SolREI, Inc.

A strategic sustainability company

The Emergence Model

Emergence

The Emergence Model

Emergence Phenomena
Emergence Phenomena

There are several topics needing to be covered here. Answering ‘what’ this EIM is being one of them actually needs to be driven by ‘why’ it was needed in the first place. That driving need then is the entry into the discussion here.

Briefly Why and a Little on How

The Emergence Model arose from the original systems review where incongruent concepts were repeatedly encountered and could not be answered easily. Part of our review involved phenomena across the solar system. The inability to employ a common geometric basis point became a chief sticking point and when we went to find out why that was so, what we encountered were several points made by Stephen Hawking who said, before his passing and paraphrasing here, that physics would never be unified until we could fully couple all real objects and all real forces in every frame of reference. We went so far as to engage the WMAP team before they disbanded to parts unknown, regarding the Big Bang. We pressed them on why it banged in the first place. Their answer at the time was: “quantum fluctuations in finite regions of space”. Which made absolutely no sense to us whatsoever. To us that sounded a great deal like a philosophical chicken and egg problem. The reason is that spacetime was, in their theories, made manifest by the Big Bang. Let’s dive into that just a bit to point out that if space and time do not yet exist, then there is nothing to fluctuate and if there was something to fluctuate, then the Big Bang did not “make it manifest”, rather it simply unraveled something that already existed. Objectifying that thought experiment meant asking why that situation existed at all, and that required some very hard questions to be asked and answered. More than that we wanted to know why no one had already done that work. We asked that question too and we received no good replies. Someone, at some point, said: why don’t you do it if you think you can. We noodled on that a minute and took up the chase, fully expecting to fail.

What we knew was that the best minds on the planet had not accomplished unification (e.g. to Hawkings satisfaction). Skipping years of effort and minutia McGowen was working on the primary project and no unification was not that. We needed to have unification in order to solve the problem we were working on, which is another story for another time. Point being that he had Einstein‘s papers scattered all over his desk trying to connect the dots between our project and what science knew at the time. It wasn’t working and it was very frustrating. A moment of incredible inspiration transpired when with one of Einstein‘s papers in his hand, he stood from his office chair to go grab a cup of coffee, and as he stared at the words on that page muttered: ‘that makes sense’ and in that instant – froze. He kept repeating that statement over and over again until it became ‘that makes logical sense’. His knees literally gave out and fell back into his chair with his head in his hands. He sat there for well over an hour sorting all that out from a systems engineering point of view (he had spent several decades in the information systems industry). This point of inspiration asked the question: was humanity actually working with reality or a logical view of it? That inflection point set off a quest to see if anyone, anywhere, had tried to make that case and that’s when we found one: Susanne K Langer who said (paraphrasing here): mistaking abstractions for reality is a fatal epistemological error. McGowen was relieved that he didn’t have to make that case, Langer already had, and she did it in 1948 astoundingly enough. It seems only a very few grasped the profound implications of what she was saying, but even in those few cases none of the dots were connected back throughout science using those insights. We adopted that mission too and named those types of epistemological errors after Langer to honor the body of her work. Recognizing that what Einstein had done was logically correct was more liberating than it might appear (to a physicist). The problem was that scientists everywhere were committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) rampantly and did not understand the implications of that mistake. We communicated with some of most brilliant minds anywhere. Many would simply cite “our math works and you can’t argue with that”. They graciously patted us on the head and sent us on our way. They did not understand what we knew, that you can have a logically correct view and the underlying physical reality can remain something entirely different. Online games employ exactly that tactic to create those virtual worlds in the products ensnaring generations in mind numbing adventures. The only difference is that scientists work to only employ empirically derived values in their equations. Programmers for those virtual worlds deliberately do exactly the opposite, plugging in values nowhere close to reality provides their characters with superhuman capability and vast fleets of starships routinely violate the litmus of reality.

