Photon Conjecture (post of 02 November 2008)

I suggest that the ±photon exists as a circular disk, (‘ring’ or ‘nut’), whose hyperbolic extensions are bound to a sphere.

[ Please see, ‘The Circle and its Hyperbola’, and, ‘On Zero, Infinity and One’, also in this site. ]

Here is one (proposed) photon-antiphoton pair; _having smooth, (non-quantized), curves (at least for clarity) and a disk proportionally large enough to see.

I suggest that a ±photon’s ring, (seen above as a vertical line), is its ‘particle component’;

and that the hyperbola extending from this ring becomes the ±photon’s ‘field component’.

I imagine the +photon as writing the North Magnetic & Positive Electrical fields when in the +matter realm;

the South & Negative fields when in the -matter; _And believe that the converse would be true for an -photon.

The figure above shows a full profile of the sphere upon which the ±photon’s hyperbolic fields are expressed, (larger),

along with an oblique, (45°), profile of the ±photon’s ring.

It is part of the conjecture that all photons (behaving as photons) are ‘married pairs’, of one +photon and one -photon;

necessary to complete eachothers’ curves.

[It is represented by the reversed colorschemes in these figures.]

I imagine the ±photon as traveling in both ±Universes simultaneously; _so that when one realm sees the one, the other sees its spouse.

To better understand things going forward, it would be good to look at the foundation of the thinking.

The photon, a ‘universal currency’ for physical transaction, i hold to be in part an embodiment of a very simple mathematic:

Y = Constant / X

This is a first-degree function capable of second degree behavior by ‘leveraging itself’, if i may, off both axes.

Subtly, the statement brings coordinate space to ‘represent’; _in that to an unusual extent the space has become part of the information it holds.

Empirically, (or as far as i can tell and have checked), the function up for consideration:

Y equals a Constant divided by X

is identical to a hyperbola whose aperture radius is:_ the square root of (twice that Constant); _when rotated by one-eighth turn.

The figure above shows (as a gray set) the functions: _1/x _to _[1/(pi + 1/pi)]/x, _(mouse-over for math notation);

laying atop the last a positive hyperbolic limb, (of a darker, violet-gray), by the principle above.

I believe that the ±photon is also founded on another simple expression, this one in polar space:

Radius equals 1 divided by rotation.

The figure above shows that function:_ from the rotation 1/pi, ( having a radius of pi ),

to the rotation pi + 1/pi, ( having a radius 1 / ( pi + 1/pi )),

with circles to match these.

The curve approaches center in an accelerating spiral, one that i believe imparts rotation to the ±photon.

The Conjecture is that a ±photon is formed with an initial radius greater or equal to pi Universal Radians.

In other words: It begins as an object the size of the Universe, or larger --

( A spherical universe-set could be framed with a hyperboloid set,

which could itself be bound on a higher-dimensional sphere,

framed within its own hyperboloid... in a series which could extend forever.

Such a forever could be pursued by beginning the proto-photon's rotation at 1/infinity,

making its radius infinite... if it's useful to do so. )

-- then, very quickly and without changing location, it contracts along all paths to its working size.

In this i think it unconstrained by the speed of light.

It is charming to think it might retain some 'eldritch memory' of what it'd passed through. _It might. _But...

The polar system on which the ±photon disk gathers has no formal axes, (in my understanding), but has rotation and range.

I believe that range is undifferentiated XYZ space; _and that rotation is what i call 'perpendicular time', or 'Ptime',

(perhaps more commonly called 'imaginary time').

[ A second time axis is not a strange concept when one thinks about it this way:

Lines, (having one dimension), may meet as a point, (having 0 dimensions).

Planes, (having two dimensions), may meet as a line, (having 1 dimension).

Spaces, (having three dimensions), may meet as a plane, (having two dimensions).

As spacetime is a succession of XYZ spaces, their 'common thread' should be a plane. ]

[ Conventional time is perpendicular to the plane of the graph ]

_ _

Shown here is the +photon's wrapping curve and 'spar', (sky blue); _along with the -photon's, (in midnight blue).

