Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: the5thforce on 20/02/2016 12:56:13
-
supersymmetry:
fundamentally light can never fully be eliminated from dark and vice versa due to the uncertainty principle, light and dark is a supersymmetric spectrum
in our case the ‘dark’ spatial folds of energy constituting mass both absorbs and reflects light (dark absorbing AND reflecting light)
observers are fundamentally singularities within supersymmetric spacetime(a singularity is an object that near-symmetrically oscillates between observing relativity and violating relativity dictated by the uncertainty principle)
inbetween these uncertainty|principle breaks we the observer-singularities determine what infact the symmetry most likely was according to probability(wavefunction) thus fusing the symmetry to the best of our certainty(wavefunction inversion)
hypersymmetry:
as a result of the entropy of certainty within each perception that a singularity-observer makes, the observer is capable of communicating mixed concepts stuck between a varying degree of contradiction and a varying degree of symmetry which i will call hypersymmetries that can only be temporarily grasped by other supersymmetric singularity observers
for an example the concept of a "naked singularity" reflects the hypersymmetrical mixed process of two supersymmetric observer-singularities attempting to describe the nature of their own singular containment to eachother without violating spacetime- and the result is combining established concepts like 'naked'(how the observer-singularities appear to eachother when observed) with words like singularity(the observer himself)
particularly relevant to this forum, a place where naked singularities discuss our hypersymmetrical analogies which we call science
good to see the 5th force is strong: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-five-dimensional-black-hole-could-break-general-relativity-2016-2
another recent article:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-histories-get-all-tangled?mode=archive&context=191494
i believe the best approach to physics is to recognize that we the observers are the real particles who collapse the wavefunction of the multiverse, creating our universe.
-
What question are you asking here?
-
the collapse of the multiverse wavefunction becomes the symmetry of the universe wavefunction
even if we could somehow warp the multiverse in an attempt to "time travel" it wouldnt actually be time travel we would simply be entering a new universe- which we already do each moment, though this may someday provide an escape from our dying universe
What question are you asking here?
a good place to start would be why does mainstream 'physics' treat the observer|effect and the uncertainty|principle as two different concepts when both reflect the same fundamental contradiction only at different relative scales?
a better approach would be to recognize that observation itself is the fundamental reality(even when lacking consensus), and that all observation exists on a spectrum between contradicting states- thus the observer effect is intended to communicate the relative scale at which the uncertainty principle was observed
-
observation itself is the fundamental reality
Observation does not need to be carried by a conscious entity.
An "observation" that collapses a wavefunction can be done by a speck of dust when struck by a photon.
Are you claiming that specks of dust have a knowledge of reality?
-
Observation does not need to be carried by a conscious entity.
thats a contradiction
An "observation" that collapses a wavefunction can be done by a speck of dust when struck by a photon.
only in the presence of a conscious observer
Are you claiming that specks of dust have a knowledge of reality?
every observation that enters your mind shares whatever knowledge your mind has
-
An "observation" that collapses a wavefunction can be done by a speck of dust when struck by a photon.
only in the presence of a conscious observer
Actually, evan is quite right on this matter. Wavefunctions collapse all the time due to interactions with inanimate (certainly not conscious) things. One of the greatest barriers to research on quantum computing is maintaining a state of coherence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing#Quantum_decoherence).
I prefer the term "interact" to "observe" because "interaction" does not imply any sort of consciousness. Particles and systems interact, leading to wavefunction collapse.
-
An "observation" that collapses a wavefunction can be done by a speck of dust when struck by a photon.
only in the presence of a conscious observer
Actually, evan is quite right on this matter. Wavefunctions collapse all the time due to interactions with inanimate (certainly not conscious) things. One of the greatest barriers to research on quantum computing is maintaining a state of coherence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing#Quantum_decoherence).
I prefer the term "interact" to "observe" because "interaction" does not imply any sort of consciousness. Particles and systems interact, leading to wavefunction collapse.
can entropy be controlled? can a computer generate random numbers without decohering? observers fundamentally cohere the past out of a decohered future, this process of making certainty out of uncertainty may inherently be too random for any practical computational use
i think it goes back to the P vs NP problem:
P ≠ NP because N represents a random number
where P is a fixed time, NP represents a random time
NP would require randomly generating and then verifying each solution
how often the correct NP solution would be generated and verified on the first attempt would depend on the complexity of the problem, P ≠ NP because it defies probability