Even at this early juncture while we knew we were on the right track, because of everything else we had been working on seemed converging on an epicenter of concepts. We reviewed everything from interferometer construction to frame dragging to the gps constellation communications. Once upon a time McGowen worked on some Internet stuff in his tenure in corporate America. During that period technology was developed, now in every Internet ISP connection system called a Translation Table. When you connect your computer to the Internet, you connect through that ISPs host system, on which resides this table. The purpose of that table is to translate human readable URL addresses in to real computer addresses out on the network somewhere. That way your data traffic can be properly routed. Like a phoenix from the ashes that general concept emerged in to McGowen’s consciousness to form the basis of what would ultimately become Translation Matrices. You see if what Einstein had done was absolutely, 100%, logically correct, and there was no reason to suspect otherwise, then that meant that a completely different approach might also be possible, and just as logically correct. The idea was to surround actual reality with enough different logically correct models to discern more clearly how it might work. We then only need compare it to the reality to test any given hypothesis. That process led, in one case in particular, to some disturbing revelations. McGowen, by profession (different from his education which began studying aerospace engineering), is a business process reengineering expert (other’s words not his or ours).  That background however explains why he expects root cause analysis, six sigma, Baldrige, ISO 9001 QMS, and standards into these efforts. Looking at these various methodologies then, in abstraction, objectively, in context of Langer’s work, and employing standard Systems Engineering practices, principles and processes, the utility process, technological framework (e.g. Translation Matrices and the ISO 9001 Unification Tool) began to develop and mature. Ultimately they became the basis for our application filing that is at this writing Patent Pending 16405134 Elegant Reasonism.

Developing the Emergence Model reconciled two key drivers that were previously business inhibitors to our original systems review:

  1. The ability to employ a real common geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference. The cogent description of M5 explains this as a function of Most Basic Particles (MBPs), which were deliberately labeled as such because it did not matter how small anyone ever divided matter it would only improve the resolution of what constituted one of those constructs, and would never invalidate the idea.
  2. The second problem needing reconciliation was fully coupling those same real objects to all forces acting upon them. This required the model we were investigating be capable of instantiating force, across all circumstances, scales, reference frames and the entire entanglement gradient. That’s no small feat. The answer to that problem was the intrinsic nature of MBPs deriving two fundamental processes. The first was, in this case, limited by the second.  This avenue of investigation ultimately developed: The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. The cogent description provides rich fodder for Thought Experiments, Propositions, Concept Sieves, for all sorts of investigations. It is important here that investigators be able to conversationally distinguish the process from the framework from the epistemology (despite all three of those domains of discourse being here holistically labeled Elegant Reasonism) from the resulting encapsulated interpretative model (EIM) which they produced, in this case The Emergence Model. Consequently the issue then is articulating instantiation of those forces in terms of each other and ultimately Emergence Model Concept Sieve 01 (EMCS01) did that and we could mode shift EMCS01 between M1, M2, and M5 via M4. If these EIM designations seem confusing please see Modeling Reality Part 1 and Modeling Reality Part 2 articles herein. Essentially what we did was:
    1. Consistent with Proposition 0025 we shifted our focus off the medium of the reference frame and onto the real objects inside that reference frame,
    2. we then realized that status quo thinking was using two kinds of reference frames in most discussions (e.g. Newtonian and inertial frames for relativistic topics) and at least part of the reason for that schism was scalability of theories underpinning those lines of inquiry. Consequently we had to develop a new type of reference frame which ultimately became: The Event Frame which has seven phase steps describing predominant action in that relative phase,
    3. ISO 9001 QMS prevented us from using the term ‘space’, in any characterization specifically due to the cogent description of, in this example M5, defining it as dimensionless nothing. Simplistically ‘nothing’ can not influence ‘anything’ real. That line of discussion entails Thought Experiment 0004: Something vs Nothing.  The very direct implication of this meant that force instantiation had to come from mass in the frame. That implied kinetic architecture and the original systems review did not disappoint. We found Knot Theory. That facet of reconciliation came then from Knot Theory‘s intrinsic employment of complex constituent, but highly discontinuous, geometric maps. Iterations of the Emergence Model testing different entanglement characterizations finally settled on MBPs entangling with at most two other MBPs each. Under Elegant Reasonism Rules remain classified as iterations of The Emergence Model. Such intrinsic nature found MBPs entangling into lines (e.g. fractal initiators), which form strings, which form ‘knot invariants’, which form Preons, which form particles (of varying degrees of longevity due to architectural phase resonance and which also explains matter/antimatter reactions), which form 100% of all subatomic particles, which form elements, which at this point in the scale of things branch into two types of matter as a function of the discontinuous geometric nature of Knot Theory: inorganic and organic. Organic simply has greater range of motion and instantiates animation of action due to the nature of interactions scaling. Inorganic simply continues the entanglement gradient constraining action along different lines. The distinguishing characterization of action between the two being how easily Severance breaks down in organic constructs. In every case, the process continues along the emergent vector isotropically up the entire entanglement gradient. And that small schism reminds us that Severance is a derivative process of the intrinsic nature of MBPs. The implication is that everything real is a configuration of MBPs made manifest by the Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. Interesting as all this is it raises issues of measurement, and what appears to be instantaneous action from some experiments. All of which were reconciled when we discovered Bell Inequality experiments and mode shifting those results (which had been discounted by entrenched pundits) into alignment produced the needed insights in to superluminal action. Studying that sentence recursively to full cognizance, ultimately, we arrive at the revelation and insight that this includes black holes, and that somewhat astounding insight leads very directly to being able to characterize the entire unified Universe Bang to Bang. The prevailing insight here has to do with the intrinsic architectural nature of mass.
      1. Under The Emergence Model, because time is an action displacement index of dynamic, kinetic, architectural masses interacting within a given Event Frame it is important to understand the context imposed. This intrinsically explains why the arrow of time is always positive. Once we understand those issues, we move on to cognizance of the source of mathematics. The MBP is the quintessential integer. Moving up the entanglement gradient then we have other sets of numbers emerging conceptually. Under the Emergence Model the dimensional nature of real objects has to do with the dimensional nature of MBPs, not space (which is by definition here: dimensionless). The only time which exists is now. All other considerations of time are logical in nature and not real. The ‘now’ of time instantiates our logical contemplations. In the language of systems engineering that would be a real view instantiating a logical view. Consequently the concept of causality is a function of these discussions. While it is necessary to have logical correctness it is insufficient in order to gain the precipice of unification which there we must also close doing so in a fully compliant manner consistent with standards. Our Baldrige declaration and content of this website will ultimately fulfill those requirements here (though we have one hell of a lot of work in front of us).
      2. Taking the MBP as a system implies that everything real is a system or system of systems. That insight makes Systems Engineering an incredibly valuable skill going forward and it will be vital for all sorts of curricula to embrace that information science discipline to its fully extent and capability.
      3. Standards organizations like NIST, ISO, and others around the world will need to embrace and integrate the process, framework, metrics, decision checkpoints, and epistemology into their models exactly because the source of truth matters! The source of truth under Elegant Reasonism is nothing short of the unified Universe itself.