The spar could also be called a 'working radius', that of a completed, rotating ±photon; _(represented here by the small inner circle).

The 'horizon' line joining the ends of the wrapping curves, and the perpendicular of the horizon, could be said to 'clock' a ±photon's rotation;

( with the horizon being akin to 12 o'clock and 6, its perpendicular akin to 9 o'clock and 3 ).

When the ±photon (disk) has rotated so that its spars are on its horizon,

it will be at full radius, (peak amplitude), within its divergent reality;

(more on that in a moment).

When the ±photon has rotated so that its spars are perpendicular to its horizon,

its apparent radius (within its divergent reality) will be zero

and

[ This block is placed ahead of its supporting arguments. _Please skip over, then come back to it. ]

It will be at peak contact with the rest of the reality-divergent photon-set having emerged from the event.

In other words: _The ±photon not only cycles between being large and being small, (and if you will, antilarge and antismall) ;

but, ( if the photon event occurs simultaneously across all of its outcomes, which it may or may not ),

between being an individual in a set of entities traveling in divergent realities,

( absolute only at peak amplitude )

and an anon within a collective entity expanding through all those realities,

( absolute only at zero amplitude ) .

As events in some realities remove some members of the set, the group's 'wave front' should become more complicated;

possibly showing interference patterns; eventually breaking up or becoming chaotic.

While the spars are rotating through their opposite quadrants, as they are here, the ±photon will appear as a anti-photon;

it will show a negative face to the +matter reality, and a positive face to the -matter one.

Once rotation brings the spars past the horizon-perpendicular again, so that they are in their 'home' quadrants, the ±photon will act as a +photon;

showing a positive face to +matter reality and a negative face to -matter.

_ _

When an event can have many outcomes, the Universe itself branches. _The conjecture allows one to work with that by moving the baseline of rotation.

If (here) the horizon is at 1/pi, (its baseline being the true horizontal), one could say this is an unmodified result; right on the statistical mean for that event.

[ In the 'Universal Radian' model, shown above, the Universal Sphere is entered at a Ptime rotation of 1/pi,

( yielding an XYZ radius of pi Universal Radians, if one looks at it that way ).

The true horizontal thus represents pursuit beyond the Universal Sphere into ExtraUniversal space.

My thinking is now that this shouldn't be done in radians, as described in the next two figures;

however this figure can still be useful if one keeps in mind that its Horizons, shown and unshown,

have been rotated (by 1/pi) in an attempt to work with the system in radians. ]

Another outcome of the same event might be represented by first turning the baseline for rotation a few degrees;

an amount which can be weighted to match the probabilities of various outcomes.

But an interesting situation arises in that the photon is rotating through the very dimension, Ptime, used to map probability.

In effect, closely probable outcomes from divergent realities would still be able to influence eachother -

- after the event._ And this might explain the two-slit experiment * without sorcery.

_ _

If all probabilities, (all outcomes of a single event), begin from the far pole, (of that event);

contracting to an infinite set of superposed ±photons, (the carrier objects of outcome), at the near pole;

of which one (±photon) will radiate through each of the divergent spacetimes in which a unique outcome occurs;

There is a limit to how much any two of these outcomes can be separate from one another.

This will be greatly complicated by the way the Universe has,

for practical purposes, countless events occurring within (or upon) it;

with the Multiverse, (Universe of Universes), holding their 'countless squared' divergent outcomes,

but:

If the Multiverse began from a single event, as i believe it did:

All paths in all places are in some way connected.

And if the two-slit experiment does show that such a connection persists 'in real time',

( that it's not simply a matter of history )

There may be a mathematical basis for, if you will, fate.

( ...and a good deal else )

The figure uses the same graphic as the previous, (with a new mouseover), to look at the issue of the far pole, as it affects things at the near.

It shows, (perhaps inaccurately), the condensation and disk of a ‘prime ±photon’, offered as the basis for all smaller ±photons.

I believe such a ±photon would have a wavelength of one, (it would cycle once in circumnavigating an otherwise clear Universe);

and thus an amplitude of ±One Universal Radian.

