Entanglement Gradient

What common concept thread links the smallest real object in the unified Universe to the largest? The answer to that question is the intrinsic nature of Most Basic Particles (MBPs) from which two key processes are derived: the Fundamental Entanglement Function, which is limited by the second; Severance. Between the small and the largest exists a gradient along which everything real is made manifest. Herein we call that gradient the Entanglement Gradient.

In many respects convergence and emergence are corollary concept requirements of unification. 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. There is a notion within M1‘s Standard Model of Particle Physics that defies classes of real objects which here is simply acknowledged as an Entanglement Gradient. The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance configures Most Basic Particles (MBPs) in to complex composite, discontinuous, architectures of mass. Each differing configuration considered as a system implies that everything real is a system or system of systems so configured. What’s more this entanglement gradient is dependent on one philosophical concept ‘the intrinsic nature of MBPs‘.  Unlike M1 where, as we explore concepts like quantum gravity and fluidic spacetime, that EIM‘s core constructs become more akin to the historical luminiferous aether. Everything on this gradient is configured (e.g. entangled) in the same manner, by the same processes under the same conditions. From that single point come a variety of insights that answer many, if not most, questions that have eluded scientists through the ages. The second sentence here is insightful beyond measure and it sets up conditions that span scales. Have you ever looked at craters on the moon and wondered why they are wider than they are deep? The answer to that question is buried in that second sentence. What emerges from those processes is a condition where architectures of mass are frangible under conditions of Severance and that answers that question about the craters (and a great deal more).

This page generally conforms to Elegant Reasonism‘s process & methods, rules, and the realm of c’s.

Gradient Vectors

This gradient naturally flows smallest to largest but once read we may back up from this articulation and recognize that there are vectors associated with this gradient which may be used for investigative purposes. Each vector then might be considered to have an associated Event. That specific event would then be characterized by an Event Frame and its phase steps as appropriate for your particular investigation. Emergence and convergence then are relatively preoccupied with essentially how the other manifests real objects, properties, and phenomena. It is a matter of perspective during an investigation. Emergence might ask questions about how convergence brought together A and B to produce C. Convergence by contrast might be looking at C to discern associated patterns in order to produce A and B. Supervenience comes into play here, but keep in mind that the Events being investigated must be fully mode shifted in order to maintain critical situational awareness thinking.

Emergence Vector

The Emergence Vector herein points smallest to largest. Emergence preoccupies itself with building and instantiating manifestation of real objects, properties, and phenomena.

Convergence Vector

The Convergence Vector herein points largest to smallest. It is called convergence, rather than divergence, because we generally considered the perspective of bringing things together but remaining on the vector large to small, in order to understand how they came apart, and so in that sense this nomenclature might be slightly out of step or alignment. Nevertheless it got named such and articulation then is the challenge. Convergence then preoccupies itself with the source of objects, properties, and phenomena.

Action Function Density Per Unit Area by Instantiated Force

See EMCS01 for the various concepts on the Action Principle. Then read and likely re-read the cogent description for M5. Once we understand the implications of classifying planets as bodies which have collapsed into hydrostatic equilibrium we then ask a different set of questions than those historically posed as our precipice has changed. We then may look at the action function density vector across the entanglement gradient by instantiated force. We first note that The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance, entangles MBPs into lines. Those lines into knots generally construed to follow Knot Theory. Those knots into higher ordered constructs instantiating the physical particles recognized in particle physics. Those particles into atoms forming the chemical elements. Those elements into molecules. Keeping on the inorganic side of things we continue. Those molecules into minerals. Minerals into rocks. Rocks into planets. Planets into stars. Stars into Black Holes. Collapsing this sequence by forces overcome by lower ordered constructs whose action instantiates that lower ordered work we see higher ordered constructs dismantled in some way. We may inspect this vector in either the emergence vector or the convergence vector. What we find in either direction is a smooth transition along the gradient consistent with The Emergence Model. Electrostatic forces hold minerals within rocks. Those bonds are broken under hydrostatic equilibrium conditions, for example. Another example is that the elemental bonds are broken in stars because the action function density is higher from lower ordered constructs. Boundary layers between elements within stars is where nucleosynthesis occurs and represents another benchmark example of action function density conditions along the entanglement gradient.

