Unified theory found

[mattikake]

Well ok, that topic title was just for effect.

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?

[mattikake]

Ah... bummed. - 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.

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

[mattikake]

coterminous - I had to look that up.

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...

Edited by mattikake on Tuesday 24th April 21:34

[mattikake]

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.

[mattikake]

Well that's my mind blown. I've been interested in physics/science since ever, and I've never really seen existence explained in this way before.

I have no problem with comprehending the non-existence of time and that it is just a meter of measurement. It's a human concept to explain memory and experience, records of different states of the universe. Consciousness is the closest thing the universe has to a true random factor.

I've always looked at it as movement creates time, or rather, movement creates effect, which implies cause, which is measured in time.

[mattikake]

Thanks GV. I had a go at your little paper analogy. No problem with that either. My version of your analogy would be to draw 1 50mm circle and fill it with so many 2mm circles representing the Earth and Moon, that the 50mm circle would be completely filled with 2mm circles, that even overlap - not even enough spare room for a single atom. Then you could get to the Earth or Moon using whatever route, in whatever "time", at whatever "speed" you choose, except that if affected by an external force (human intervention), your destination would change beyond your control... but you would still get there regardless of any effects you may feel.

The trouble with physics is it's all to easy to give up when numbers become involved.