Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
2
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

mattikake

Original Poster:

4,461 posts

83 months

[news] 
Saturday 21st April 2012 quote quote all
Well ok, that topic title was just for effect. wink

So any physicists in da house that this makes sense to?

In a bored moment I've been thinking about the problems of QM. Is this a workable base theory that would explain the double slit experiment, quantum entanglement, supersymetry, quantum superposition, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum teleportation and all those quantum weirdnesses etc. :-

That, given something that moves or vibrates at the speed of light, from the perspective of the particle, past and present in time doesn't exist. From it's perspective it completes it's journey instantly even if travelling to the other side of the universe, such as a photon. It's journey ends as soon as it begins nomatter the distance.

This would mean time is either a non-dimension or is a dimension where the particle, from it's perspective, exists everywhere in it's existance at once. This would mean time would have more than just one dimension of before and after, but a dimension where it can effectly exist anywhere at the same "time" (from our perpective) and everywhere in time from the particles perspective.

For e.g. in the case of the double slit experiment where the observer appears to affect the observed, affecting the particle in the past and present, it would mean that by affecting the particle at any moment of time from our perspective, means the particle MUST be affected at ALL moments of time from the particle's perpective. From our perspective it's producing the effect of time-travel where we appear to affect it's past and present - it seems to predict our action. But for the particle, where time is a dimension as traversible as moving forwards or backwards is for us, it changes it's timeless existence to match the new data, and from our perspective, both moments of past and present.

So in short, if time is a dimension as traverseable as any other when moving at the speed of light, all possibilities of a particles state are changed at once, and all of the quantum strangeness effects are explained in one. The difference between sub-atomic Quantum Strangeness and macroscopic cause and effect, is just one of multi-dimensional time versus linear-dimensional time.

Or should I just get off the weed or word that better? wink

ewenm

27,006 posts

129 months

[news] 
Saturday 21st April 2012 quote quote all
Aren't you re-stating the theory that there is only one single electron in the entire universe that travels backwards and forwards through time and "appears" as multiple electrons to our observations?

davepoth

23,032 posts

83 months

[news] 
Saturday 21st April 2012 quote quote all
"its", not "it's", in an awful lot of that. Walk before you can run. wink

mattikake

Original Poster:

4,461 posts

83 months

[news] 
Saturday 21st April 2012 quote quote all
Ah... bummed. rolleyes - was my initial thought but having thought about that - no, otherwise that 1 electron would have to be in every state of every observed electron at every time. Although of course the observer affects the observed, so we would have to observe every observable electron at the same instant to be sure, but because of cause an effect, we know we don't have to observe every electron at the same instant to know that there are multiple electrons in different states - or ALL atoms that appear to have different states at the same instant would suddenly take on the same properties.. that the universe just couldn't work the way it appears to.

I think the effects gravitational waves also wouldn't work if there was only 1 of each particle in every possible state, nor would inflation or anything that is a result of space-time disturbances.

I've only heard of the 1 electron theory before - never the detail of it and I have never seen it explained anywhere.

Anyway this seems to make quite good sense in my weird little mind. It makes more sense to say that at the speed of light, time takes on more dimensions and that there is no such thing as a multi-verse, string theory, dark matter, dark energy etc.

edit: no I didn't really proof-read for grammar. tongue out

edit2: redo this reply after a bit of thought. So I think it is still a different theory, such as it is.

Edited by mattikake on Sunday 22 April 01:35


Edited by mattikake on Sunday 22 April 01:40

jbudgie

2,112 posts

96 months

[news] 
Monday 23rd April 2012 quote quote all
You will soon have GV here to explain all.
Advertisement

warp9

864 posts

81 months

[news] 
Tuesday 24th April 2012 quote quote all
ewenm said:
Aren't you re-stating the theory that there is only one single electron in the entire universe that travels backwards and forwards through time and "appears" as multiple electrons to our observations?
Oh I like that. One of my personal theories of 'life after death/re-incarnation' is that there is only one life form/spirit/soul living all lives through time, i.e. we are the same person.

Gene Vincent

4,002 posts

42 months

[news] 
Tuesday 24th April 2012 quote quote all
mattikake said:
So in short, if time is a dimension as traverseable as any other...
It isn't.

Next theory please!

jbudgie

2,112 posts

96 months

[news] 
Tuesday 24th April 2012 quote quote all
ewenm said:
Aren't you re-stating the theory that there is only one single electron in the entire universe that travels backwards and forwards through time and "appears" as multiple electrons to our observations?
What theory is that, any links ?

thumbup



ewenm

27,006 posts

129 months

[news] 
Tuesday 24th April 2012 quote quote all
jbudgie said:
ewenm said:
Aren't you re-stating the theory that there is only one single electron in the entire universe that travels backwards and forwards through time and "appears" as multiple electrons to our observations?
What theory is that, any links ?

thumbup
Calling it a theory is hyperbole on my part - more of a hypothesis, described as nonsense here: http://io9.com/5876966/what-if-every-electron-in-t...

The central idea that a positron can be seen as an electron travelling backwards in time is interesting though.

Gene Vincent

4,002 posts

42 months

[news] 
Tuesday 24th April 2012 quote quote all
ewenm said:
jbudgie said:
ewenm said:
Aren't you re-stating the theory that there is only one single electron in the entire universe that travels backwards and forwards through time and "appears" as multiple electrons to our observations?
What theory is that, any links ?

thumbup
Calling it a theory is hyperbole on my part - more of a hypothesis described as nonsense here: http://io9.com/5876966/what-if-every-electron-in-t...
The problem lies in the natural assumptions made by the layman that he/she can see things from the perspective of a photon (or any particle at the speed of light), the very simple fact is that a photon will 'see' everything along its path as both simultaneous and coterminous and that is beyond description except in those terms. The Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction will mean that effectively the distance from the sun and earth is zero.

By reading that but not truly understanding what it means these ideas of a single particle take hold of the public imagination and it is a devil of a job to dislodge them.

mattikake

Original Poster:

4,461 posts

83 months

[news] 
Tuesday 24th April 2012 quote quote all
coterminous - I had to look that up. biggrin

So are you implying I'm talking out of my ass? Because you'd probably be right. Just playing with my own thoughts really and have no maths or evidence to back it up at all, if even what I say makes sense to someone who clearly knows their stuff?

Didn't stop me explaining the universe was inhomogeneous (or rather, a bit like the surface water of a swimming pool, where one section of inter-secting waves would represent the approximate size of the Local Group, as I put it) 5 years before I first read about it in Sci-Am which was about 4 years ago now... smile

Edited by mattikake on Tuesday 24th April 21:34

Gene Vincent

4,002 posts

42 months

[news] 
Tuesday 24th April 2012 quote quote all
Until we find the missing answers, there is fun in speculating and no harm in either.

But you are barking up the wrong tree with this one.

Try another, it's fun.

mattikake

Original Poster:

4,461 posts

83 months

[news] 
Wednesday 25th April 2012 quote quote all
Care to explain why? To me my theory... sorry, idea, makes good sense and would match many, if not all, of the known observations of Quantum weirdness and the lack of cause and effect.

The basis is that if you travel at C, time no longer has the meaning it does for someting travelling slower than C. If at C you exist everywhere in time [at the same time], time must be multi-dimensional or a non-dimension, which consequently also means time is traversable (or rather, foldable) 100% freely with 100% causality.

Gene Vincent

4,002 posts

42 months

[news] 
Wednesday 25th April 2012 quote quote all
mattikake said:

The basis is that if you travel at C, time no longer has the meaning it does for someting travelling slower than C. If at C you exist everywhere in time [at the same time], time must be multi-dimensional or a non-dimension, which consequently also means time is traversable (or rather, foldable) 100% freely with 100% causality.
I have 20 minutes, so this will be brief, but I'll expand if you want tomorrow or, if I get the chance, later today.

Time has no meaning at all in the Cosmos, just within us. It has no existence to the Cosmos and if you really think about it, to us as well, but we have a hard shell of clock watching that re-inforces the idea, so it is difficult to understand that.

Time is an ever present 'now', there really is no future as an object just as the re is really no past as an object.

We can touch something that was made in 1660 and think we are touching the past, but we're not, you are touching something as old as the cosmos itself, everything you touch, breathe or see is in reality as old as the cosmos.

The 1660 object was assembled in the past, not back in time, but in the past and as evidence of their existence we have the object.