However, an issue has come up over whether a far pole at pi radians or of ∞ (as a number) would provide a better understanding.

It is observed that the energy of any photon will be the product of a constant and its frequency;

but i believe that the energy would be better understood on the basis of frequency squared times diskradius.

Canting a horizon above the horizontal and adapting the ±photon’s diskradius to that cant, (as is done above),

introduces a discrepancy, (between the calculated energy and observed values), which cannot be fully resolved...

but can be minimized by canting to 1/∞, rather than 1/pi, and adapting the radius to that; which might be better theory.

Better theory in that the (presumably tiny) interval between ±1/∞ is a natural place to break from a Common Universal Sphere,

and establish a 'perpendicular' system for that sphere's Frame Hyperboloid; _(something i feel must exist).

But this raises nettlesome questions of its own:

When the Universe had an infinity of say, 12; where any photons which might have existed then larger, proportionally, (if coarser), than those of today?

How does the abstraction of a number actually become a measure? _What does the measuring?

Working with radians had circumvented this issue because radians can be applied identically to all scales.

It would also seem to consign the ±photon disk to ineffable smallness:

If the far pole of the Universe would be at One Zillion,

and the largest ±photon possible would have a disk radius of 1/pi with a wavelength of two zillion...

The disk's increasing smallness becomes counterpoint to an increasingly large Universe.

And which would mean, the 3D figures i've been posting are either smoothed examples from a far past, or, proportionally wrong.

Here i continue, using a (smoothed) Quantum Sphere model.

The far pole is represented by a number, (understood to be increasing),

which is taken to be infinity, (for the purposes of the system), at any given time.

If the far pole of the Universe is considered to be at ∞,

and if the polar plane model shown above is accurate and/or infomative,

the horizon for a (statistical mean) photon event would differ from the true horizontal by 1/∞.

Though the horizon for particular outcomes from a photon event will ‘cant’ from the horizontal to reflect their probability,

once a horizon is set, the wrapping of its ±photon must begin and end there.

This will have the effect of quantizing the spectrum; and with it the energy that ±photons carry.

The ‘wrapping’ of a ±photon is a process that i believe can continue as far as ∞pi radians.

This example is wrapped to 2pi radians, (one full turn),

from an abstract infinity which is located on the horizon, but off the graph;

( there are times when this can be a useful convenience. )

This ±photon is assumed to have a Universal Frequency of two: _it would rotate twice in circumnavigating an otherwise clear Universe.

An issue arises immediately, as the Universe is understood to be expanding.

It is possible to imagine the ±photon shedding rotational velocity while increasing in size,

thus maintaining a constant energy and Universal Frequency. _Possible

And likable to the extent it would mean that, (loosely), photondisks grow as the rings in trunks of trees, over time.

It is further possible to imagine that they (±photons) would do this for the same reasons (and at the same rate), that (as) the Universe expands.

However, setting up a system where photons of the same wavelength may carry different energies should be avoided; _So:

Setting things on a basis of the value of infinity in an continuing present:

Proposed:

A ±photon will have a diskradius, relative to the size of the Universe, of:

One divided by [ ( Infinity, times the ±photon's Universal Frequency, times pi ) plus One divided by Infinity ];

A ±photon disk will have a rotational velocity of:

( its Universal Frequency times pi ) divided by Infinity

and an energy of (its Universal Frequency squared) times its diskradius;

Where Universal Frequency is an integer not exceeding the system's then current value of infinity,

or, possibly, a rational fraction where neither numerator nor denominator exceed the system's (then current) value of infinity.

Such a system maintains the photon's Universal Frequency over time, as rotational velocity slows in proportion to the expansion of space.

Thus the ±photon which rotated 5 times in circumnavigating the Universe of yore, would still rotate 5 times in doing so today;

but it will be a lower 'mass', (my usage), ±photon, as its diskradius will have become proportionally smaller;

and so also a proportionally lower energy ±photon, which i think agrees with Redshift observations.

The practical difference between this view and (as i understand it) the common one:

(that photons are redshifted due to the relative motion of the object and viewer as they are separated in an expanding Spacetime), may be moot.

