A little unexpected but it seems I have the answer I have been looking for.

It took the recent paper supporting the theory that the universe is a hologram for me to put the threads together and see what I had been missing. I am not sure exactly how supersymmetry is calculated and what is seen as fundamental ta calculate as symmetrical in the conventional view but I have understood now where I would begin with it and what I would include as fundamental.

To give this thread somewhere to begin I will start with what I would designate as holographic and what would subsequently be the fundamental element that does the projecting. To do this I have to ask the old question, “Is a white hole at the other end of a black hole?”

If you the restrict the nature of the singularity of a white hole to some sort of other dimensional reflection of a black hole, due to the simple fact that the term ‘black hole’ is conveniently deceptive, the nature of that dimension is entirely assumed, as is the perspective applied to observing the ‘white hole’.

So, ‘what color is a white hole?’ The long answer requires a definition of fields, but the short answer is, the color of a white hole is, electrons. The inclusion of the term ‘color’ in the title question is not simply a reference to the title of the forum but is a direct reference to the ‘holographic’ nature of the universe theory and to the components of that hologram(spin/quark color). It is also where the boundaries of supersymmetry can be defined.

To propose that the electron is the fundamental particle makes the application of the term ‘colors’ to the states of quarks extremely apt. It also provides a set of guidelines to define what ‘symmetretrical’, equates to in quantum terms.

Assigning the electron mass of the universe as the answer to the question, ‘what is on the other end of black holes’ allows the dimensional balance of the universe to be put in perspective. Much of our understanding of the nature and limits of gravity has centered on BH’s. As gravity is the underlying theory that must be revealed to pull everything together, BH’s have represented the limitations of gravity as it is observable in the universe. To illustrate the limits of gravity by calculating a future universe in which all BH’s must intercept only provides an answer if you identify what intercepts.

To leave the unidentified variables that have acquired the terms DM/DE out of the equation, what we ‘know’ would meet in this hypothetical almighty, all annihilating crossing of the streams(DON’T Cross The StreeAMS!), would be atoms containing electrons, protons and neutrons, maybe. (We know)These can be broken down to quarks and, insistently, electrons. Putting aside quarks momentarily, electrons have a variety of singular features.

The electron is ruled by the Puali Exclusion Principal. ‘AN-electron’ is the transverse state to the fundamental gravity dimension. The former concept of a white hole being a singularity that mirrors the observable qualities of a black hole does not follow the rules of symmetry, which is that mirrored energetics cancel each other out. If the nature of the electron is magnified to a pitch that mirrors the nature of , err, ‘gravity’(a reference to the entirely hypothetical notion of a superforce), the subsequent illustration describes a fundamental force that is transverse to the infinite massing a ‘superforce’, I assume, is meant to represent.

As a hypothesis I would be proposing that there is no single superforce. Rather there is the Gravetic Massing Force(GMF) and the (Electron)A-Massing Force(eA^MF). Between these two a balance is struck in which ‘vacuum space’ becomes the holographic projection of the GMF that represents it’s separation from the eA^MF as a singularity force. The production of spatial vacuum stimulates an electron a^mass from the eA^MF to imprint upon this vacuum. The spatial vacuum being a distortion of the GMF cannot reject the ‘a^massing’ but can refract it with the subsequent production of protons containing quarks, err, etc..

At this point in my consideration of this line of thought I have not yet found a way to discern if there is some fundamental dimension to quarks or if they are an internal ‘holographic projection’ that accompanies protonic mass. I assume that discerning this might be fairly straight forward and when all the critical factors are aligned and accounted for this would become apparent but I don’t assume that I have all those immediately available in my head.

The fundamental feature of particles is spin. The spin of the electron might be considered part of the holographic projection of the universe, as this is only apparent due to the GMF diffraction of the eA^MF mass. ie, the electron has no component of it’s own but borrows it’s observable spin qualities from it’s interaction with quark sets. 2 of the 3 quarks present in protons/neutrons provide the electron with both a point of origin and a trajectory, while the 3rd mediates the result of this equation as proton/neutron behavior that appears as the spin of those of particles.

> So, ‘what color is a white hole?’

I used to ask this question of myself back about 20 years ago, and never worked out a sensible answer. If a white hole is seen as the end of a wormhole then what comes out of a white hole is whatever went into the black hole at the other end, usually stripped down to its fundamental particles – photons, electrons, protons, neutrons and the occasional atomic nucleus. But that’s a a cop-out – wormholes don’t exist in nature, so whatever comes out of a white hole must not be what flows into a black hole.

> The long answer requires a definition of fields, but the short answer is, the color of a white hole is, electrons.

You’d be a brave man to claim that. I never worked out a sensible answer.

mollwollfumble said:

> So, ‘what color is a white hole?’

I used to ask this question of myself back about 20 years ago, and never worked out a sensible answer. If a white hole is seen as the end of a wormhole then what comes out of a white hole is whatever went into the black hole at the other end, usually stripped down to its fundamental particles – photons, electrons, protons, neutrons and the occasional atomic nucleus. But that’s a a cop-out – wormholes don’t exist in nature, so whatever comes out of a white hole must not be what flows into a black hole.

> The long answer requires a definition of fields, but the short answer is, the color of a white hole is, electrons.

You’d be a brave man to claim that. I never worked out a sensible answer.

I have no other choice. I have combed out every strand that won’t stay in place and have been left no other option but the conclusion that electrons are white holes. The question is what is more pointlike, a BH or an electron? Seeing as the BH is an aggregate I have to point to the electron as being of a more singular nature….

mollwollfumble said:

> So, ‘what color is a white hole?’

I used to ask this question of myself back about 20 years ago, and never worked out a sensible answer. If a white hole is seen as the end of a wormhole then what comes out of a white hole is whatever went into the black hole at the other end, usually stripped down to its fundamental particles – photons, electrons, protons, neutrons and the occasional atomic nucleus. But that’s a a cop-out – wormholes don’t exist in nature, so whatever comes out of a white hole must not be what flows into a black hole.

The ‘what goes in/what comes out’ question is a misdirection of perception. Electrons a) have a negative mass in terms of their relative kinetic energy to a proton.

b) the presence of electrons in the universe asserts the universal EM field that limits the protons to only having a point of origin, making their destination reliant on the actions of electrons.

c) It is a mistake to assume that BH’s are more than a temporal illusory singularity. They are reliant on a balance of forces that is maintained by the universal presence of particulate matter.

> The question is what is more pointlike, a BH or an electron?

You need to look up classical radius of an electron. Although an electron is described as “pointlike”, that is shorthand for saying that it can’t be broken down into smaller objects. It does not mean that the electron has zero width. In this case the word “classical” means satisfying the equations of general relativity.

mollwollfumble said:

> The question is what is more pointlike, a BH or an electron?

You need to look up classical radius of an electron. Although an electron is described as “pointlike”, that is shorthand for saying that it can’t be broken down into smaller objects. It does not mean that the electron has zero width. In this case the word “classical” means satisfying the equations of general relativity.

a measurable width does not a substance make. the more determinate width of an electron is its spin. this is it’s relativity to protons and neutrons, not it’s mass or virtual dimension. The singularity occurs in the options provided to the nature of the specific particle.

post it here if you want a critique.

JudgeMental said:

post it here if you want a critique.

:) after many years of gesticulation I think I might have something I can methodically illustrate. Thanks for the point….

I should qualify the propositions of this thread by stating that the BH’s we identify are massive bodies. The universe has two genuine singularity fields present, electrons and protons, that between them generate a third singularity with a greater degree of expression in the form of the neutron.

interesting paper on electron plasma

electron hole compression