Historical References

Any discussion of the manifestation of real objects must necessarily mention the historical perceptions on the medium around those objects.

Students and investigators should note that it is not fair to judge any of these historical references by modern information sciences standards. That would constitute ‘moving the goal post’ and is generally prohibited by Elegant Reasonism. The idea here is to present the thinking, at the time, by that original author. Where this specifically comes into affect is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs); which to make this point salient was first quantified by Susanne K Langer in 1948 and codified by SolREI INC. Another facet of unraveling historical points of view relative to requirements of unification are both logical and physical views in context both Systems Engineering and of LEEs. Subsequent to this contextual update in our thinking we are then required to employ critical situational awareness thinking that something may be logically correct yet remain physically different.

“We can not solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them.”, ~ Albert Einstein


NOTE: Scrolling down this page is analogous to the emergence vector and scrolling up this page from the bottom is analogous to the convergence vector.

Genesis: The intrinsic nature of MBPs derives everything real.

Most Basic Particles (MBPs)

MBPs are the smallest divisible particle defined by The Emergence Model, and as such represents the quintessential integer. Any successful division only improves and refines the definition of what constitutes an MBP, and its intrinsic nature does not change as a result. Generally MBPs, here, are construed to entangle with at most two other MBPs by definition of its intrinsic nature. (Other iterations of The Emergence Model held differing natures resulting in different numbers of entanglements. Such iterations of the model became ungainly complicated and were generally construed as not elegant.) Defining MBP‘s intrinsic nature such that only two additional MBPs may so entangle in a fashion that they are also limited by Severance elegantly results in string/line/rope configurations that then follow Knot Theory and with very high affinity String Theory.

Intrinsic Nature of MBPs

The fundamental intrinsic nature of MBPs derives everything real under The Emergence Model. Taken as a system implies that MBPs and configurations of them form systems or systems of systems comprising everything real in the unified Universe. The MBP taken as a fractal initiator implies then that the unified Universe is actually a fractal generally consistent with the fractal geometry of nature.

Speed of Entanglement

Einstein called entanglement “spooky action at a distance” because the core constructs he created with M2 obfuscated the details behind how it works. Experiments conducted are called Bell Inequality tests. The paper below was published about 1988. Mode shifting these experiments between M1, M2, M4, and M5 provides several insights, the least of which are dismantling of the limitations on the speed of light by M5. When this paper came out it was severely criticized and just about everyone pointed out that all the interferometer experiments on Earth proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the speed of light was absolutely constant, and it is, but that’s the beginning of the story – not the end.

Simplistically, the critics were correct presuming one’s mind set is firmly entrenched in any EIM whose basis employs the spacetime-mass interface. The supposition concerning the speed of light is a logic artifact of that EIM. The background issue of mode shifting all this is beyond the scope of this page. However, it is worth noting that the term ‘c’ mode shifts to mean Severance. Rapidity rules cosmological velocities, and Edwin P Hubble‘s assertions have been vindicated under M5.


Knot Theory

Because The Emergence Model defines MBPs as being able to entangle with at most two other MBPs each the resulting intrinsic nature forms strings/lines/ropes which then naturally follow Knot Theory. Propositions 0010 Structure Equals Properties and Proposition 0149 Properties infer intrinsic structure then naturally form the basis for property interpretation across all matter, including dark matter. Any given configuration of MBPs will have some degree of entanglement density and saturation associated with that individual construct. How it is configured will determine how it interacts with other configurations. If a construct is at its maximum saturation and density then it will not likely interact with other configurations unless Severance takes place. This is essentially how dark matter arises as a construct. There remains only one kind of energy and one kind of matter. What changes is how interaction is enabled by specific architectures of mass.

There are over 3.205E+32 permutations of relatively simple knots. There are 118 known elements which are just different combinations of protons, neutrons, and electron configurations. Combinations yielding 4.685E+194 theoretical permutations. The upper extremes for all of this relative to permutations is essentially irrelevant as the point is whether or not the configurations are rich enough to manifest what we know to be real and the answer to that question is yes, it is. When we couple these insights with permutations enabling structural reinforcement, movement, and the dynamics associated with the fact that the Fundamental Entanglement Function is limited by Severance we suddenly are presented with all the mechanisms needed to manifest every type of system.

Unification Accomplished

Elegant Reasonism is an epistemology supported by an analytical framework which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and it produced The Emergence Model through a dedicated systems review looking into what it is we thought we new and why.  Unification is accomplished because any individual MBP, or set of them, may act as the geometric basis for all real objects in all reference frames spanning all scales. Force, all force, is the work instantiated by the intrinsic action of architectural mass so configured. All reference frames are therefore fully coupled across all scales essentially accomplishing unification in every measurable, definable manner.

This is essentially accomplished because M5/M6 are philosophically different than M1/M2 and have a fundamentally different set of core constructs. Exploiting Elegant Reasonism we can find simultaneity of truth for any reasonable set of Paradigms of Interest/Nature (POI/N) between the sets so long as we conform to Elegant Reasonism Rules, Process & Methods, and what we call the realm of c’s (one of which is ‘close’ [to unification]).

Architectures of Mass

The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance configures MBPs into complex, composite, discontinuous architectures of mass generally construed to follow Knot Theory. That said one dimension of this entanglement gradient patently obvious from any brief scan of this page is that of scale. The Emergence Model defines MBPs such that they have three states, unimaginatively labeled zero, one, and two. Only state one MBPs have the energy to so entangle. State zero MBPs have no energy and consequently can not entangle as they possess no intrinsic action. State two MBPs possess energy exceeding Severance for all configurations. State two MBPs can only participate in these processes after some Event which thermodynamically reduces them to state one.  The list that follows below are generally construed to be comprised of state one MBPs in some configuration. It could be argued that the Event Horizon of a Black Hole is at the highest end of state one conditions and eviscerates all configurations with the possible exception of preons and gravitons; which the potential for great discussion remains. Once configured Architectures of Mass can be said to have differing saturation and densities each of which might be considered incremental gradient factors. Architectures at the high end of those scales would find interactions with other types of architectures impacted. Here is where the emergence of dark matter arises. This also explains the electric and magnetic relationship within the architecture of the photon.

Part of the insight here is that architectures are composite constructs and may have many differing constituents within their constructs. Gravitons for example are intrinsic to most configurations and is generally construed individually to be a low ordered construct easily incorporated into higher ordered architectural constructs. This is why masses have gravitational attraction with one another in the fashion that they do.

Dark Matter

Architectures of Mass will interact as a function of the configuration making manifest the details of that architecture. Configurations that are saturated to maximum density will likely only interact with State 2 MBPs. Here too there is a saturation and density gradient. Readers should also be aware that one of the expected aspects of The Emergence Model is that of Dark Matter. Matter whose configuration is saturated to limit interactions with other forms of matter as a function of that architecture. Such matter has been termed by theoretical astrophysics as ‘dark matter’; however, here there is no difference excepting its configuration saturation levels. So called Dark Energy is completely eliminated from the lexicon and does not exist under M5 or M6.

Hybrid Matter

Readers should also be aware that The Emergence Model predicts and expects higher ordered constructs to naturally integrate constituents making manifest composite architectures. Some constituents may be ‘normal’ but others may also be completely saturated (e.g. dark matter). That is to say dark matter may be a constituent component of average everyday matter, including photons. We know that photons have an electric and a magnetic component and that their frequencies and wavelengths are 90 degrees juxtaposed. What we don’t know is why or how they are made manifest. The Emergence Model expects a dark matter component acting as glue and a guiding counter which produces this behavior measured by science for a very long time.

Virtual Particles

Virtual particles are those MBP configurations whose energy signatures resonate to Severance causing failure of the configuration at the moment of end of life for that particular architecture. Some configurations last only moments and others persist greatly.

Matter-Antimatter Relationship

Matter-Antimatter pairs are configurations out of resonant phase from one another and when they come into contact cascade into Severance for the pair (e.g. EFPS1 results in Severance of that Event Frame).

Orders of Configuration Complexities

The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance (both processes derived from the intrinsic nature of MBPs) configure all architectural mass. Consequently all architectural mass is subject to this same intrinsic nature and that includes all real objects described on this page. Gravitons are generally construed as a low ordered construct and consequently survives the entanglement gradient curve into Black Holes. However, there is a more subtle point from the low ordered relative position on the gradient of the Graviton and it is that may be one of the earliest constituents within complex composites.

Hydrostatic Equilibrium

That Gravitons occupying that slot on the gradient means is that it is essentially a constituent of almost everything real. When we scroll up and down this gradient across scales there are some interesting insights that develop. One that emerges is hydrostatic equilibrium. Hydrostatic equilibrium is how we describe the processes which pull material not otherwise constrained into a sphere (e.g. spherical surface enclosing an n-ball for you geometry folks). There are several key insights within this domain of discourse and associated detail sets. One is action per unit area (See EMCS01 Action Principle oriented concepts) which yeilds entanglement function density per unit area (e.g. EMCS01 Concept 0091). One are the various impact dynamics. Another would be nucleosynthesis. Yet another pair would be the vectors along this gradient of emergence and convergence relative to the various systems configured by The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. Once the build process of entanglement begins, because entanglement itself is directly derived as a function of the intrinsic nature of MBPs means that it is incessant. It will never stop. Not ever. The only thing that capable of stopping entanglement is opportunity, and Severance. Opportunity to entangle usually implies circumstances are such that systems do not entangle with one another. They may be in a Local Frame or their relative and respective architectures may be such that they do not interact. Across this gradient then Severance transpires as a function of the relative Event Frame Phase Step for a given Event. One superficially obvious type of Event instigating Severance across the Sol System are impacts between real objects. One reason Perimeters are important is that they constitute Event evidence remaining in EFPS7 across the Sol System.  Noting then that such a collapse here occurs along the emergence vector and that impact occurs along the convergence vector. This insight will be important when you get to Bang to Bang discussions.

Redefining What Constitutes ‘A Planet’

Herein any body that has acquired enough of the right types of materials such that it may independently collapse into hydrostatic equilibrium (e.g. a sphere) constitutes ‘a planet’ (to us).


MBP intrinsic nature derives strings (e.g. rope segments) inherently following Knot Theory.


Preons are configurations of two or more MBPs but culminate in configurations which are not recognizable as any larger ordered construct or particle which may be mode shifted into The Standard Model of Particle Physics under M1. Preons are as a result not recognized discretely under M1, but may resonate collectively where in that EIM are likely perceived as Higgs Bosons.

Knot Theory

Following the intrinsic nature of MBPs which may only at most entangle with two other MBPs each low ordered configurations form lines or strings. Such lines or strings may form knots within seconds and immediately journey toward higher ordered complexities. Preons are those configurations between individual MBPs and the smallest discernible particles.

Knot Theory may make manifest discontinuous geometric maps. What that means is that configurations may be nested such that constituents are captured but free to move within those constraints. A rotor about an axis for example.  It is this aspect of the intrinsic nature which allows for organic configurations to arise from the inorganic.