( Parentally ) _I prefer mine

This leaves outstanding questions:

Why multiply diskradius by Universal Frequency and not by Rotational Velocity, (which would have a greater effect)?

Where would the 'lost energy' of the ±photon go:

Back to spacetime?

Into some form of structure within or upon the ±photon itself?

I like the latter, as the Universe does show a propensity toward structuring itself, and it would be (perhaps) good to wire this in early.

And i'm reminded of the patterns and filigree etched into the movements of classic pocketwatches.

These do nothing to help them tell the time, yet require energy to produce.

'Life' also requires energy to produce.

This explores the conceptual form of 'matter' i call a ‘wooden photon’.

As envisioned, it consists of a pair of diametrically opposed ±photons

whose rings are locked at 90° to one-another, holding the fields also mutually offset by 90°, (pi/2).

The ±photons' respective velocities, (presumably), cancel. _Wooden photons float.

I imagine 'wooden photons' are formed, when two ±photons of identical (±1/∞) size and Universal frequency but opposite direction,

meet with their fields at or near an 90° offset, at the moment when their wave functions equal zero.

( Though such an encounter would be a statistically unlikely event; _i think our Universe has, over time, produced a number of such events. )

This hypothetical, particle-centered geometry is the first of two suggested.

I see them as potential forms for Dark Matter.

But in retrospect, the model above seems like a logical, (and perhaps natural), stepping stone.

If both ±photons are required to observe the same, (conceptually x-based or east-positive), custom for determining their hyperbola's polarity;

(as is shown above), this would (i imagine) be the wooden photon's only geometry, or a stage of it....

(the upper ±photon might immediately rotate to bring the opposite charges on the hyperbolas together, possibly collapsing their fields),

Thus, those which would strictly follow such a custom are likely to be loosely bound or unstable,

( perhaps prone to decaying into an extremely small, spinning, charged particle ;-)

If this is not desired, a balancing of fields with its improvements for stability and durability

could be gained by having one ±photon switch over to a (conceptually) y-based, (north-positive), custom.

( The practice could differ (by 45°) from the custom as 1/x_class hyperbolas are oriented nonstandardly. )

( The upper heart-shapes, one of them upright, and another (classic) upside-down,

are field lines of the upper ±photon in the pair.

Below them are the field lines of the lower ±photon. )

( The short vertical line at center is the ‘ring’, (or disk), of the lower ±photon in the pair, seen in profile.

The small ellipse across it is the ring or disk of the upper ±photon, seen obliquely. )

This explores the conceptual form of 'matter' i call a ‘wooden photon’.

As envisioned, it consists of a pair of 90° offset, diametrically opposed ±photons

whose hyperbolic fields are locked to one-another.

Reinforcing this, each also passes through the aperture-ring of the other.

As (hypothetically) the locked ±photons' velocities cancel, a wooden photon 'floats'.

I imagine 'wooden photons' are formed, when two ±photons of identical (±1/∞) size and Universal frequency but opposite direction,

meet with their fields at or near an 90° offset, at the moment when their wave functions equal zero.

( Though such an encounter will be an unlikely statistical event; _i think our Universe has, over time, produced a number of these. )

The hypothetical, field-centered geometry shown above, is the second of two proposed.

I suggest it as a form of Dark Matter.

If this configuration can occur,

i think its close-running and oppositely charged (hyperbolic) field lines --

meeting at a near right angle only at the poles;

where values, (low i think), may be undifferentiated,

( if all charges would have a value of zero at the pole, they may be able to connect even if dissimilar in nature );

and where this joint is sheltered, mutually, by the ±photons' aperture rings;

-- will yield both a highly durable, and nonreactive, object;

Of a size and mass based respectively on the wavelength and the energy of its two ±photons, (by Einstein’s equation).

Regarding the size, it is important to remember that this will still cycle, as the two ±photons did, and with the same period.

Its amplitude should be the ±photons' wavelength divided by 2pi.