But the cosmos sees none of this, it is all atoms and bits of energy and they are all here as part of the ever present 'now' they are not from the past at all.

We as sentient creatures give attributions to objects, the cosmos just sees the atoms and energy and attributes no time to them as they all appeared at the beginning.

Time you say is multidimensional, time I say is a meter a way to divide up the ever present now to plan ahead and to look back and learn, it is useful, it allows us to assess trajectories and the like, but it is a meter. You don't measure time, time itself is the measurement.

Humans will often do this, we take an abstract concept such as time and then because it is so important we make it 'real'.

This is the first thing you must accept if you want to understand Relativity because it relies entirely on this fact, without a meter [which we can mess with] Special Relativity would fall in the first paragraph.

You say that time is traversible, I say that you cannot traverse something that does not have an actual existence, there are no attributes of time that are tenable objects, objects can be traversed, just like glaciers, but time has no properties at all.

You say with 100% causality, I ask you, what is the cause of time, what is the cause of something that does not exist? What can be the cause of something that never existed in the first instance to no longer exist where it didn't exist?

Not quite as simple as you might think is it!

I'll try to break this down further later, but it is heavy going and I must be going too!

Have fun.

Gene Vincent

4,002 posts

42 months

[news] 
Wednesday 25th April 2012 quote quote all
That was the briefest business deal in history...

OK, let's have some more fun.

This is not a trick question, because I'll give you the answer at the end.

How 'fast' are you, and the rest of us for that matter, travelling at this moment?

Now most people will answer if sitting at a desk typing one, I'm stationery but sitting on a planet turning at 'x' mph and I'm travelling around the sun at 'x' mph and the sun etc etc...

The answer is that we are all travelling at exactly the same speed.

Sitting here, relatively motionless, the sum of my velocity within the cosmos is the speed of light.

Everything that exists exists at the speed of light... and it never changes... even when we're dead.

jbudgie

2,112 posts

96 months

[news] 
Wednesday 25th April 2012 quote quote all
jbudgie said:
You will soon have GV here to explain all.
whistle

EliseNick

101 posts

65 months

[news] 
Wednesday 25th April 2012 quote quote all
Gene Vincent said:
Everything that exists exists at the speed of light... and it never changes... even when we're dead.
Can you suggest an experiment to test this idea?

davepoth

23,032 posts

83 months

[news] 
Wednesday 25th April 2012 quote quote all
EliseNick said:
Can you suggest an experiment to test this idea?
Easy. Get in a space ship, accelerate to the speed of light.

Pobolycwm

270 posts

64 months

[news] 
Wednesday 25th April 2012 quote quote all
EliseNick said:
Gene Vincent said:
Everything that exists exists at the speed of light... and it never changes... even when we're dead.
Can you suggest an experiment to test this idea?
Everything stationary in "our 3-D space " moves in " space-time " at the speed of light . Anything moving in our 3-D space moves at less than the speed of light in space- time . Travel at the speed of light in our 3-D space and you will be stationary in space- time.

For an explanation read Why does E=mc2 by Brian Cox / Jeff Forshaw

Gene Vincent

4,002 posts

42 months

[news] 
Wednesday 25th April 2012 quote quote all
EliseNick said:
Gene Vincent said:
Everything that exists exists at the speed of light... and it never changes... even when we're dead.
Can you suggest an experiment to test this idea?
You are living it.

We travel in four dimensions, we travel both in the 3 planes of X,Y, and Z, we also travel in t [time].

We all [I hope] know of the two clocks one on the ground the other jetted around the world.

The travelling clock lost time.

It did this because we have a quotient of movement within our own relative time line. and as you deviate from this timeline by using up your quotient in moving within the x.y.z planes the 'cost' is taken from your time expenditure. So you travel through less time.

We are just atoms and energy, alive or dead.

So our corporeal existence is of no consequence to our time travel.

If you add up all the motion it comes to exactly c in vacuo.

This also thoughtfully proves that time is a one way street or rather an ever present now, because the formula for this simple piece of relativity puts a minus against t.

It is as beautiful as that.

I'm off to a pub quiz, I want to win 3 weeks in a row, so I'm off.

I will add to this as I have to work late anyway.
2
Reply to Topic