant it compels proximity until an ensuing similar proximity inherits its frequency, causing it to lose proximity and revert to an inert state. The relative frame of reference is the subjective now moment for each distinct sovereign. In Whiteheadian terms, “A duration is a cross-section of the universe; it is the immediate present condition of the world at some epoch.“ (Whitehead, A. N., Process and Reality, p. 125, 1929, 1978.)
The wavelength in the crest of Figure 9a represents the transition of [A1] ↝ [B1] as [A] transcends inertia and becomes similar to [B]. In Figure 9b, the wavelength in the crest represents the opposite perspective, where [B] transcends inertia to become similar with [A]. Concurrently, they become duplicity in similar proximity. Essentially, they are mirror images of each other, not identical, but opposing counterparts [[Ab], [Ba]]. Subsequent similar proximity [B2] ↝ [A2], and [A2] ↝ [B2], shown in the troughs, is compelled into the relative frame of reference at an inflection point along the nodal line. This inflection point is where each inert dominant universal transcends inertia to inherit the sum of its predecessor’s frequency.
When the excited sovereign inherits its ancestor’s wave function, it also becomes entangled with all of the reflections that reside there to facilitate continuity within its own domain or ‘actual world’. In the images below, capitol letters represent zero values of the reflections that are in command in similar universal sub-planes and colors are used to illustrate the relational context of all reflections [du] within the overall framework. The colored border surrounding each reflection [du] signifies its proximity as coupled within its observer’s wave function [DUdu]^∞ = ψ. The field of color behind each lowercase letter [du] represents a harmonic oscillator that compels all reflections to maintain continuity, or similar frequency with a reflected proximity [DUdu]^∞ = ψ in all frames of reference manifesting our experience of continuity in corporal reality, as each subjective now moment passes into perpetuity, creating the sense of position and momentum as described by Parmenides’ Eleaticism.
During its lifespan, the sovereign captures all similar reflections it ‘observes’ in its inertial frame of reference as it persists in the relative frame of reference. Each separate juncture in time is coupled with an epic moment in the past, present, or future along an expanse that maps to a distinct temporal journey through three-dimensional spacetime. When it is compelled out of the relative frame of reference, it relinquishes command of the dominant universal [A] position and reverts to an inert state. This transfer of power alternates as each subsequent similar proximity transcends into the “now” moment in the relative frame of reference at the speed of light ad infinitum.
The illustration in Figures 10 above represents two sets of sovereigns transcending inertia. While [[A], [B]], represented by Figure 10a and [[C], [D]], represented by Figure 10b are both distinct similar proximity transcending inertia concurrently, the sovereigns can only ‘observe’ what is visible in their own inertial frame. This means that [A] can only see [b] (the reflection of [B]) during this distinct juncture of the temporal pilgrimage, and [B] can only see [a] (the reflection of [A].) They can only see each other’s reflections. The similar proximity [C] ↝ [D] are having an identical experience. These distinct sovereigns, [Ab1] as [[A1], [b1]], and [Ba1] as [[B1], [a1]], and [Cd1] as [[C1], [d1]], and [Dc1] as [[D1], [c1]], will never see anything beyond the reflections captured in their own inertial frames of reference during this specific subjective juncture in space and time. Each will persistently signal its experience as a dominant universal ad infinitum, compelled to inform any congruent cohort that will listen about the friction that exists at this specific unique point in spacetime.