So yes, i take it to be mass, but an eigenartig kind of mass which though it might be a hundred miles across,

will appear and disappear and reappear with reversed fields and disappear again, endlessly;

as determined by its wave function.

Note also that it is hollow.

A (hypothetical) bird could fly through a wooden photon,

touching neither field nor particle, if it picked the right time, and were fast enough.

( ...and i think in most cases, very, very small )

( The vertical line is the ‘ring’, (or disk), of the lower ±photon in the pair, seen in profile.

The colors show that is has been switched to a north-oriented charge, dissimilar from the upper one.

I do not think this type of wooden photon can occur without dissimilar charge orientation between its ±photons. )

( The aperture-rings are shown greatly out of their expected proportion, in order to be visible in the example. )

In the figure above:

Positive X represents the ±photon's own positive +X or +Y axis, and negative X its own -X or -Y axis.

( The difference doesn't matter, here, so long as the axis is seen squarely and both sides use the same type. )

Y, (above), represents the ±photon's Z axis, upon which it travels, as folded together with Time, (a fourth axis).

( The degree to which Time and the Z axis are, for a ±photon, bound to one another is a lingering question; _One this may help resolve. )

As the ±photon rotates as a line segment centered on one pole of the XYZ/Ptime sphere,

its radius within an XYZ space will vary sinusoidally.

If this conjecture is properly based, (upon a Quantum Sphere using infinity as the antipole);

all that should be perceivable of most ±photons, (without impact), will be their (field expressing) hyperbola-globe.

( The particle component, its 'ring' or 'disk', would be too small to see unless the photon had a phenomenally long wavelength. )

Here a segment of the travel of one ±photon through ±XYZT space,

(polarized so one of its fields is on the plane, the other perpendicular), is modeled,

and compared with a cosine wave, (rendered in deep sea colors), and an ellipse, (pale violet, at bottom).

It would seem that the ±photon’s waveform may be, (physically), neither. _This is a point where the conjecture can be tested.

The column of gray beads at center represents the waveform of the ±photon as it travels through two and one half cycles.

[ Circles mark individual radiuses from given moments in time.

Any of these circles can be thought of as the hyperbola-globe of the ±photon at that moment represented by its center's position along T. ]

Most of the ±photon would be included between the cosine wave shown and, (were it to be shown), an anticosine wave -

- indicating that Time, (determining location), and Ptime, (determining radius), are for the most part in agreement -

- on whether a given point on this plane will lie within the ±photon's fields.

However there are also areas, a part of the ±photon as it is represented, that are clearly outside the cosine wave.

It is not that the radius disregards the cosine function,

( a magnified look at the figure will show the cosine passing through the widest parts of all moment circles ),

it is that the radius is reaching forward and backward on the Z axis, to place points;_ (as a radius will).

At the very least this reflects the way the ±photon, (as conjectured), is not Z axis flat. _But it also raises a paradox.

To the extent that the Z axis, (of a given ±photon), is bound to its T axis; _and to the extent the Conjecture, as it stands, is true:

The ±photon will be an object that has some persistence in Time, (as it has a span on Z);

and it will actively, though subtly, be reaching into the future and the past to describe itself.

The +Core Helix in the above figure determines the radius of the particle ring, (or ‘disk’),

of a +photon as it rotates on the XYZ/Ptime polar plane and travels linearly, forward or backward, in Time.

( Forward Time, in this figure, is upward. )

[ The companion, -Core Helix, is not shown.

Were it to be, (and as it exists 180° rotated from the +Core Helix),

the combined shape of the ±Core Helix would be, somewhat incredibly: _a double helix…

If Conjecture is correct. ]

So this can be considered a partial, three dimensional expansion of the spiral-with-horizon figures above;

( noting also that only the finished, active, +photon is considered, the winding of its protophoton has been left out. )

At two points along the helix: catenaries, (shown as basic hyperbolic cosines), are used to extend the spiral into what would be, (from its perspective), complex space.

[ This same shape can be produced by plotting the imaginary solutions of the arc-cosine curve.

