Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Flaky rehab

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


             

Soliton Crossings

 Lateral causality, Heisenberg, Everett and solid ladders mentioned. Yes, hardly any theory in fact
  (-1)
(-1) 		  [vote for,
against]

14/03/18 AN UPDATE: if time for the building blocks of matter is in our sense spatial, (but time for them) it would mean that we are essentially entangled with all the stuff we can see around us. So take the Crab Nebula. The light we see from that is just reaching us now, but its’ matter which has travelled at the speed of light through time (quark time, our spacetime) is just going through us right now. It is arriving at the same time as its light waves and gravity waves. Now it is passing through us, so you could say it IS us, I suppose. And if this effect goes equally well in the other direction, then We are (well actually our matter) splatted over there, right now, where the Crab Nebula is, and everywhere else we are getting light from at the moment.

Does this make any sense at all? If I’m psychotic and/or reinventing the wheel, let me down gently..

13/03/18 Well, I know THEORY to the halfbakery is like warfarin to rat with an artificial heart valve. You say you hate it, but you really need it and love it. ( yes you do, you love it really, yes you do, no, no you don’t, you really hate it, ok you hate it)

You may argue the following IS THEORY, yes, mere whimsical theory, having not much to do with solid stuff, and all to do with the universe and quantum stuff, but I still call it invention... and it mentions ladders (at more than one point)

Anyway, it’s Einstein’s birthday today!!!! So I half-baked *him a THEORY cake... it would be rude not to have some

Here goes:

Everything is waves.. we know this already. even at a certain level we humans are ‘waves’ in so far as we are coherent (more or less) across space and time, for we have a complete turn-over of atoms (the medium) every few years, yet remain the same gits all along give or take a few neurons. Yes we are indeed waves.. though it all falls apart soon enough, we go back to being part of the medium..

Everything is waves. Matter, particle, etc etc. This is nothing new.. Basically anything that keeps a degree of recognisable character while letting spacetime pass through it like a door through a ghost. . Come to think of it, what’s the wave and what the medium in that picture..? Both seem to retain their character as each passes through t’other..

So, with this talk of ghosts, less us cross over to the other side..

The many worlds of Everett.. Here we see there are waves flying along side each other in different branches of Everett Many Worlds. The same sort of thing as in the double slit experiment. But, the special thing here, these are “laterally connected” by other, er.. perpendicular waves, making a different causal direction, or maybe many causal directions at many angles.

(How does this work? You may well ask. Think of a wave in one of the ‘many world’ worlds out of synch with and a little to the side of a similar wave in the neighbouring world. Not superimposed, so they don’t destructively interfere. Instead the nearby trough of one wave laterally propagates energy, becoming the peak of the passing wave next door. Hey presto, laterally causal waves. Didn’t you always wonder why light waves had those silly “fields” sticking out of their sides? Anyway multiply by an infinity of ‘manyworlds’ with waves at slightly different removes from each other, disappearing away to infinity, and you create the universe-spanning matrix that these sideways waves climb across. Lateral causality. Like if you stacked recumbent ladders on top of each other and used them to climb up to the roof..

Hell, the waves doesn’t even have to be out of synch. Even waves that are in synch, from certain reference frames, are out of synch. (Relativity of simultaneity).

This sideways causality could explain how entangled particles seem to communicate . What’s instantaneous ( purely spatial) for us is just down the road of time for them, cause and effect.

Thus, we end up, with a many worlds set-up not just in the normal causal direction for us, but maybe many worlds in other “sideways”directions too.. A massively criss-crossing lattice...

So, lots of waves, shooting in all causal directions and indeed passing through each other at the junctions, as solitons do, without being notably altered. These junctions are what we like to think of as subatomic particles. Now, what happens when two solitons pass through each other? You have a location of the wave packet. But what the hell’s the momentum of the wave packet? Well, I guess it’s just the momentum of one soliton combined with the momentum of the soliton inside its tummy. shit, but what happens when you get an infinity of solitons all passing through each other in different causal directions? Then you have trouble working out the momentum. you have Heisenberg scratching his .... uncertainty principle

Ladders ladders, double slit experiment, ladders, ladders ladders, wobbling ladders. you see.. more ladders, it’s not all theory.

