h a l f b a k e r yA few slices short of a loaf.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Soliton Crossings
Lateral causality, Heisenberg, Everett and solid ladders mentioned. Yes, hardly any theory in fact | |
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
[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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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 |
|
| |
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 |
|
| |