Recapping, simplistically, why we did this was driven by the need to employ a common real geometric basis point across a real reference frame that encompassed the entire solar system and we had to fully couple all fundamental forces within that reference frame. Status quo thinking could not accomplish that objective, and we really weren’t getting any help and as a result had to get that done ourselves. We did do it. We had to go into the field to validate our findings and in the process our team was subjected to unexpected hard gamma radiation. We filed the appropriate reports with the appropriate agencies, all of which is a different story. Insights gained from those expeditions helped us to mode shift other domains of discourse and confirm our expectations to the satisfaction of ourselves and our stakeholders.

Getting There

In many respects convergence and emergence are corollary concept requirements of unification in context of the entanglement gradient. Emergence is a powerful phenomena which enables fundamental characterization of foundational relationships which connect every concept reflecting reality and do so with simultaneity while at that same moment also not committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) but it must also be balanced against convergence of all that is as well. Essentially these two terms (e.g. Convergence and Emergence) imply a scale vector associated with the entanglement gradient. Emergence works small to large and convergence works large to small. Emergence is not just about material particles but how such empowers all facets of reality through credible evidence chains reflecting how those Paradigms of Interest/Nature (POI/N) are made manifest, no matter how restful they may be. The Emergence Model of Particle Physics is essentially a mode shifted instance of The Standard Model of Particle Physics. Both approaches to particle physics are creatures of their respective Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs). The Emergence Model holistically represented by M5 & M6, while traditional Standard Model is derived from M1, M2, and M3. The former closes to unification across the entire entanglement gradient and does so Bang to Bang. The latter does not, nor will it ever since its core constructs and their relationships preclude it, exactly because nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy and in that act eliminates all possibility of employing a common real geometric basis for any reference frame. The same interface precludes full coupling of reference frames for the same reasons. What we are here discussing however, is not the inability of those models but the capability of this model to manifest everything real while simultaneously reflecting the unified Universe.

The Holistic Cogent Description

The Emergence Model logically draws its basis from Most Basic Particles (MBPs). MBPs are the quintessential integer, and it is through their “intrinsic nature” all other concepts are derived. It is the MBP in M5 which manifests the three dimensions associated with all real objects not space. M5 & M6 are centrally characterized by two processes so derived; “The Fundamental Entanglement Function” which is limited by the other, Severance. The Fundamental Entanglement Function, the ‘build’ process, entangles MBPs into all configurations of “architectural mass” generally envisioned to follow Knot Theory, including dark matter within any given Event Frame. Severance, as an independent process, is ‘the failure mode’ of any given configuration of MBPs and represents the limits of architectural mass to remain intact specifically due to the intrinsic nature of constituent MBPs. Space in both EIMs are dimensionless nothing. Force, all force, is the work instantiated through the Intrinsic Action of configurations of MBPs forming architectural mass. Architecture of relative and respective constructs so configured determines physical properties which manifest. Time is an “action displacement index” of the relative and respective architectural masses in the frame. Energy is the ability of relative and relevant architectural mass to do that work.

 

Unification

Unification demands convergence of all real concepts and their emergence relative to and respective of their ability to reflect not just perceived reality but the reality of the unified Universe. Both convergence and emergence must be enabled in a philosophical manner that illuminates and illustrates across all scales of the entanglement gradient and reference frames entering science.  Questing unification demands an ability of those requirements to manifest emergence of all that is. That convergence itself must be explained and at the same time result in illuminating illustratively systemic relationship across the continuum reality represents. This is more than a philosophical debate and it must credibly converge all of philosophy and science with the unified Universe. After all we are an intrinsic part of all that is.

  • Unification demands and requires the capability to employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects in the same, any, or all, reference frames and the MBP fulfills that requirement.
  • Unification demands and requires that all real objects be fully coupled to all forces acting across all scales for those objects in all frames of reference
  • The Event Frame is the reference frame for interacting real objects of the Emergence Model
  • Because Local Frames, by definition, are isolated by space, (as defined by The Emergence Model), their architectures of mass must be represented by the set of imaginary complex numbers which may be rendered real entering an Event Frame.
  • Event Frames & Local Frames may be nested in any permutation

FAQs

Readers here should take note that many of the pages across this system also have FAQs pages associated with them. A few are specifically mentioned here. All of them remain under heavy development as we work to bring all of the material we have online. Please bear with us as we work through these issues. We are few and you guys are many…

Philosophical Predicate Priority

The philosophical predicate priority for The Emergence Model was that it close to unification, (e.g. it was in full compliance with the realm of the c’s), before any other consideration, but what readers should understand about the cogent description written for both M5 and M6, is that that paragraph was not written first, it was reverse engineered as a result of a recursive systems review involving some 403 concepts and ‘developed’ using Elegant Reasonism over almost 20 years. What we found as a function of that systems review was that Elegant Reasonism did not just unify physics, it qualified as an epistemology, and it managed to describe our Universe Bang to Bang. Holistically that was a pretty epic achievement not lost on us. Consequently Elegant Reasonism is Patent Pending 16405134 and since that filing the USPTO published Elegant Reasonism worldwide on 26 Nov 2020. See Press Release entitled Unification Accomplished for details).

 

The Emergence Model’s Views

Information science and Systems Engineering tells us that every real object has two views; one logical and one physical. The knee jerk reaction, especially for physicists, is to believe that we humans work directly with physical reality and nothing could be further from the truth. Humans work with abstractions of reality and believing otherwise is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Logical views of physical systems are more precise because their inputs and outputs are precisely defined and there is always more than one physical manner to accomplish the same physical task. SolREI has therefore invested more of our time working with The Emergence Model’s logical view M5 than we have its physical view M6 for exactly these reasons.

To be clear: The Emergence Model is the holistic integration of 100% of both its logical and physical views. There is no either/or condition here. The physical view must support the logical view and the logical view may not implement or manifest anything not supported by the model’s physical views. Remember that something may be logically correct yet remain physically different. Also remember that there may exist more than one iteration of both views and just to give everyone a headache also remember that all of those iterations may be simultaneously logically correct. What is expected however that some pair of these one logical and one physical have a higher affinity when held against the actual real unified Universe, which is always held litmus.

M5

M5 is the base iteration of all logical views for The Emergence Model (e.g. M5.0000, M5.0001, M5.nnnn, …) All iterations are expected to be ultimately defined, by international committee in the ISO 9001 Unification Tool.