Particle Constructs

The Emergence Model of Particle Physics

The Emergence Model of Particle Physics is essentially the same set of particles recognized under The Standard Model of Particle Physics with the notable exception that they have been mode shifted and constitutent particles differ slightly. The Higgs Boson for example here is generally construed as a Preon Phonon latice response. Gravity is the result of work instantiated by the intrinsic action of the Graviton particle configuration. While the Quark model remains essentially intact here, what is recognized here that is not recognized by The Standard Model are the structural damping capabilities and capacities of Preons which then keep Quarks in a bound state. When we look at the architectural mass of composite particles like the Proton and Neutron as compared to their constituent Quarks we find a great disparity that here is accounted for by the mass of Preons in those configurations that is completely unaccounted for by The Standard Model. If we drive deeper into The Standard Model we find large discrepancies largely dealing with quantum gravity and manifolds of spacetime. Since nothing real may transit the spacetime-mass interface those M1 manifolds are considered by Elegant Reasonism to be logical constructs rather than real constructs. Mode shifting these environments results in The Emergence Model successfully reflecting the unified Universe not just here in the realm of particle physics but spanning all scales from the smallest object to the most complex composite construct known to science (e.g. Supermassive Black Holes – See Bang to Bang).


The Emergence Model’s M5 description suggests that Gravitons are that architecture responsible for the phenonmena we call gravity. What we do not know is where along the entanglement gradient, specifically, gravitons fall. They are presumed to be fundamental low ordered constructs which may result in them being a constituent in almost every other systemic higher ordered construct. Whether they represent a class of Preons or a dedicated particle on the (M1) standard model has yet to be determined.

(M1) The Standard Model

The Standard Model of Particle Physics
The Standard Model of Particle Physics


Protons are constructs consisting of two up quarks and one down quark. When we sum the masses of these quarks and compare it to the mass of the parent proton we find most is not attributable to those quarks. Under The Emergence Model that delta mass is comprised of Preons.








Neutrons are constructs consisting of two down quarks and one up quark. When we sum the masses of these quarks and compare it to the mass of the parent neutron we find most is not attributable to those quarks. Under The Emergence Model that delta mass is comprised of Preons.










The Periodic Table of Elements then are permutations of lower ordered constructs.

Stellar Nucleosynthesis
Stellar Nucleosynthesis

Stellar Nucleosynthesis, through the process of nuclear fusion, manifests the elements on the Periodic Table (below). The question is how do those materials get from the interior of those stars to the surface of our planet? The answer is as stars gain architectural mass through ingesting matter and the process of nuclear fusion, will continue to grow until they can no longer support that process. We’re skipping over lots here for the sake of simplicity. When fusion temperatures can no longer sustain the outer layers of the star they begin to collapse in on lower layers. The shockwaves of that collapse drive increased levels of fusion and the star explodes as a nova or supernova. That material is then ejected out into the cosmos.

Fukang Pallasite Meteorite

See this mineral on the left here? We call that: Olivine. Peridots are made out of that. The mineral olivine (/ˈɒl.ɪˌvn/) is a magnesium iron silicate with the chemical formula (Mg,Fe)2SiO4.  That’s manganese, iron, silicon, and oxygen. Now look at the stellar interior of the above example star. Do you notice anything? During the supernova event those materials must move through one another on their way out of the star during and shortly after the event (mostly during).  Consequently it is not surprising then to find them in molecular combination in the form of minerals. Olivine is just one  example.

But what about the heavier elements in the above star example. Iron and Nickel, for example. Well they form nickle-iron matrices on their way out of the star too. Guess what? We find today, on the Earth all of these materials in combination with one another and an example of that is depicted in the image series on the right. We call those Pallasite Meteorites. The silvery material is the nickel-iron matrix, and all that green material in that meteorite? That material is, you guessed it, Olivine.

Why is all this important? See that Pallasite Meteorite in that image to the right? The point is it came out of that supernova that way. It did not form in some friggin dust cloud swirling around inside our solar system. Look again at the stellar interior above and consider the processes manifesting the materials in the object to the right. Why would planetary scientists claim that a large cloud of dust formed our solar system? The answer to that is that supernova events are very, very, far away. If we look at the speed with which supernova disperse their relative and respective materials, in the grand scheme of things, it really isn’t that fast. Doing some calculations on how long it would take that material to get from its source (e.g. the supernova) to the target where we find it today (e.g. the Earth) would take more time than since the Big Bang (e.g. our little universe) made everything manifest. So, there’s a problem somewhere.

The problem it turns out, are the Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs): M1 and M2, because how we determine how long ago the Big Bang, well, banged, is largely a function of either one of those EIMs. What happens though, if we mode shift all of this into alignment with the unified Universe? Two things happen almost immediately. The unified Universe is recognized to be unfathomably large and ancient in the extreme, perhaps beyond our ability to measure either one of those values to any degree of certainty. The reason we can not calculate that value is that those answers are on the other side of our particle horizon. What we do know is that Pallasite Meteorite depicted to the right came from inside our particle horizon, because that guy in the photos is holding it.  Quite suddenly, under The Emergence Model, specifically under M5, there is ample time for that Pallasite Meteorite to have traveled the distance it did to get here. We remind you that that man is holding that meteorite. It did make that trip. It was formed as a function of a supernova event many many lightyears away from the Earth and it traversed that distance to get here.

Consequently we can draw some immediate insights from these brief deliberations here. One insight is that M1 and M2 are logical in nature and there exist material evidence, empirical evidence, in our hands right now that support the Elegant Reasonism derived conclusions. That guy in the images to the right is holding some of that proof. Neither M1, nor M2, can reconcile this scenario, and again we point out that guy is holding that meteorite. Elegant Reasonism reconciles all of this through recognition that the EIMs M1 and M2 are logical in nature. Not a terribly bad (for status quo thinkers) insight. One might argue that M5 is logical in nature as well. So all three of those EIMs are the same in that regard. The huge revelation comes when we recognize that Systems Engineering principles demand both a logical view and a real view. The expectation was that M1 and M2 would be instantiated by the real EIM M3. Similarly the logical M5 is instantiated by its real partner M6. We then would have a powerful mix of EIMs with which to satisfy the plurality of investigative requirements employed under Elegant Reasonism. What stunned us during our original systems review was recognition that M3 did not exist at all. Working through M4 what we realized forced us to conclude that M6 was instantiating not just M5, but M1 and M2 as well. One can quickly (relatively speaking) begin connecting those logical relationships when we recognize that something can be logically correct, yet remain physically different. In this case the real EIM M6 instantiates not one logical view but four: M1, M2, M4, and M5. The single distinction here is that M5 closes to unification and the others do not, nor will they ever. The clue to the fact of all this is that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy thus precluding employment of a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference.

The above discussion will, at some point, be more fully discussed in Thought Experiment 0067: Pallasite Formation Probability: Dust Cloud vs Supernova Event.

Nuclear fusion from the original Big Bang, stellar fusion, novae, or supernova collapse results in the Periodic Table of Elements.

Nucleosynthesis Periodic Table
Nucleosynthesis Periodic Table




Molecules are chemical combinatorial permutations of elements. Molecules may be either organic or inorganic generally resulting from the discontinuous configurations, in the former case, of more animated action capabilities. Inorganic chemical combinations are generally construed as the different rocks and minerals noted by the science of geology.

John Liebler – Simulation of Kinesin Molecule Walking


Rocks and Minerals

Rocks and minerals known to geology are permutations of inorganic compounds formed from elements either discretely or in molecular form. These objects span many scales from microscopic all the way up to just prior to hydrostatic collapse into equilibrium resulting in a sphere (e.g. n-ball) generally construed to be caused by constituent Gravitons.  Asteroid 951 Gaspra, for example, has not yet collapsed.