I take it as principle that if a curve applies to a situation, as the cosine function does to the +photon,

(and the anticosine function to an antiphoton),

its continuation into complex space will reveal more about the situation. ]

One catenary departs in each the negative, (in this context: antimatter), and positive, (+matter), direction.

They touch the spiral perpendicularly; at a cosine minimum, (for the -matter), and maximum, (for the +matter).

( For clarity, only two are shown. )

Bearing in mind that the XYZ/PTime polar plane is used to represent all outcomes of a photon event:

For an outcome of a photon event:

Catenary (or catenary-based curves) should intersect with the core helix at its cosine maxima and minima,

( the ±photon’s horizon line, (or orientation), serving as rotational zero ),

reaching to the ±Universe’s infinities at Time values paired on either side of what’s perceived as the present.

I draw the following inferences:

1)_ Matter and antimatter, from the perspective of a Universe, may occupy interleaved Timestates.

[ Such a statement is provisional.

It is apparently the case for an individual +photon or -photon, as seen from an individual +Universe or -Universe.

What is less clear is how this can be extended to 'reality'…

with its many and differing objects so that a world can be coincident with an 'antiworld', and yet remain separate.

It may be useful to note that the catenary curves involved are perpendicular to one another across the ± divide;

offering the possibility that matter and antimatter may be (normally) unmixable because the forms are (in some sense) at right angles. ]

2)_ This system should work, (or not work), equally well in describing a time-forward +photon in an expanding ±Universe;

and what would be from our perspective, a time-reversed +photon in a contracting ±Universe.

( The same should hold true for the companion -photon. )

3)__If this aspect of the Conjecture is valid for Time-forward ±photons;

and if when something is possible, it will in some circumstances occur;

a theoretical basis exists for Time-reversed ±photons traveling from future to past.

As described in the previous figure and notes, (and as the conjecture is modeled);

±Cosine is the function whose maxima and minima on the XYZ/Ptime polar plane would be taken on a ±photon's horizon.

The catenary, (two slightly oblique examples of which depart depart to the left and right in the figure above),

is a hyperbolic-cosine based curve which describes the shape of a flexible chain, under its own weight, when held by its ends.

Catenary, (or catenary based), curves may take the 'pulse' of the expanding ±Universe, as ±photons travel from the events which created them.

As the ±Universe expands, the length of a ±photon's catenary 'chains', (the distances to the far pole of the Universe),

and the gap between the chain's ends, (the spacetime distance between the present and a given moment to the future or past), should both be affected.

This information, (i prefer to think of it as a 'state'), may be an intrinsic component of the ±photon.

The time required for a change in that state (at the periphery) to reach the Core Helix should be readable on the (vertical) T axis.

In (modern) free-space applications, (with the periphery, infinity, being the far pole of the ±Universe),

the effect is likely to travel from periphery to Core at super-light speed.

'Satenary' curves, (as i call them), are the hyperbolic sine complement to the catenary;

and as such they have a different (though complementary) shape.

They seem to resemble the curve taken on by a chain, suspended at one end,

while a pulse of energy caused by a lateral displacement of the free end travels upward.

Sections of two satenary curves, (seen almost end-on), are shown in the figure above.

They meet the +Core Helix at points were the sine function is at maximum and minimum.

In XYZT space, (spacetime), these points are where the ±photon has a size of zero;

thus conventional spacetime places little constraint on the application put to the (XYZ/Ptime) satenaries of a ±photon.

However, (if the model being used is valid: if ±photons do have their origin on a polar XYZ/Ptime system),

this is also where the ±photon extends farthest into the probability space of other outcomes from the same event.

[ The Core Helix cosine maxima & minima for a given ±photon are on its 'horizon',

(a complete, {though perhaps simplified}, undifferentiated XYZ space for that outcome);

and catenary curves associated with it are assumed to travel within that space to the ±photon's XYZ infinities.

The Core Helix sine maximum for the same ±photon, being perpendicular to this, is oriented away from, (at a right angle to), that ±photon's XYZ space. ]

The satenary curves extend this, reaching across outcomes as the catenaries had reached across space.

Where these satenaries meet other photons from the same event, they may be affected.