M6

M6 is the base iteration of all physical views for The Emergence Model (e.g. M6.0000, M6.0001, M6.nnnn, …) All iterations are expected to be ultimately defined, by international committee in the ISO 9001 Unification Tool. The big known unknown here concerns issues revolving around the architectures of mass.

 

The Emergence Model of Particle Physics

The Emergence Model is holistically represented by M5 & M6. The Emergence Model of Particle Physics is a derivative of those model’s cogent description which enables mode shifting M1 (or M2) to M5 and back again across the entire Entanglement Gradient from both emergence vectors and convergence vectors. The Standard Model mode shifted. Some of the critical insights developed during our systems review. The Standard Model of Particle Physics was the most successful model in science while it remains logically correct and for the most part agrees with experiment it does not close to unification. In order for that to happen we must mode shift the M1 Standard Model of Particle Physics into the M5 Emergence Model of Particle Physics. When we do that suddenly we understand why neutrinos have mass. We can explain dark matter in terms of entanglement saturation and density relative to and respective of specific architectures of mass. Holistically concepts, propositions, thought experiments, and a great deal more conspire to explain the matter in the unified Universe. Suddenly we can explain why galaxies are accelerating away from each other and we can describe our portion of the unified Universe Bang to Bang. Gravity under M1 is a phenomena that occurs because mass warps spacetime. Mode shifting gravity to M5 manifests the Graviton as being responsible for Gravity and we also understand that it is polarized high mass – low mass and at distance incurs a polar shift toward its anchor point and that is why the galaxies are accelerating away from each other because just as in electromagnetism like poles repel one another.

Physical Properties

Taken as Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) the set of physical properties are represented by Emergence Model Concept Sieve 02 (EMCS02). The original systems review included both EMCS01 and EMCS02. EMCS03 are now considered but were not an official part of the original systems review as originally conducted. That is not to say that thermodynamics (the subject of EMCS03) was not of interest it’s just that those investigations took place prior to the concept of mode shifting was invented. It could be fairly said that thermodynamic insights helped drive and motivate further development of both Elegant Reasonism and The Emergence Model.

Basis

The basis of The Emergence Model is the “Most Basic Particle” or MBP and its intrinsic nature, from which all other characterizations of reality are reflected no matter how restful they may be. Everything about the model is a derivative of this construct. Any MBP or set of them may act as the geometric basis of any and all reference frames, without exception. The cogent description of M5 resulting from our original systems review is a manifestation of that capability. Everything real is some configuration of these constructs. MBP are generally considered to be ‘a system’ and configurations of them are essentially ‘systems of systems’.

Derivative Processes

The processes associated with The Emergence Model are derivatives of the intrinsic nature of MBPs. That means that the nature of MBPs had to be defined as a predicate priority during our original systems review before these derivative processes could be established.

The Fundamental Entanglement Function

The actual algorithm, equation, formula for this function is at the moment in the future. However, it is expected to be a fractal. We will update this section with more information as we have time to help others understand how far we got with this. Taking individual MBPs as a ‘Fractal Initiator’ we then begin following both the Fractal Geometry of Nature established by Benoit Mandelbrot and Knot Theory simultaneously.

Severance

Have you ever performed the predicate mathematics solving for Einstein‘s Coefficients for Emission of a photon? If you have you skated right over clues pointing straight at Severance. The only reason McGowen spotted it was because he was looking for those clues.

Entanglement Gradient

The entanglement gradient then is the spectrum across which configurations of everything real are made manifest across all scales. Until an adequate comprehensive systems review can be conducted with a sufficiently powerful computing platform (likely at least an order of magnitude more powerful than Summit) Architectural Mass measurements are in Electron Volts units. We do not as yet possess the technology to probe with smaller configurations of MBPs. Remember that in order to be able to talk about a ‘size’, you need at least two particles. The proton for example, does indeed have a size, but this is because it has internal structure — it is made up of other particles. The same goes for the atom, it consists of electrons and a nucleus. However, if you have a truly fundamental particle at hand, there is no way you can assign a size to it. Until technology catches up our measurements essentially stop with the Electron rather than the MBP. The MBP in the larger sense would considered the most fundamental particle possible. Everything real is, under this model, comprised of them.

Emergence vector

The Emergence vector of the Entanglement Gradient is from the smallest scale to the largest constructs known to science. Along this vector everything real is made manifest and all physical properties and phenomena emerge as a result. Properties infer intrinsic structure and structure infers intrinsic properties (Propositions 0010, 0017, and 0149). We could have called this holistic model the Convergence Model rather than the Emergence Model but McGowen prefers sunrises with coffee to sunsets.

