The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Zero Theory  (Read 2933 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #25 on: 23/10/2015 14:05:20 »
.. a distance can never equal zero or it would not be called a distance ..
It could be an observer effect.
Elsewhere you argue that a circle is an observer effect, but a circle is made up of distances. The definition is of a point moving at a fixed distance from a centre. It would seem reasonable to assume that if shapes and waves are observer effects then distance is as well.

That would be an invalid assumption, voids have no physical presence of anything but a volume of space and dimensions.

A circle yes,
''In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed''


A circle is in the void
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #26 on: 23/10/2015 14:10:17 »
A circle is in the void
So you think Stonehenge and the plate on your table and the wheels on your car are all in a void?

If circles are in the void distance could be as well.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #27 on: 23/10/2015 14:34:31 »
A circle is in the void
So you think Stonehenge and the plate on your table and the wheels on your car are all in a void?

If circles are in the void distance could be as well.



By definition a void does not mean without space, and spaces have a distance,always have,always will.

Even light and CBMR is in this void making it not a void.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #28 on: 23/10/2015 23:41:47 »
Not convinced by your idea of circles in the void. If distance exists then anything that can be measured using distance is not an observer effect.

Umm, that's kind of what I'm getting at, my theory is stating that distance does not exist.  I'm not using space as a measurement of distance, I'm saying space creates an illusion of distance that does not actually exist, that the universe does in fact exist in a point.
I think is not surprising that this is the first thing people are questioning. Distance is so fundamental to our understanding and description of the world around us. Even the box with his strange idea of circles only existing in a void cannot conceive of a world without dimensions.
I must say that if it an illusion it is a pretty convincing one and has fooled a lot of people for a very long time.
Given its very ingrained nature, I can't see you getting past this point.
It also seems quite radical just to explain a few minor anomalies. It will be interesting to see how develop your theory to explain all aspects of what we observe and whether you can build the maths to explain your theory without using distance. For example you are already using words such as forwards, backwards, move, beyond, all of which rely on there being a concept of distance and have no meaning in a point universe.
« Last Edit: 23/10/2015 23:47:26 by Colin2B »
 

Offline ggimark

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #29 on: 24/10/2015 05:54:43 »
By definition a void does not mean without space, and spaces have a distance,always have,always will.

Even light and CBMR is in this void making it not a void.

The quantum world is also in this void of yours, so can you explain how the orbit of an electron behaves the way it does in this void?  In an atom the electron orbiting a nucleus jumps between different orbits, and by jumps I mean it teleports instantly from one orbit to another orbit without touching any of the "distance" in between, this is where we get the term "quantum leap" from.  How are electrons able to defy traveling distance if they are in fact inside of a void that defines a set distance?


I think is not surprising that this is the first thing people are questioning. Distance is so fundamental to our understanding and description of the world around us. Even the box with his strange idea of circles only existing in a void cannot conceive of a world without dimensions.
I must say that if it an illusion it is a pretty convincing one and has fooled a lot of people for a very long time.
Given its very ingrained nature, I can't see you getting past this point.
It also seems quite radical just to explain a few minor anomalies. It will be interesting to see how develop your theory to explain all aspects of what we observe and whether you can build the maths to explain your theory without using distance. For example you are already using words such as forwards, backwards, move, beyond, all of which rely on there being a concept of distance and have no meaning in a point universe.

I do agree with you Colin, it is quite radical, and I may be completely wrong.  And I do concede that forward and backwards are not the best words to use considering that I am removing distance.  But it is very difficult to describe opposing forces without using direction in their description.  The base principle is that spacial energy is behaving in a manner that is opposite to the energy of matter, and the interaction between these opposed forces generates the universe we see today, such as mass and gravity. 

The reason why I have chosen to pursue this abstract train of thought though is because of its potential to bring order and reason into the quantum world that we can not see.  Instead of saying that a particle acts as both a wave and a particle just because it does, it is able to apply a cause to the effect.  As well as give an explanation for the mechanics behind quantum tunneling.  And most importantly doing all of these things at once, with relatively simple rules that boil down to (Matter either interacts with space or it does not, and this is what occurs when it does one or the other.)