Whatever their interaction would be, it could (could) influence the state, thence the path, of the photon itself;

providing a mechanism for the two-slit experiment and/or a some "spukhafte Fernwirkung".

Recapping, a photon event, (in conjecture):

Begins with one or more ±photons, all at the same location, in an equal, (or greater, if possible non-events are counted), number of cloned, superposed, ±Universes.

As the ±photons travel, and interact with what they find, the states of these ±Universes diverge.

If one were to see such a ±Universeset (± universe set) together, these ±photons would form a ring, (sphere, or section);

which would remain round and unbroken as long as all paths were clear.

From the ±Core Helix ±sine maxima and minima, (using a ±photon's horizon line as zero):

Satenary, (or hyperbolic-sine based), curves would reach around this ±Universeset, 'globally', back toward the ±photon.

A situation that becomes rather like the ±photons, (of an event), being, (collectively, and in a respect), as large as the distance they had traveled.

Note: this line of thought was developed while considering (principally) the +Core Helix.

Some adjustment is under way, as the ±photon's (full, double) ±Core Helix would have two sets each of both satenary and catenary curves.

In the figure above,

(which shows the same system as before, from an angle where as time moves forward, the +Core Helix approaches the viewer directly),

the differing shapes of the catenary and satenary, (seen at ≈45°), become clearer.

Catenaries would link the +photon to the extents of its ±Universe;_ Satenaries would link the +photon to that photon's event’s other possible outcomes.

( The same would be true for the -photon of the married pair, using its own catenary satenary set. )

In Conjecture…

Rollover notes accompany this image, (as they do every one, these may take some time to load);

and in this' i describe the satenary curve(s) as "bending slightly " (clockwise or counterclockwise)

"as it moves " (clockwise or counterclockwise)

"across the " (Universe or Antiuniverse).

The slight bend is visible immediately, and in the nature of the curve.

That it would also move (clockwise or to the counter) across the ±Universeset is less than obvious, (and is not graphed).

By the time the ±photon has traveled for one second, its radius as a collective body, (about 186,000 miles in clear space), would make the perimeter appear straight.

It is along, (or relative to), this perimeter that i suggest the satenary curves reach;

linking the ±photon to sister-selves in the many, (or any), divergent realities which had branched from the event creating them.

If i use the word correctly, (i may not), ±photons emerge from their event 'entangled';

and that these would emerge into divergent realities is no barrier to this form of 'communication'.

( spukhafte )

The catenary curves, in order to be perpendicular to the Core Helix, are necessarily at a 45° angle to the passage of time.

If they are a more complete understanding of the principle of a ±photon’s horizon, (as they may be);

the state of a ±Universe, of a ±photon, or of both, will be changed by a ±photon’s travel.

This appears to be a logical reasoning:

An example photon event produces a ±photon;_ now it's here, a moment later it's..._ here.

The state of a ±Universe has changed.

Where things become more complicated is that this change implies a general rotation of probabilities; or in other words:

Not just the state of one single ±photon's single ±Universe has changed, but those of the photon event's entire ±Universeset.

What happened in each, somehow felt in the rest… perhaps from that point forward in time.

If so this could mean, (if our ±Multiverse, indeed did grow from a single event);

that all that is was and will be, in all realities, could be, at a level where outcome is determined, 'bound together'.

Fernwirkung

This figure shows, (or hopes to show, a section of), the full, ('double'), ±Core Helix as it travels, (here upward), in Time;

with three pairs of catenary curves, (proposed to run to ± ∞), on either side.

As shown, probability does not rotate, (or perhaps more accurately, any rotation of probability is left invisible);

thus the ±Core Helix is seen turning as though in a stationary 'space' of probability,

and the catenaries departing from it are parallel and without communication. _This may be a simplification.

'c'

I have a sense there are clues here, to the nature and universality of the speed of light;

If all ±photons, from the least to the most powerful, are based on this structure;

where the ±XYZ space within which they travel, shown by their horizons, (the catenaries), is at a 45° angle to the passage of Time.

(The system is seen from an ≈45° angle.)

___index