Convergence vector

The Convergence vector of the Entanglement Gradient is from the largest scale to the smallest constructs known to science and under this Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) (e.g. M5) that particle is refered to as the Most Basic Particle or MBP.

Most Basic Particles (MBPs)

MBPs emerged during our original systems review as a product of several thought experiments. Our notes from that review are available exclusively on this website. The intrinsic nature of MBPs was developed there and derives The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance which configures MBPs into lines/strings which due to that nature are construed to follow Knot Theory into higher orders of complexities across the entire entanglement gradient. Because everything real is so configured in this manner forming all architectures of mass means also that everything real is subject to those same processes under unification rules. The direct implications are that under the right conditions all architectural mass (e.g. everything real) is subject to Severance. That insight results in realizing that Event Frames exceeding Severance for one or more real objects results in the Frangibility of those objects and it is for that reason impact dynamics result in craters which are wider than they are deep (because momentum and inertia are divided across the mirth of particles during EFPS5). Using the Sol System as a laboratory we found insight consistency across every body in hydrostatic equilibrium.

NOTE: On Architectural Configurations

As we walk up orders of complexities in Knot Theory we quickly encounter the fact that knots are composite creatures inclusive of lower ordered constituents. The higher ordered complexities then are complex composites containing permutations of constituents. Continuing far up this path along the emergence vector of the entanglement gradient these constructs are responsible for the manifestion of all physical properties and types of matter. Configurations are in one sense discontinuous and it is exactly that nature which enables organic matter from inorganic beginnings. As we explore these various configurations we encounter structural saturation and density issues which compartmentalize and constrain interaction dynamics as a function of those architectures and it is exactly this nature which is responsible for the concept of ‘dark matter’. That same realization insight instantly eliminates any possibility for ‘dark energy’ as only one type of energy is needed for the cogent description of M5. What is likely even more relevant in the subsequent particle discussions here is this complex composite concept and various permutations of constituents. These various concepts instantly conspire forcing us to realize that many mode shifted particles are in fact hybrids and likely also include ‘dark components’ within them. Linkages within electromagnetism, for example. Whether particles may persist as individual particles depends on their configuration structure resonance not exceeding Severance for that construct. That structural resonance being out of phase is what distinguishes matter from antimatter. Preons damping quarks is what keeps protons and neutrons together. So the distinguishing characteristic manifesting Severance is the structural configuration. The allegory from engineering school might be concrete canoes or bridges made from straws or Popsicle sticks. The point is ‘structure matters’. For these reasons we refer to not just mass but Architectural Mass.

Preons

  • Preons form the particle region between individual MBPs and the smallest, shortest lived virtual particle defined to the Standard Model
  • Virtual Particles are simply configurations of MBPs whose harmonics resonate to Severance
  • When we measure the mass of individual quarks and then compare the mass of particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons we find the largest portion of the higher ordered construct to be comprised of Preonic configurations which serve to dampen and constrain the quarks
  • A great deal of R&D is needed to determine:
    • manifestation of physical phenomena due to architectures
    • permutations of architectures
    • likely architectures for every particle already in inventory

NOTE: Properties infer intrinsic structure and structure infers intrinsic properties (Propositions 0010, 0017, and 0149).

Gravitons

Architcture of Mass responsible for the physical property of gravity.

Quarks

Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.

Electrons

Electrons are a fundamental particle manifesting the physical property of electricity.

Magnetrons

Magnetrons are a theoretical particle manifesting the physical property of magnetism in both B and H fields.

Protons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neutrons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elements

Are permutations of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons.

 

Reference Frames

Traditional reference frame thinking must be mode shifted into alignment with the unified Universe. Our original systems review resulted in two types of reference frames as a result of our effort. Event Frames may nest Local Frames and Local Frames may nest Event Frames. Reference frames here are scale invariant. That is to say they do not change their fundamental character as a function of scale. These reference frames carry no intrinsic attribute, rather those attributes must be ascribed to the real objects in the frame and not the frame itself. The geometric basis of any reference frame may be any MBP or set of them in any configuration across the entire entanglement gradient, limited by Severance, and do so Bang to Bang consistent with the unified Universe.