The End

—DDRopDeadly, Mar 12 2018

[link]






       I don't see why you need waves to have a "universe axis". So you've got the(/a) universe chugging along and, somewhere out in Andromeda there's a quantum hiccough and a neutrino zigs both left and right at the same time, so - within the pair's zones of influence - the universe splits, like the beginning of a run in a stocking. Now, if there's a gravity type force that holds the shebang together then that run eventually heals itself - not that anybody's noticed in the first place - but if there isn't maybe one universe gradually disengages from each other.   

       And/or dark energy and mass are ghosts from adjoining universes - in which case eventually we'll be able to "see" and map the other universe(s).   

       In either/both cases transversing solitons - intersecting to form quarks - means the dimensions we can directly sense are the most meaningless; I mean what happens when there's an explosion and particles go flying off into the 3D distance, but the transverse-soliton is supposed to remain intact ? so bullshit.   

       Hey, maybe that's what gravity is - not a direct interaction between particles, but interaction of their transverse lines : not dust particles that'tre magically attracted to each other in 3D, but a 4D skein, the threads all twisted up tending to want to stay twisted up like cat-5 wires in the closet, so gravity is more an average effect, but we can't detect that yet because it's all at the quark level.
—FlyingToaster, Mar 12 2018
   

       I think [DDropDeadly] left out a couple of types of waves. In something known as the "transactional interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics, there are "advanced waves" and "retarded waves", which respectively travel backward or forward through time.   

       Also, while the main text does not say much about solitons, they are waves, too, often called "solitary waves". In my own personal hypothesizing, gravitons are solitons.
—Vernon, Mar 13 2018
   

       Thanks [FT]. The way I see explosion at this level would be different from yours ( if you’re saying solitons/particles shatter) The way I see it, if they’re in a real sense waves they can just carry the energy away, in many possible directions. Nothing to break there, but if we’re talking about breaking up the deeper medium of propogation, that doesn’t seem to want to happen easily, try cracking quarks apart, (assuming they are the medium of propogation, which I wouldn’t like to hazard. Could be they too are waves travelling through a yet lower medium. ) Is there any energy which can cause the mass transit, ie non-wave motion of spacetime medium, rip a bit off it and chuck it around? If spacetime is waves, fractally more or less down to infinity (?) that seems like it might not happen. All that being said, I’m conscious there is no maths in our answers to wield against each other. Nor will there ever be in my case. Nice use of ‘bullshit’ though.
—DDRopDeadly, Mar 13 2018
   

       I defer to what seems to be your greater knowledge [Vernon] and and will not be surprised if everything I said is well-baked already. The main problem for me is I work on my thoughts largely in isolation on things like this, for simple reason i only “get” my own thoughts, while I read a lot of layman’s explanations, and as soon as I try to look into the technical mathematical detail i dissolve in incomprehension. So I largely think in a bubble. Although sometimes I suspect that only ‘getting ones’ own thoughts’ may be more widespread than i think, ( how do you recreate, with plodding conscious thought, someone else’s flashes of inspiration? ). Maybe quite a few physicists are only pretending to understand what their colleagues are doing, while getting on with their own ‘easier’ ideas, and then everyone finding at the end that their work comes out as mathematically equivalent.
—DDRopDeadly, Mar 13 2018
   

       This may not have much to back it up, and could well be nonsense, but the way I see it, the so-called arrow of time might be to do with a higher form uncertainty principle. As matter waves ourselves we are measuring our own location with great precision and therefore cannot see the way ahead, our momentum vector, which is mostly directed in the time direction. We see far in many directions, but in the directions we’re (mostly) not headed. Basically we see stuff INSIDE our future light cone but more in the spatial part of it than what’s in front of in time
—DDRopDeadly, Mar 13 2018
   

       If we could see our future, it would be a paradox anyhow, we would be party to altering it due to that knowledge, so,it wouldn’t be ‘our’future any more. Different branch of many worlds? So we can only “see” our future with vague levels of prediction
—DDRopDeadly, Mar 13 2018
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle