0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
And so my question is, do you think the final model of physics could be largely based on the observer?
It's mine light arrow. This is my work
Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 29/12/2008 06:02:14And so my question is, do you think the final model of physics could be largely based on the observer?I don't like this interpretation; I prefer others.
Ok, I liked it.Some principal observations I've made reading this and other forums.And now you all need to tell me if it's correctIf one like the 'wave patterned 'approach' one more often than not, seem to see the photon as not 'traveling' in spacetime at all, am I correct in that?Then the photon more or less become a quantum related state that 'falls out' with the interaction of the observer.Or am I formulating this wrong?
Perhaps the "parallel universe" approach could be more precisely characterized using M (string-theory) 11 dimensional interactive multiverses? Every aspect of every atom within the 4 dimensional space-time observer is interacting with the other 7 dimensions. Conceivably some of these infinity of universes are warped in space time allowing for informational displacement across large distances at seemingly infinite speeds (as perceived in our universe). All possible physical states can exist simultaneously- its simply a matter of probability as to what occurs when, not withstanding an observer's presence. Particle/state changes (really only energy changes) are the result of going in/out of those extra universes separated microscopically (three dimensions to each of our observable dimensions). The high energy particle colliders have shown particles disappearing/re-entering given enough energy (at the right wavelength) and also randomly as probabilistically predicted. Lets not personify or philosophize a physical phenomena when M theory has explanation.
Are we saying here that if we humans were not here to observe then what ishappening would not be happening?