Event Frame

The Event Frame articulates interacting real objects either directly, indirectly, and due to the discontinuous nature of The Emergence Model in general these would include real objects possessing any vector that would have any influence on the objects in the frame either because of presence or absence. Event Frames may be nested within one another for convenience. Predominant action within any given Event Frame is generally construed to be in one of seven phase steps:

EFPS1

EFPS1 generally describes a cascade resulting in Severance. It is worthy to note that The Fundamental Entanglement Function is limited by Severance and because it is so limited and because both of these processes are derivatives of the intrinsic nature of the core constructs of The Emergence Model (e.g. Most Basic Particles or MBPs) they are intrinsic to everything real.

EFPS2

EFPS1 results in a shift of focus from a source to the Severed target real object and once so Severed that real object departing enters EFPS2. EFPS2 may generally be considered analogous to geodesic cruise under M1. It is worthy here to note that objects in EFPS2 may interact with one another but they do not materially contribute to either. The original object severed under EFPS1 remains in its EFPS2 status as long as it is not ‘captured’ by any other real object (e.g. architecture of mass). Objects may interact but do so in a manner that preserves the object of focus remains in its Event Frame essentially unscathed.

EFPS3

EFPS3 finds that original object severed under EFPS1 having traveled some distance transiting EFPS2 now materially captured in this Event Frame Phase step.  This does not mean the objects have merged it simply means that they are interacting in a manner that assures all real objects in the master Event Frame remain in that frame.

EFPS4

EFPS4 finds that originally severed object significantly interacting with another object in a manner resulting in potentially harmonic feedback on an inbound vector. There are a number of means through which interaction may transpire and which investigators would need to mode shift in order to study properly.

EFPS5

EFPS5 is analogous to MaxQ or a point of maximum interaction (e.g. energy). This phase is analogous to the term used by the LIGO team as ‘merger’.

EFPS6

EFPS6 is generally construed in this scenario description as ‘subsidence’ or ‘normalization’. This phase is analogous to the term used by the LIGO team as ‘ring down’.

EFPS7

EFPS7 is, in this scenario description, the endurance phase of this Event Frame. Here actions generally associated with chemistry and geographic considerations transpire.

Local Frame

The Local Frame describes any real object completely isolated by space, as defined by The Emergence Model regardless of any vector it may posses such that is not nor expected to enter an Event Frame. Real objects described by Local Frames, by definition, may interact only with themselves.

 

Orders of Complexities

‘Orders of Complexities’ refers to the complexity of any given configuration. Our original systems review arbitrarily established ten levels of such ‘orders’ and we agree that decision needs review, scrutiny, and likely another pass through a systems review by an international committee. In any event that original grid holds individual MBPs as 1st order constructs and Supermassive Black Holes as 10th ordered constructs with everything else somewhere in between and where Preons form a class between individual MBPs and low ordered subatomic particles found in The Standard Model.

 

Original Systems Review Insights

The Emergence Model was developed as a function of an original investigation whose processes & methodologies were simultaneously resulted in the codified utility process and framework we now recognize as Elegant Reasonism. To be clear: Elegant Reasonism is the epistemology supported by a utility process which produced The Emergence Model. Essentially the Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM) entitled The Emergence Model is a mode shifted version of The Standard Model of Particle Physics and holistically is represented by two different views; M5 (Logical) and M6 (Physical). Humanity is not yet mature enough to investigate M6 and so the vast majority of effort has been focused on M5. The original systems review successfully mode shifted 60+ thought experiments, 403 equations/concepts, 160+ propositions and a great deal more. The notion of a ‘concept sieve‘ was developed suggesting that every item listed had to successfully mode shift in order to consider the investigation complete.

 

Architectures

The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance, configures MBPs into complex, discontinuous, composite architectures of mass, generally construed to follow Knot Theory, as a function of their intrinsic nature. Low ordered configurations generally fall into a class of configurations called Preons. If we take, for example, protons or neutrons, and add up the masses of their constituent quarks we find a discrepancy between the sum of quark masses and the masses of their parent particle. The delta in mass is comprised of Preons which therein serve to dampen quark architectures, consequently binding them into the relative and respective higher ordered particle. MBPs will follow their intrinsic nature superluminally. It should be noted that such composite constructs will vibrate and resonate consistent with their relative and respective configurations manifesting particular architecture. Such structures under such circumstances manifest what in The Standard Model is perceived as the Higgs Mechanism. This is why we see the results we do in particle experiments. Matter / Antimatter reactions are architectures which their relative and respective resonance exceeds Severance in those Event Frames.