The image in Figure 11 is a different perspective of the same four wave functions [[Ab], [Ba], [Cd], [Dc],…] compelled by two similar proximity ( [A1] ↝ [B1] and [C1] ↝ [D1]) transcending inertia concurrently. The lower case letters represent reflections the sovereign is observing as it persists in the “now” moment. Its color represents which sovereign’s field of vision the reflection exists in (A = red, B = green, C = purple D = yellow) and the field of color behind the lower case letter indicates which reflected proximity the reflection is harmonically coupled to maintain the same frequency with. White letters represent the sovereign that is in command and control within its own inertial frame of reference,
Figure 11
As similar proximity, these sovereigns are entangled in a dance of continuity [[Ab], [Ba]] and [[Cd], [Dc]], respectively. This means when the proximity signal or frequency of [B] changes, its reflection, the sovereign proximity [b] is compelled to maintain the same frequency or proximity as [B] from its current location (coupled within [A]’s internal frame of reference.) And [a] is having a distinct, but similar, experience ad infinitum. The reflected sovereign [b] is not [B], but rather [A]’s subjective experience of [B], or the amount of friction [A] experienced as it transcended inertia to capture the [b] reflection, and [B] is also having a subjective proximity juncture experience with [a]. An experience identical to the one the [[C], [D]] sovereigns are having during their duplicitous moment. It seems contemporaneous interaction between sovereign proximity and its reflection can be more puzzling and difficult to describe than you can imagine. We propose that this is the mechanism that generates the mysterious attribute of quantum gravity.
“Let us try for an instant to consider our duration as a multiplicity. It will then be necessary to add that the terms of this multiplicity, instead of being distinct, as they are in any other multiplicity, encroach on one another; and that while we can no doubt, by an effort of imagination, solidify duration once it has elapsed, divide it into juxtaposed portions and count all these portions, yet this operation is accomplished on the frozen memory of the duration, on the stationary trace which the mobility of duration leaves behind it, and not on the duration itself.“ (Bergson, H. An Introduction to Metaphysics, p. 22, 1912.)
Sovereigns must lose proximity in the “now” moment before their signal will be inherited by a descendant. As each ensuing proximity transcends inertia, the temporal wave function alternates command and control of the dominant universal [A] position. In the [A] ↝ [B] relative frame of reference [A] can see [b], and [B] can see [a] but they will not be able to see the reflections of [C] and [D] until an ensuing similar proximity inherits their wave function and compels them out of the relative frame of reference. This transition must occur for subsequent sets of similar proximity to observe or propagate reflections in all frames of reference. Proximity either connects or it does not connect. If it connects, there is everything. If it does not connect, there is nothing.
Subsequent similar proximity squares the number of reflections propagating, which increases the number of reflections observed in all frames of reference as shown in Figure 12. The same is true for the [b] reflection, as it is compelled to maintain a similar proximity frequency with [B] as long as [A] is observing it. All changes in [B]’s frequency (its position or momentum) are immediately reflected in all frames of reference, including [A]’s own subjective, internal frame of reference, embodied by a wave function. This wave function is the sovereign’s field of vision. This is how nanoscale phenomenon observe similar proximity in corporeal reality within the nano-phenomenology framework.
Figure 12
All sovereigns exist and experience corporeal reality as the singularity in its own “private Idaho” from the smallest nanoscale particles to the largest superclusters. All are equal in duplicity, compelling proximity from the dominant universal position simultaneously. Figures 13 indicate that everything exists as duplicity [A] ↝ [B] no matter what scale is being observed. The illustration depicts [A] as capturing one reflection from the [A] ↝ [B] interaction and two reflections from the [C] ↝ [D] interaction. This is aligned with the observed quantum phenomena of quarks that make up the protons and neutrons at the center of atoms.
Figure 13a above shows how reflections, as defined in nano-phenomenology, align with the observed phenomenon of one down quark and two up quarks in protons, illustrated in the red rectangle in Figure 13a (A = [[Abcd], [Badc]] = [[Aduu], [Bduu]]) and neutrons with one up quark and two down quarks as illustrated in the green rectangle in Figure 13a (B = [[Cdab], [Dcba]] = [[Cudd], [Dudd]]). Every scale exists in duplicity so this exact scenario can also be applied to the [A] ↝ [B] example illustrated in Figure 13b.
All internal frames of reference mirror this configuration, which is consistent with the observation of quarks embodied by protons and neutrons. Scientists interested in understanding these phenomena might consider an exploration of the nano-phenomenology framework to judge for themselves if it explains some of the mysterious observations that are rampant in our experience of physical reality.
“Self-evident data are patient, they let theories chatter about them, but remain what they are. It is the business of theories to conform to the data, and the business of theories of knowledge to discriminate the fundamental types, and to describe them in accordance with their distinctive nature” (Husserl, E. Ideas, p. 89, 1931).
This is not to say that things do not exist outside the internal frame of reference. As duplicity, similar proximity persistently propagates reflections into all frames of reference. All similar proximity transcend inertia from the dominant universal [A] position. Everything exists in corporeal reality, whether or not we excite similar proximity with it. All congruent proximity are available for us to excite. Everything exists simultaneously within and without the singularity.
Should scientific inquiry validate the merits of nano-phenomenology, it merely reaffirms what has always been. There’s no existential crisis; rather, it’s a confirmation of the intrinsic nature of reality. We, as human beings, must come to realize our role as conduits, navigating the path of least resistance in an epic quest for understanding as we evolve in symbiosis with the fabric of reality.
While the wave functions [Ab] and [Ba] appear to be identical, they are actually antithetical distinct sovereigns. Mirror images, that are two separate distinct sovereign proximity combined into one similar proximity in duplicity. Each is a distinct proximity within the singularity’s subjective experience of three-dimensional spacetime. All sovereigns have a distinct subjective experience, from a unique perspective, as one thing. Frequency changes are managed by coupled oscillators moving through the dominant universal plane, respectively, using gauge symmetry of the electromagnetic four potential, following the sequences outlined in the equations of homomorphisms. Each subsequent similar proximity alternates command and control of the dominant universal [A] position as it moves through a respective dominant universal plane concurrently. The constructs that we call time and space are facilitated as each subsequent sovereign subjectively transcending inertia whizzes by its juncture in spacetime to become a single subjective “now” moment in similar proximity, as quickly as it passes into obscurity.
Stacking these relative frames of reference illustrates that the nano-phenomenology framework also seem to align with the quantum element known as the fine structure constant and provides a plausible explanation for the observed phenomena of positively and negatively charged particles.
The number of reflections captured during each proximity juncture is what is being measured. The faster ensuing proximity propagate the more reflections are captured as each ensuing proximity transcends inertia. When you move your arm the atoms in your legs do not need to move. The proximity in your arms and legs are each having a different experience with the number of ensuing proximity they are capturing or propagating, or the number of reflections they are coupling with. The number of times similar proximity alternates command of the universal [A] position is unique to each set of similar proximity. This is how different phenomena can experience time from a relative frame of reference, because they each have a different relationship with ensuing proximity. Figure 14 illustrates the experience of four sovereigns compelled to maintain proximity with congruent cohorts in all frames of reference from a dominant universal plane. Colored arrows represent each sovereign proximity that is compelled to maintain proximity with a reflection from the Dominant Universal [A] Position.
Figure 14
In nano-phenomenology, when separate proximity is compelled [A] ↝ [B] into the relative frame of reference, it is interpreted as a wave-function. Attempting to describe the simultaneous experience of a wave function requires each separate proximity is assigned a value. This scenario is presented from the universal [A] perspective because all sovereigns consider themselves as being in command as they transcend inertia exciting a privy proximity juncture experience.
It’s essential to remember that there is only one thing, the singularity. In its primordial essence, it simultaneously compels these similar proximity [A] ↝ [B], as well as all others [DU] ↝ [DU] = ^∞ as illustrated in Figure 8 above.
All elements in the set [[Ab], [Ba]] simultaneously compel proximity from the dominant universal [A] position, each with a value of one ([[Ab], [Ba]]=√1=1) within a respective dominant universal sub-plane represented by ℙ so, [Abcd] = ℙA, [Badc] = ℙB, [Cdab] = ℙC and [Dcba] = ℙD. To facilitate a simultaneous physical experience, each proximity is assigned a different value within its respective relative frame of reference as it transcends inertia concurrently in similar proximity. Sovereign proximity sub-planes are assigned the numerical values: [ℙA] = 1, [ℙB] = -1, [ℙC] = i, [ℙD] = -i, based on their respective location within a dominant universal plane.
When values are applied, each dominant universal plane uses the following order to orient properly within the equation [[[Abcd], [Badc]], [[Cdab], [Dcba]],...] to visualize how each reflection moves through a respective complex plane simultaneously, numerical values are applied: [DU] = 1, [du] = -1, [du] = i, [du] = -i, as shown in Figures 15 below. Remember, the visual model only illustrates the dominant universal [A] position.
When separate proximity is compelled into the relative frame of reference, a wave function manifests in each dominant universal plane. Consider figure 15a, where [A2] compels proximity with [B2], and figure 15b, where [C2] compels proximity with [D2]. On the first signal exchange illustrated in Figures 10, [A1] and [B1] perceive each other’s reflections in a subjectively privy inertial frame of reference, while [C1] and [D1] remain unseen to them. The same ordeal played out for [C1] and [D1] who excited similar proximity simultaneously alongside [A1] and [B1]. They were compelled out of the relative frame of reference when ensuing proximity transcended inertia, becoming descendants in perpetuity as the number of reflections being propagated into all frames of reference expands as illustrated in Figures 15 as each set of descendants compels its predecessor out of proximity.
Ensuing similar proximity [[A2] ↝ [B2]] can now see [[C] ↝ [D]] for the first time. This is the first time [[A] and [B]] have observed [[C] and [D]]. There is no way for [A] or [B] to know the coupling history of [[C] ↝ [D]] unless [[C] ↝ [D]] share their experience of friction. This is [[A] ↝ [B]]’s first experience with [[C] ↝ [D]], or the first impression. This means [A2] will observe [b2], [c1], and [d1] until [A3] compels [A2] out of the relative frame of reference, preserving the [A2b2c1d1] experience by inheriting it. Each entity is having a deeply personal and private experience that is not open to external observation or interpretation as it transcends inertia.
Figures 15 represent similar dominant universal planes, simultaneously compelling similar proximity with dominant universal plane cohorts [ℙA2], [ℙB2], [ℙC2], and [ℙD2]. Within each dominant universal plane there are four universal sub planes where reflections are compelled to maintain proximity with their reflected proximity as shown in the table above. Nano-phenomenology predicts that homomorphism in the Lorentz transformation can be applied to predict how these reflections will move through the proximital plane, offering a viable explanation to describe reality from a new perspective. As ensuing similar proximity are compelled into the relative frame of reference, at the speed of light, the number of visible reflections squares, simultaneously. Consider Lorentz transformations to understand how homomorphisms can be applied within each universal frame to compel reflections to maintain proximity with their reflected proximity, represented by: [ℙA2] = [Abcd] = [[A2], [b2], [c1], [d1]], [ℙB2] = [Badc] = [[B2], [a2], [d1], [c1]], [ℙC1] = [Cdab] = [[C1], [d1], [a1], [b1]], [ℙD1] = [Dcba] = [[D1], [c1], [b1], [a1]],...ad infinitum
In figure 16 you can see the layout and order of the matrices in Figure 15 above, is aligned with the matrices developed by Dirac in his paper “The Quantum Theory of the Electron” which predicted anti-matter. If you look at the layout in the similar proximity matrices above [[PA2], [PB2], [PC2], [PD2]] they fit nicely into the Dirac matrices. And with values applied to indicate simultaneity, as shown in Figure 17 below, you can see how they might also predict dark matter, from a nano-phenomenological perspective.
Figure 16
Considering simultaneous interaction, imagine how this equation can be applied to the electron’s position and momentum, as reflections move through each Dominant Universal sub plane. The rows in Figure 17 illustrate each subjective proximity’s inertial frame of reference, its field of vision. The first character in each row is the singularity, in the Universal [A] position, and the remaining characters in the row are the reflections it has captured, what it has observed, or the contents harmonically coupled in its universal wavefunction.
Figure 17
All reflections captured in each subjective relative frame of reference must maintain proximity with a reflected sovereign from within its respective inertial frame of reference. The circled values represent the reflections that are compelled to maintain proximity with a reflected sovereign. This is how nature maintains cohesion, or quantum gravity, in all frames of reference with all sovereigns actively participating in the experience of being, at each distinct point of proximity, or moment in the boundless perimeter of the spacetime continuum. Could exploring this idea of simultaneous interaction and interconnectedness the singularity experiences from each distinct perspective, offer a path to predicting how the particles and waves observed in an atom are produced?
Figure 18 illustrates the third signal exchange between [A] ↝ [B]. As the proximital plane expands it gets harder to describe so only a single dominant universal plane is pictured. I’m not certain the set references in the illustration below are correct at this scale. This image depicts how the wave function expands as each ensuing similar proximity transcends inertia. Each subsequent similar proximity squares the number of reflections being captured or propagated in all frames of reference. This compulsion to maintain proximity in all frames of reference is how entropy compels quantum gravity within each sovereigns own inertial frame of reference. In nano-phenomenology this constant changing of proximity is what creates the particles and forces that are observed at the microscopic scale.
In addition to the single DU [A] plane illustrated in Figure 18, the following elements would also be present (but are not illustrated) a reflected DU [B] plane as well as inverted DU [C] and [D] planes, to represent all 4 elements of the set at this larger scale. I know I should try and figure out how to draw them but I am afraid it will create confusion. From here things just continue to square and expand as ensuing proximity transcend inertia, ad infinitum.
In the Figure 19 image below I can see how the periodic alternating signal exchanges the singularity is having at each point in space time from a relative perspective along its boundless temporal pilgrimage could aligned with the idea of strings as described in a wide range of theories.
Figure 19
It was easier for me to illustrate how I imagine the sovereigns are observing reflections and compelling proximity than it was to find the words to describe what might be happening. The scientists will need to figure out what is different about the frequencies in each of their own subjective frames of reference to understand how this framework fits the quantum theories they have validated. Relativity tells us that none of us is looking at the same particles. Nano-phenomenology suggests that each and every particle is navigating friction from a relative perspective as effortlessly as possible based on the overall state of the system. Each signal exchange is a distinct privy subjective experience the singularity is having from an infinite number of points in the boundless parameter of spacetime. As stated previously, this framework is in need of a champion that has the knowledge to translate these images into an equation to validate the predicted movements of these reflections against observed quantum phenomena.
The scientists are the ones who need to figure this out. As I worked to reverse engineer these ideas I felt it must be a clue to what is causing their blind spot when I learned, even though the singularity is a foundational element in many of their theories and equations, it is common practice to adjust those same equations to account for the infinities that arise in their mathematical models. This wide spread acceptance of the status quo has caused many scientists (and philosophers) to cling to antiquated ideas about matter and mass. They have clung to these ideas for so long that the least resistant path was to find a layperson who would participate in an effort to attract and excite congruent cohorts that can move this knowledge into proximity with cohorts who are willing to validate it, because it can only achieve proximity and propagate itself in the relative frame of reference if there are cohorts who are willing to observe it.
I can only hope that scientists of the future will take heed of the delays caused by this lack of flexibility and recognize that knowledge is a gift from the singularity, a shared resource that we must contemplate to learn how to reduce friction, with the purpose of creating the least resistant path through spacetime for all in the collective, as a whole. The singularity uses our experience of physical reality to learn from itself. Many in this first quarter of the twenty first century are evolving to understand this fact and the keepers of public knowledge are denying the evidence that validates it. Knowledge is not something we create in our minds, it’s something we can recognize like an old friend, if we ask the right questions and listen closely for an answer without discounting what we are willing to recognize as truth because it does not fit into our belief system.