Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Mr. Scientist on 15/11/2009 04:45:50
-
I try to work as scientifically-accurate as possible; my main goal is to write about plasuible/possible quantum models which adhear to overcome the rationally-minded (but by no means impose that we completely go off the rails) - just that irratonallity does not imply an absence of logic.
I i where to suggest a theory i pet-created three years ago, concerning i very lamen terminology, will you laugh, joke, remain silent? I just require from the reader to keep an open mind. Sometimes that proverbial box can dim our imaginary-perspectives and mental-adventures into quantum mechanical solutions?
-
It's not a trick question folks...
-
Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out
-
I i where to suggest a theory i pet-created three years ago, concerning i very lamen terminology, will you laugh, joke, remain silent?
I like to see new hypothesises about nature and how it works. I look for the extent to which they rely upon magic for their outcome.
For example, in the Big Bang, we have the magical inflation period and the magical expansion of nothingness. So I discount those because of their reliance upon magic.
-
Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out
I had a weak and strong arguement going on in physics section - but without its main detals, i covered some speculative thoughts concerning an-action-at-a-distance. Instead of hidden variables and the Bells Inequality, i have assumed to suspect that the quantum particles instaneously tunnel through spacetime to (whatever) their counterparts position is at.
It started like this:
Bio-electromagnetic fields cover all life-forms, even plants themselves. Residue electromagnetic energy can even be seen when removing parts of leaves from plants. Our brain consists of around 10^8 electrons, and has itself a bio-electromagnetic field. If any field (at least to my line of logic) should have any interconnectivity over large distances should remain perturbative to the theorem of Fermi-Dirac Statistics. It seems no coincidence that fermion particles have two polirazation states, and it is when any resolution in the wave function is solved for one photon, the instantaneous action of the other particle situated billions of light years will immediately be polarized but with an opposite angular momentum.
Instantaneous fields are quantum fields which have mediators in the form of particles which can communicate from one point in space (x) to another point in space (x)* in a synonymous nature. So a tachyon which is a fundamental yet a hypothetical particle which moves at superluminal speeds can reach any part of the universe within no moment to pass... though, from its perspective, it actually oscillates throughout the imaginary time dimension, and still reach at its required destination as though from an inertial frame of view that it happened absolutely instantaneously. Electrons cannot do this, because their inertial speeds do not suffice the required destinations, but the mediator of the electromagnetic field also suffers because a photon (of whatever class)
It is possible that uncertainty is caused in a particles position to the extent that it manifests into a virtual particle under the stress of satisfying an action-at-distance - the uncertainty of the virtual particle does not obey the natural laws of relativity and can mediate to the required destination at a superluminal speed. It is said in quantum mechanics that virtual particles travel at the speeds for only a short amount of time, but to travel long distances at speeds that require multiples of c require very little time if no time at all.
So instead of a tachyonic field for the mind, we can enduce this new mechanism. Who is to say there is no inherent information written within the fabric of spacetime itself to suggest that when particles become immensely stressed under non-local activities that a particle itself will not simply vanish back into the vacuum (4)
(4) - If it vanished back into the vacuum, then another electron, an antielectron will be released (a*), since virtual particles do not obide by conservation of energy, by the typical classical formulization. In a similar scenario, its a little like how when an particle of gamma energy falls back into a balck hole, the solutions of Hawkings Calculations prove that the particle must immediately tunnel back into the vacuum as to retain a no-loss of information. The stress itself of the particle under those conditions certainly make it act in the obscure way of instantaneously re-emerging somewhere in the vacuum. There might actually be an underlying pressure-principle emergent to alter the natural casual effects of quantum mechanical inetraction when certain boundaries have been crossed, entangled themselves from paradoxes which can inexorably arise. If these particles did not find these solutions, quantum physics would not make sense when these subjects are taken into consideration.
(a*) note this is a prediction of my theory, however, it makes sense that this may be what actually happens since experimental work (sep. 1996) into photon-photon collisions require an electron-mediator.
................................................................................................
But if the photon turns into a virtual particle, how come a particle always remains present during polarization?
This isn't actually a problem. According to the contentions and physical laws presented in the excerpt:
''It is possible that uncertainty is caused in a particles position to the extent that it manifests into a virtual particle under the stress of satisfying an a
action-at-distance - the uncertainty of the virtual particle does not obey the natural laws of relativity and can mediate to the required destination at
superluminal speeds.''
This dual-barrel-process alone would have faster than a chronon.
-
Regardless of your hypothesis, we would appreciate you gave your thread a relevant title.
-
I i where to suggest a theory i pet-created three years ago, concerning i very lamen terminology, will you laugh, joke, remain silent?
I like to see new hypothesises about nature and how it works. I look for the extent to which they rely upon magic for their outcome.
For example, in the Big Bang, we have the magical inflation period and the magical expansion of nothingness. So I discount those because of their reliance upon magic.
Agreed my friend;
Scienctific research and theory are bases upon the ability to test an idea with repeatable results. Without the assurance that an experiment can be successfully repeated, the results of the first test are vague and subject to error. We judge our experiments with the only instrument capable of understanding the results of our study,........The Mind.
The final authority must rest in the logical understanding of the mind, without such an understanding, the information we glean has no relationship or purpose relative to our existence, and in truth, borders on madness!
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The foundations of scientific research are grounded and fortified by the certain faith in Cause and Effect. If we allow scientific study to fall into the hands of random chance, we submit to superstition and magic. I suggest that even the so-called random results we seem to be getting from our study into quantum physics have a cause. A cause we as yet don't completely understand, but absolutely, a difinite cause!
-
I agree with BenV about the thread title. Lately I have taken to running a Google search on each thread title I respond to. In most cases, Google will list this forum on top. So it will help lurkers find your thinking if you choose a title that will point search engines to your post.
-
The final authority must rest in the logical understanding of the mind, without such an understanding, the information we glean has no relationship or purpose relative to our existence, and in truth, borders on madness!
We think alike. [:)]
-
Regardless of your hypothesis, we would appreciate you gave your thread a relevant title.
Sorry
-
My theory also answers that ''magical'' property vern, where whenever a particles polarized particles eigenstate is measured - ''why that up spin'', for arguements sake over the other solution? It's because it was when the electron tunnels at instantaneosity it reduced a fermi-dirac ghost particle in the vacuum, the two cancel out so the resulting observables (which in this case would be the incoming field \psi* from the past. This removes that ''why-question'' where some physicists thought it depended on some mental expectation.
-
It would also make a restriction on the standard model. Gravitons shouldn't be massless. Now this model cam treat the graviton as a massless particle as in the hypothesis.
-
I have never felt a compelling need for virtual particles. To me they are like magic. We use them so we don't have to get to the real answer. When you take away all the magic you are left with Reality Theory. [;D]
BTW, you do know that you can open your Opening Paragraph and change the title, don't you?
My theory also answers that ''magical'' property vern, where whenever a particles polarized particles eigenstate is measured - ''why that up spin'', for arguements sake over the other solution? It's because it was when the electron tunnels at instantaneosity it reduced a fermi-dirac ghost particle in the vacuum, the two cancel out so the resulting observables (which in this case would be the incoming field \psi* from the past. This removes that ''why-question'' where some physicists thought it depended on some mental expectation.
I have trouble understanding this. where whenever a particles polarized particles eigenstate is measure
I didn't quite get the meaning.
-
BTW, you do know that you can open your Opening Paragraph and change the title, don't you?
How?
-
I have never felt a compelling need for virtual particles. To me they are like magic. We use them so we don't have to get to the real answer. When you take away all the magic you are left with Reality Theory. [;D]
BTW, you do know that you can open your Opening Paragraph and change the title, don't you?
My theory also answers that ''magical'' property vern, where whenever a particles polarized particles eigenstate is measured - ''why that up spin'', for arguements sake over the other solution? It's because it was when the electron tunnels at instantaneosity it reduced a fermi-dirac ghost particle in the vacuum, the two cancel out so the resulting observables (which in this case would be the incoming field \psi* from the past. This removes that ''why-question'' where some physicists thought it depended on some mental expectation.
I have trouble understanding this. where whenever a particles polarized particles eigenstate is measure
I didn't quite get the meaning.
Ok. Give us a moment, and i will edit with an exlnation :)
-
I have never felt a compelling need for virtual particles. To me they are like magic. We use them so we don't have to get to the real answer. When you take away all the magic you are left with Reality Theory. [;D]
BTW, you do know that you can open your Opening Paragraph and change the title, don't you?
My theory also answers that ''magical'' property vern, where whenever a particles polarized particles eigenstate is measured - ''why that up spin'', for arguements sake over the other solution? It's because it was when the electron tunnels at instantaneosity it reduced a fermi-dirac ghost particle in the vacuum, the two cancel out so the resulting observables (which in this case would be the incoming field \psi* from the past. This removes that ''why-question'' where some physicists thought it depended on some mental expectation.
I have trouble understanding this. where whenever a particles polarized particles eigenstate is measure
I didn't quite get the meaning.
Ok. Give us a moment, and i will edit with an exlnation :)
In non-laymens terms, though i will make this simpler, is that for every [real particle has a connected antiparticle in the vacuum (the dirac model of holes). So a particle in microscopic sight, according to his theory has an positron connection with another virtual particle in the vacuum.
If two quantum particles are connected at lets say twice the distance of the speed of light, which is v=c^2=(d=v), the we have observer 1 and observer 2.
Observer 1 descides to look at this particle. The eigenstate immediately (instanteously) form - and also rememeber, the brain ha a computation which takes the vision a little slower due to information reach the pineal gland, so there are tiny shifts as well, which makes it easy to imagine a particle being observed can tunnel to the entangled electron and observer B in an instance of a flash, only to observe the eignstates of that particle.
In a solution (or should i say, a hypothesis at the moment in time) is that when electron A (tunnels back into the vacuum, quantum rules dictate the electron requires to become virtual and will almost certainly clash with its intermediate partener the positron. Instead of annihilation, as an example found in Hardy's paradox, they do not annillate as virtual energy, but cancel out using fermi-dirac statistics (meaning that their spin states have already been determined. Then the electron (and remember, this is all happening at superluminal speeds, not even a brain process has manifested in our puny brains), it then travel to the same position of Observer and particle B, and in the case of that particular particle, its already arrived at particles A position. They have been polarized by a false vacuum intreraction.
Does this help?
ps - sorry, i pressed qoute instead of reply... doh *
-
BTW, you do know that you can open your Opening Paragraph and change the title, don't you?
How?
Just click the modify link on the opening paragraph. The title of the thread will be at the top. Just click in the title text box and type in the title change.
-
Okay; I understand what you're saying. I guess you're pretty well smitten with the notion of wave function collapse based upon observation. [;D] I can hypothesise that way but for experimental evidence that it might actually happen, I never find an instance where the observed states could not have existed before observation.
I don't mean multiply existed, as in super imposed. I mean they could have existed in the observed states all the time since they were created.
-
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w343556l8030t3w8/
According to this work it seems that it can also mean my hypothesis above can also apply to massless-state gravitons. It's the one particle i had not thought of, and i wonder if any of the math could provide a solution to the ''missing gravity''.
-
Okay; I understand what you're saying. I guess you're pretty well smitten with the notion of wave function collapse based upon observation. [;D] I can hypothesise that way but for experimental evidence that it might actually happen, I never find an instance where the observed states could not have existed before observation.
I don't mean multiply existed, as in super imposed. I mean they could have existed in the observed states all the time since they were created.
well precisely. The superluminal effects would unvail that. It exists before observation, or at least to out own computation.
-
2 double posts and 2 triple posts in one thread. Why don't you just edit and add to your existing posts Mr. Scientist?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg4.imageshack.us%2Fimg4%2F3348%2Fmodifyu.jpg&hash=69a07371c5b1aed1b0f813f26db22eb4)
-
My choice to keep a conversation less muddled. Ok?
-
less?
-
Mr. Scientist, I am confused; do you just not know how to change the title of your thread, or do you some how think that a simple question mark is better than any title you might select?
My opinion is that the simple question mark is infinitely less affective in summoning inquiry than nearly any title you might select.
-
Hi vern,
No, it's because i forgot again, doh!
Sorry x 2