 

The Larger Tapestry

Convergence and Emergence across the entire entanglement gradient represent anchor points for various domains of discourse and detail sets philosophically for all of science. The challenge for us all is in pulling ourselves up above status quo thinking and affecting the appropriate paradigm shifts necessary to great effect. There are interesting subjects with fascinatingly new questions. Some dealing with distinctions segregating requirements across all EIMs. Others dealing with Unification requirements. Still others are about The Emergence Model specifically. And we must as a matter of course ask are there better EIMs than The Emergence Model which are also fully compliant and close? Closure is a compliance requirement. We have a tendency to point out closure in language articulating all of this more because all of this is still so new.

It has been observed that the MBP in M5 is the quintessential integer. The history of mathematics began with counting such integers. Even at human scales we may comprise vast numbers of the very small into scale perceived real numbers. The behavior of these MBPs is a function of their intrinsic nature from which we derive all other processes and constructs. Chief among these are two processes so derived and related such that the second limits the first. Thus we have The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance as two fundamental processes responsible for configuring MBPs into architectural mass comprising everything real.  That intrinsic nature then is behind the behaviors of these particles and constitutes the ultimate source of the science we call physics. Backing away from these insights just a bit we might then characterize the emergence of mathematics and physics were made manifest in this manner, restful to some degree though it may be. We hold it self-evident that sentience arises from complex organic systems for the reason you are sitting where you are reading this material. The challenge then is recognizing the mode shifted evidence chain linkage across both emergence and convergence domains of discourse across the entanglement gradient. In this manner we can employ Elegant Reasonism in domains of discourse as far removed as art appreciation or economics. We can continue these characterization pursuits across all subjects, disciplines, and endeavors. In hindsight we should expect nothing less from anything claiming to accomplish unification.

The original systems review began with something we now consider interacting objects causing Events within what are now referred to here as Event Frames and resulting in what we call Perimeters. Perimeters are everywhere across the Sol System.

 

The unified Universe held litmus

What is interesting about the following list is how mode shifting the following list changes definitions underneath various abstractions at fundamental levels and how the answers change to what, when, where, why and how questions. This list is not in any particular order and we will be considerably updating it as soon as possible.

  • Newton’s First Law of Motion: The first law states that an object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a net force.
  • Newton’s Second Law of Motion: The second law states that the rate of change of momentum of a body over time is directly proportional to the force applied, and occurs in the same direction as the applied force.
  • Newton’s Third Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
  • Law of conservation of mass-[Lavoisier, 1744]: Matter is neither created nor destroyed in the course of chemical reaction although it may change from one form to other
  • Law of definite proportion [Proust, 1799]: The composition of a compound always remains a constant i.e. the ratio of weights of different elements in a compound; no matter by j whatever method, it is prepared or obtained from different sources, remains always a constant
  • Law of multiple proportion [John Dalton, 1804]: According to this law, when two elements A and B combine to form more than one chemical compound then different weights of A, which combine with a fixed weight of B, are in a proportion of simple whole number
  • Law of reciprocal proportions [Ritche, 1792-94]: When two elements combines separately with third element and form j different types of molecules, their combining ratio is directly i reciprocated if they combine directly
  • The law of Gaseous volume: [Gay Lussac 1808]: According to this law , when gas combine , they do so in volume which bear a simple ratio to each other and also to the product formed provided all gases are measured under similar conditions.

 

 

Shop Now!

 

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Emergence #Unification #EIM #M5 #M6 #UnifiedUniverse #Reality #Philosophy #Axiology #Epistemology #Ontology #Science #Supervenience #BigBang

Post Views: 259

You missed

A Case in Point Article Elegant Reasonism Patent Pending 16405134 Excellence and Quality Open Letter Public Press Release

@I00005

May 30, 2023 Charles McGowen
A Case in Point Article Elegant Reasonism Patent Pending 16405134 Excellence and Quality

@I00004

May 22, 2023 Charles McGowen
A Case in Point Article Elegant Reasonism Patent Pending 16405134 Excellence and Quality News

@I00003

May 18, 2023 Charles McGowen
Article Elegant Reasonism Patent Pending 16405134 Excellence and Quality News Open Letter Public Press Release

WhyF

May 12, 2023 Charles McGowen