Hydrostatic Equilibrium (e.g. Spheres)

Sol System

Hydrostatic spheres are formed when gravitational forces (e.g. action per unit area) exceed Severance for constituent constructs and physically pull the body into a spherical shape (e.g. it collapses). The physical volume of such objects spans the range from Ceres type objects to those inclusive of Saturn, Jupiter and other examples. These objects are generally construed as non-stellar in nature (e.g. behavior).

00_Sol System Planet Comparison
00 Sol Planet Comparison


Stars come in a variety of sizes and compositions. Gravitational forces have layered stellar interiors and the action per unit area at boundary layers have ignited nuclear fusion causing stars to shine. When we look at the layered nucleosynthesis between the layering we find affinity to colocated materials in rocks and minerals.

Example Nucleosynthesis
Example Nucleosynthesis
Stellar Nucleosynthesis
Stellar Nucleosynthesis

When we look at the affinity between stellar nucleosynthesis layering and co-located materials in rocks and minerals we find high affinity to correlated nova and Supernova events. There are several factors which needed to be reconciled. One was the age of the perceived Universe. The M1 model did not allow enough time in its ~13.7 billion year age for such materials to traverse the intervening distance between supernova events. However, The Emergence Model changes all that with the Bang to Bang insights. The age of the unified Universe mode shifts to become immeasurably ancient. There is ample time not only for this material to traverse those distances, there is ample time for objects like BX442 to fully form in the location where we find it in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images and in the state we find it (e.g. Grand Design Spiral Galaxy).

Collapsing Supernova
Collapsing Supernova


Neutron Stars

Neutron stars are stellar objects whose mass is so great that gravitational attraction prevents few exceptions other than neutron constituents within their composite architectures.

Black Holes

Black holes are stellar objects (essentially Graviton Stars) whose mass results in gravitational attraction (or gravitational action per unit area) so strong that not even photons escape. What we don’t know is if Graviton action per unit area simply ‘attracts’ everything including photons, or if the architectural mass that are Gravitons evicerates all entangled real configurations past their Severance values and then pulls them below the Event Horizon. What we do know is that Black Holes also span mass scales. Some rotate while others do not. Our original systems review suggests a minimum Schwarzchild Radius for Graviton Action Per Unit Area to result in such a collapse. Consequently under The Emergence Model there is no such thing as a microscopic black hole. The minimum area needed seems to be about ~30 km. While there is no maximum size to a Black Hole, they are subject to both Hawking Radiation (mode shifted) and Severance.  Because Black Holes are considered real objects under The Emergence Model they are subject to the same intrinsic nature of MBPs as every other real object. This insight forms the basis of the Bang to Bang page.

Energy Signature Taxonomy

Energy Signatures describe interacting real objects within an Event Frame. Such signatures indirectly relate to configurations on this page with one notable exception: Black Holes. The highest energy signature defined is: “Bang” (as in the Big Bang) and that ‘bang’ refers to Energy Signatures exceeding Severance for all Black Holes in the Event Frame. Mode Shifting galactic acceleration eliminates z-factors used by the Inflationary Theory (which is also dismantled) and finds high ordered multiples of the speed of light (which limitations are also dismantled when mode shifted). The implication of this is clear and Edwin Hubble would (and should) be proud of the science of spectroscopy. Those super massive black holes are racing off consistent with the Bang to Bang page and will either be consumed or Bang somewhere else far beyond our particle horizon. Remember the second sentence on this page? Know that everything real, including supermassive black holes are subject to the same to intrinsic processes: The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by the other Severance. Those two processes set up a scenario where an Event Frame of sufficient Severance would exhibit the frangibility of architectural mass that are those black holes. Such an Event would return those objects to their origins (e.g. a mirth of MBPs) to begin the whole process all over again. With that insight we come full circle on the Entanglement Gradient, which like everything else is limited by Severance.


This video playlist has not yet been updated to take into account MBPs nor the Bang to Bang discussion (nor the implications of how big the place must be that allows that to transpire.)


Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.



Shop Now!

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #Entanglement #Emergence #Convergence #KnotTheory #Philosophy #Science #Mathematics #Topology