As for these matters being minor anomalies, this is where it's just a simple difference of opinion.  To me, I tend to believe that the small anomalies are what make or break things.  For instance, if I had a marathon runner and I stated "This marathon runner will run 50 kilometers a day in exactly 5 hours, without ever stopping or slowing, 7 days a week, 365 days a year." So we tested this theory for 365 days, and every day he ran 50 kilometers in exactly 5 hours without stopping or slowing, except every second Tuesday he stopped halfway and got a drink of water before finishing his run.  Could I say that my original statement was true?  No I would have to amend it to "but he gets a drink of water every second Tuesday which adds *blank* amount of time".  So then I have to calculate how much time he takes on every second Tuesday with his water break.  But what happens if I calculate each of his water breaks and find that he usually takes exactly 30 seconds to drink his water, but on every 3rd water-break he takes 60 seconds and every 12th water-break takes 42 seconds. 

I could keep going but this is running long anyways, the basic point is this, sure the water-breaks were small anomalies, but they completely changed everything I held to be true, just because my original theory worked exactly for 13 out of every 14 days it could not explain the 14th.  And if I needed to be as accurate as possible even the 14th day had anomalies I would have to further define.  And then if you started asking the question "why does he need a water break on that day but no other?"  and "why is the water break usually consistent but then suddenly changes as well?"  My original theory is no where near sufficient to answer any of these questions.

My whole point with this long analogy is that Relativity is basically the 339 days that always do what we expect, but then on the other 26 days we looked at really small stuff and we were like "Whoa! This doesn't do what we expected"  But the 339 days really worked well so instead of changing the original theory completely we just added an addendum that on those 26 days the runner behaves differently.  However when we tried to explain what was different about those 26 days we found that there were even more anomalies in those days.  So eventually we laid out a set of rules for the day on which each of those anomalies would occur and said "there it's fixed."  And then when asked "well why do those anomalies happen that way our answer was basically "well that's simple, the answer to your question is... you're not allowed to ask that question."  But in all of this we never thought to ask "What makes a runner get thirsty?"  It's not a perfect metaphor, but it is pretty close.

All of this said, I have to thank you Colin for being willing to think outside of the box and look at my hypothesis as something interesting instead of just dismissing it outright because you don't agree with its premise.  And especially for defending parts of that premise in my absence even without fully accepting it.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2015 14:30:24 by ggimark »
 

Offline sam7

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #30 on: 24/10/2015 09:33:26 »
It's is a contraction if 'it is'. Its is the possessive form, which is the one you want.

I know it sounds pedantic, but it's actually quite important if you want people to take you seriously.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #31 on: 24/10/2015 11:23:43 »


The quantum world is also in this void of yours, so can you explain how the orbit of an electron behaves the way it does in this void?  In an atom the electron orbiting a nucleus jumps between different orbits, and by jumps I mean it teleports instantly from one orbit to another orbit without touching any of the "distance" in between, this is where we get the term "quantum leap" from.  How are electrons able to defy traveling distance if they are in fact inside of a void that defines a set distance?


Can I explain the electron transporting from one point to another without travelling through a distance?   yes

Can science explain,no

It would just be my logical opinion if I told you.


 

Offline ggimark

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #32 on: 24/10/2015 14:33:42 »
It's is a contraction if 'it is'. Its is the possessive form, which is the one you want.

I know it sounds pedantic, but it's actually quite important if you want people to take you seriously.

Thank you Sam, I mean it, I did not realize how many times I had misused the contraction until I went back specifically looking for it.  They all should be fixed now.



The quantum world is also in this void of yours, so can you explain how the orbit of an electron behaves the way it does in this void?  In an atom the electron orbiting a nucleus jumps between different orbits, and by jumps I mean it teleports instantly from one orbit to another orbit without touching any of the "distance" in between, this is where we get the term "quantum leap" from.  How are electrons able to defy traveling distance if they are in fact inside of a void that defines a set distance?


Can I explain the electron transporting from one point to another without travelling through a distance?   yes

Can science explain,no

It would just be my logical opinion if I told you.




So what is your logical opinion?
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #33 on: 24/10/2015 14:55:32 »
Okay, my statement apparently went over your head, so I'll try again.

  • A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points in space.
  • Any curved line will travel a longer distance than a straight line.
  • The more curved a line between two points is, the longer the distance of the line
And for general relativity:
  • If can be inferred that the closer two points are to each other, less curvature there is between them.
  • Gravity and inertia are the same force.
  • All objects with mass have gravity.
  • Gravity affects how an object travels along a spacial curve.

Time compression / dilation is the result of traveling along these curves. The longer the curve between you and an object, the more time it takes for the light bouncing off the object to reach you. The shorter the curve between you and the object, the closer it is to becoming a straight line. There's a limit to how dilated or compressed time can be.


What are your thoughts on inertia and wavelength?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #34 on: 24/10/2015 15:24:52 »

So what is your logical opinion?

The observation of the electron position A is not the same electron observation as position B. They are different electrons.
 

Offline ggimark

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #35 on: 24/10/2015 16:47:12 »

So what is your logical opinion?

The observation of the electron position A is not the same electron observation as position B. They are different electrons.

So you're saying that you believe electrons essentially clone themselves?  Take a hydrogen atom for instance, it only has 1 electron to begin with, so it would effectively have to simultaneously clone itself in a different orbit and destroy itself in its current orbit.  So the new electron would be a clone.  However both the cloning and the destruction would require energy, which does work for increases in orbit, since each uptick occurs when the electrons energy increases.  However decreases in orbit are accomplished when the electron loses energy which doesn't allow for it to use that energy to clone and destroy itself.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #36 on: 24/10/2015 17:56:33 »


So you're saying that you believe electrons essentially clone themselves?  Take a hydrogen atom for instance, it only has 1 electron to begin with, so it would effectively have to simultaneously clone itself in a different orbit and destroy itself in its current orbit.  So the new electron would be a clone.  However both the cloning and the destruction would require energy, which does work for increases in orbit, since each uptick occurs when the electrons energy increases.  However decreases in orbit are accomplished when the electron loses energy which doesn't allow for it to use that energy to clone and destroy itself.

I am saying that there is no proof a hydrogen atom has one electron, that is a theory, I am not saying clones, I am saying it is a different electron altogether than the original viewed.
 

Offline ggimark

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #37 on: 24/10/2015 21:14:40 »
I am saying that there is no proof a hydrogen atom has one electron, that is a theory, I am not saying clones, I am saying it is a different electron altogether than the original viewed.

Ok, pretty outside of the box theory but obviously I'm not in any position to complain since I'm the guy that wants to invalidate the concept of distance... However you then need to explain the absorption and subsequent expulsion of photons by the electrons because by this standard the electron in low orbit would have to absorb photons, but the electron in high orbit would be responsible for emitting photons.  How is the energy between electrons transferred to explain spectral lines?
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #38 on: 24/10/2015 23:28:49 »
You cannot have velocity in a point universe without distance. Therefore you cannot have kinetic energy. You also cannot have any types of wave in a point universe. So ultimately you have zero energy in a point universe. I would imagine that gives zero probability that this hypothesis is correct.
 

Offline ggimark

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #39 on: 25/10/2015 07:34:00 »
You cannot have velocity in a point universe without distance. Therefore you cannot have kinetic energy. You also cannot have any types of wave in a point universe. So ultimately you have zero energy in a point universe. I would imagine that gives zero probability that this hypothesis is correct.

For starters it is quite possible that velocity doesn't exist in the first place.  According to Quantum Mechanics particles do not move, they jump one quanta at a time, they disappear from one location and reappear in the next location.  So in fact everything in the universe that you see moving, is in fact disappearing and reappearing in a slightly different location countless times per second.  If you delve into Maxwell's equation that is exactly what an electromagnetic wave does.  It self propels itself through space by appearing slightly ahead of itself and disappearing from it's current place.  This means that on the atomic level, absolutely nothing ever "moves".

And as for waves being unable to exist inside a point universe, that is something that I am completely fine with.  My hypothesis demonstrates how a particle could take on the illusion of a wave without ever being a wave.  It even matches perfectly with the spectrum of light, let's just take the visible spectrum for instance, blue having the shortest wavelength and the least energy, and red having the longest wavelength and highest energy.  In my hypothesis a particle of light doesn't actually have a "wavelength" however it's total energy dictates how many quanta it can skip past at any given time.  The lower its energy the fewer steps it can skip, and vice versa.  This matches up exactly with the observed universe and effectively eliminates the need for particles to be waves, but it does allow for them to appear to behave as waves.

As for the universe having zero energy, that is actually entirely possible and as I pointed out in a previous response, according the the Zero Energy Universe theory it is precisely the case.  And I am perfectly fine with the universe having zero energy because a universe with zero energy would make it completely plausible that it is also a universe with zero distance. 

You say my hypothesis has zero probability of being correct, this is a statement you cannot make without providing something to disprove at least one facet.  Without providing some type of observational evidence against it you can in no way unilaterally dismiss it.  On the contrary, so far I have been the one able to refute all the arguments against it by simple explanation of its mechanics that match with the observed universe as we know it.  Which means that for the moment, from a logical standpoint, there is a higher "probability" that you are wrong than that I am.
« Last Edit: 25/10/2015 07:39:39 by ggimark »
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #40 on: 25/10/2015 13:15:59 »
So how does a quantum jump happen? It requires a location. Therefore each quanta must be positioned in a set of unique locations. If not then all quanta overlap. You have no distinction between them. They are all one thing. If you can show how to remove the spatial dimension from a quantum jump then I may take notice.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #41 on: 25/10/2015 15:06:13 »
How would you explain what is responsible for our perception of distance?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #42 on: 25/10/2015 15:54:32 »


Zero Theory:

1st Rule:
All of Space and Matter is comprised of the same energy
A: Energy moving forward = Matter
B: Energy moving backwards = Space
C: The interaction between these two energies = Mass
D: Should energy collide with an object which it cannot move through, reflect off of, or be absorbed by it will
reverse

2nd Rule:
The diameter of the universe is 0. And the distance between any 2 points is always 0.
A: However any amount of the two types of energy can exist between 2 points.


Stating that the universe has zero diameter and that distance between any two points is always zero defines your perception of reality as an existence void of any dimensions what so ever. Yet you use terms like distance, points, forward, backward, and between. Until you can define your theory without using terms that contradict your initial premise, your theory has ZERO plausibility.
 

Offline ggimark

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #43 on: 26/10/2015 10:07:20 »
So how does a quantum jump happen? It requires a location. Therefore each quanta must be positioned in a set of unique locations. If not then all quanta overlap. You have no distinction between them. They are all one thing. If you can show how to remove the spatial dimension from a quantum jump then I may take notice.
Well let me ask you this, do you believe that there is distance inside of the singularity of a black hole?  Or do you believe that all of the quanta within the singularity overlap?  I personally do not believe that they overlap, and yet their overall diameter is infinitesimally small or basically zero.  Yet there would still be energy at it's edge, energy at its center, and energy in-between, but on the whole there would be no distance between any of these points.  I see absolutely no reason why our universe should not exist in a similar state since, the laws of our universe allow such a thing to exist so it makes since that our universe itself could exist in a similar state. 

Let's take a hydrogen atom with its single orbiting electron as an example.  Between the nucleus and the electron is mostly empty space.  I believe that each quanta of that space is actually another particle, so that when the electron gains or loses energy it jumps between those particles.  This results in a quantum leap that results in the electron seeming to skip over empty space.

How would you explain what is responsible for our perception of distance?
The same way I account for our inability to see neutrinos, if our senses did perceive neutrinos we would essentially be blind because there are so many of them whizzing around us that we would not be able to see anything else.  Biology does not evolve to perceive the universe as it is, biology evolves to perceive the parts of the universe that are beneficial to biology and nothing more.  And in fact our senses are the worst possible scientific instruments imaginable, we do not see most of the light in the universe, we barely hear a tiny fraction of the sounds that are all around us.  Even our sense of smell, taste, and touch are abysmal at telling us the true breadth and width of everything we interact with on a daily basis.  Or perception of the universe is actually nowhere close to a true representation of almost anything about the universe, so why would this be any different?

But if you want me to quantify an explanation of distance and why you would perceive it as such I would put it this way.  If you took two particles each the size of one quanta that seemed 10 quanta apart, I would say that that instead of looking at 2 particles, you were actually looking at 12 particles.  The extra 10 particles are spacial particles, no less real than your original 2.  Now if one of your two matter particles makes a quantum leap that makes it appear closer to the other particle, you would now have 9 spacial particles between the two, but the 10th particle would still be there, it is now simply on the other side.  To me the distance between the two particles never changed, just the energy between them.

Stating that the universe has zero diameter and that distance between any two points is always zero defines your perception of reality as an existence void of any dimensions what so ever. Yet you use terms like distance, points, forward, backward, and between. Until you can define your theory without using terms that contradict your initial premise, your theory has ZERO plausibility.
This brings me back to one of my other questions, is the singularity of a black hole a point?  Is it 3 dimensional?  Or is it both?  I am arguing that it is both, that even though it is infinitesimally small, and even with a diameter of zero, it still has an edge, a center, and an in-between.  And I see absolutely no reason why our own universe could not exist in a similar state.
 

Offline Wajideu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #44 on: 27/10/2015 22:48:52 »
What are your thoughts on inertia and wavelength?
My thought on inertia is that it's the result of velocity across a higher-dimensional axis, which would also explain gravity. This is actually part of my theory I posted a few days ago.

I'm not sure what you mean though when you ask me what my thoughts on wavelength are. (the wavelength of what exactly?)
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #45 on: 01/11/2015 11:35:21 »
Every now and again something just comes to me, I can't explain this something it just happens, a few minutes ago that something just happened, I have no idea why the idea just came into my head, then you and you post came into my head, I now understand exactly in detail, you are absolutely correct, I now see your thoughts better than yourself, maths can explain your idea, I have had the same idea but described differently, your idea enlightened me, thank you, I have now clarity of my thoughts on the same idea and now do have a picture of everything.

You need to change your title slightly,


The zero distance theory of perceived distance.


You are trying to explain that if we removed the energy between point A and point B the length of distance will perceivable contract between the two points.  This is correct, light intensity and radius playing key roles in sight.  However the distance remains , just without light, dark space being ''opaque '' to sight.

added- however it is not new theory, it is something we already know the physics of.




« Last Edit: 01/11/2015 11:47:40 by Thebox »
 

Offline ggimark

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #46 on: 02/11/2015 00:46:54 »
Every now and again something just comes to me, I can't explain this something it just happens, a few minutes ago that something just happened, I have no idea why the idea just came into my head, then you and you post came into my head, I now understand exactly in detail, you are absolutely correct, I now see your thoughts better than yourself, maths can explain your idea, I have had the same idea but described differently, your idea enlightened me, thank you, I have now clarity of my thoughts on the same idea and now do have a picture of everything.

You need to change your title slightly,


The zero distance theory of perceived distance.


You are trying to explain that if we removed the energy between point A and point B the length of distance will perceivable contract between the two points.  This is correct, light intensity and radius playing key roles in sight.  However the distance remains , just without light, dark space being ''opaque '' to sight.

added- however it is not new theory, it is something we already know the physics of.

Yes yes yes, I'm so happy that someone finally got what I was trying to explain!  And I completely believe that this can be explained in mathematical form.  I do agree that your title is a much better description of the theory as a whole, though my title was actually kind of a nod to my original attempt to reconcile the zeros that pop up in the mathematics of black holes while at the same time describing the theory that was born from pursuing that train of thought.

I also completely get what you're talking about when something just pops into your head and everything begins to fall into place because of it.  This theory was exactly that for myself.  I spent about 3 months strait thinking about and rethinking black holes day after day without ever making any progress at all.  Then one day while driving I had a single crystallizing thought that made everything fall into place and within a few hours I had worked out most of what ended up in my theory.  Basically my brain accomplished in just a few hours more than it had in the 3 prior months combined.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #46 on: 02/11/2015 00:46:54 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums