TJ McCaustland

Well it's just by stating that the entire universe is not indirectly entangled to itself kinda refutes quantum entanglement entirely. I should have worded the OP better, "All matter is entangled to itself indirectly" True, but this entanglement can't really dissipate because if the universe is entangled to itself then unless the entirety of the universe is destroyed by antimatter all at once it would still be entangled because the annihilation of one particle which is indirectly entangled to all others wouldn't start an unentanglement process because there are multiple particles entangled to multiple particles, Or am I chasing a non-existent wild goose? I was just thinking because of this model of entanglement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement Which although both photons are type II and are entangled, many photons could also exist as type II and become entangled with these which is where my OP came from.

Guess that could work, I just thought of using a different directory to avoid a highly cluttered x86 directory which I have no desire to clean up, and I don't really want to scrap ALL my data, but I guess I can put my data I want to save on an EHD and then do that.

Not really, because I never really took a shortcut at all, I took a portion of the path, and bunched it up to get to here, working on the rest of it while I speculate wildly, such as here, And BTW I haven't really lost a chance at schooled science at all, I just am working on both things simultaneously. Also, I wouldn't be happy on a vegetarian science forum either, I speculate and cite where I can, and sometimes I get WAY ahead of myself, but I also know a good bit of classical science, just not enough to count for where my thinking goes, My thoughts are the blueprints of a prestigious structure which will take years to build, my knowledge is the current progress on that structure. Now I will vacate this thread.

Okay. So then a single group of photons is not entangleable to another group of photons?

I was thinking ionic binding breakoffs Also with the environment needed to do such a thing it would be something like my figure or am I chasing a non-existent wild goose?

Well they wouldn't necessarily be caught if they were smart and REALLY knew what they were doing. There are some people, like members of Anonymous, who can bounce IP's around all day like it's nothing and laugh when the FBI or CIA knocks on a door 350 miles away because you used their IP address. The real points of hacking are usually a) To impress a girl or some friends, (Neutral hacking) b) To simply screw with people and laugh your A%# off about it (Like the famed CBS hack) (Neutral hacking) c) To steal information/money (Black hat hacking) d) To test security/counterhack (White hat hacking)

It depends, like ajb said, on what university it is. It also depends on what job you are looking for in one of those companies. If you want to hired a regular employee and work your way up to higher jobs stay at Thompson Rivers, if you want to be hired a manager of a department or project look at going to a big university like cambridge.

You need to know two things, 1) Space is information without more information, or matter, basically it's not non-existence, its just void of extra information, or matter. 2) Time is only a non-simultaneousness of events, it is why a and b are a and b and not ab.

Just because my thoughts look like a ball of string after Schrodinger's cat before entering the box played with it doesn't mean I don't know what speculation vs. fact means. Fact has been proven (Avogadro's number for example of how many atoms per mole.) Speculation is kind of a Think this works like this but IDK (My speculation on dimensional unity in quantum state for example which is 1) Not supported by anything other than basic, basic logic and reasoning, and 2) Has about 8x10^25 holes in it that need to be patched.) Or you can do both........ You just need to throw the illogical thoughts I produce out the window to get to the tiny juicy bit of "Possible but not probable" I guess what needs to be said here is that this thread hinges on one thing, Belief. Belief in something, or nothing at all, it all hinges on belief, and I don't think it's very scientific to discuss such a large matter without much evidence, which is why I will be taking my thoughts, interests, and time elsewhere, Gentlemen, thank you for the excellent discussion. Beatus Tractantibus!

So I've been discussing this with several members of SFN and I find that this might actually amount to something should it be refined and processed. So a list of the basic principles of this highly speculative hypothesis looks like: 1) All non-antimatter matter is entangled to each other remotely through quantum entanglement via a single group of particles being definable by a single quantum state in which there exists one or more particles which are entangled with another group of particles that are still definable by a single compound quantum state due to their linking with the first group of particles. 2) Matter is entangled across dimensions with existence of higher dimension matter being represented in a lower dimension by the presence of dark matter/energy which is entangled to all the other matter in the universe just like everything else. 3) The entire non-antimatter universe is definable by a single quantum state because of a phenomenon which I will now call quantum-circular-linking which would exist according to the explanation in 1, That being said a representation of the universe when defined by a single quantum state would a point on a graph with infinite octagonal axes. Please help me improve this by poking as many holes as possible with as many laws of cosmology, physics, etc. but please be sure that all of the holes you poke are based off of laws and not speculative phenomenon that are not yet proven, unless they have a large amount of evidence backing them. I'd like to write a paper on this eventually when it leaves the realms of speculation and the Mods declare it a theory on SFN (Which please do so when you believe it is), I will give credit to all the users who helped shaped and redefine this as well as to the SFN mods once it reaches that point. Until then beatus tractantibus!

Well that's what I was getting at, you see I'd like to set up a file grouping bypass that uses a different directory than x86 to possibly speed up an old computer of mine.

Nothing as of yet but a twisted speculation with a tidbit of juicy goodness known as possibility Right, right, now that symmetry group is what I was getting at, so since the way dimensions affect the matter that exists on their planes kinda goes 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 are all the same (According to Swansont.) then with this symmetry I come back to my conjecture that the universe when defined by a single quantum state produces a point on a graph with infinite octagonal axes, supporting my OP that all matter exists in quantum state as one, and therefore is technically without dimensions because it is entangled with itself across all dimensions.

Yes, but the energy required would be ENORMOUS, Like 10^29 MJ enormous.

I use logic, My Transcendence of dimensions? Thread for example, where I stated that the universe, when represented by a single quantum state is a point on a graph with infinite octagonal axes. Sorry. I tend to use way too much wordage for my own good thats too complexly tied together. Religion does not allow me to visualise the world from a special point of view, it allows me to view the world from a different point of view, meaning that I see the exact same thing as you, (This 8 for example) but I process that information is a slightly different way that 1) Probably does nothing that your processing of information doesn't do and 2) If it does it's most likely sending me off on a wild tangent like the response I posted (It kinda evokes a (0_0 What the.....? response instead of the Oh Ok response.)

X86 files is the file grouping of "My PC" where all of your applications/general data is stored. At least on windows.

Best medical joke ever: A doctor asks a patient "Do you have a will sir?" The man replies "Keep me alive till I'm Dead!"

So I know that the x86 files are basically a where all your files on your computer are kept. Now lets say we have a folder with an application in it that runs off of PhysX for example, Would deletion of that folder from x86 also count as complete deletion from your computer of the application and the PhysX script or would the PhysX script be kept?

Well......... wouldn't that technically be pretty much the same as turning Uranium 238 into Hydrogen and back? (which is impossible according to our current scientific knowledge)

Warp drive is great, and it should work, (Look up Dr. Harold White) But the problem is with even if it did work is Making it work, Or producing the necessary negative energy densities which are themselves theoretical.

I have citations, and I have speculation, My citations are observable and simple, my speculation is a twisted, tangled, wibbly wobbly ball of thought mixed with theory mixed with a can of What the..... Most of my posts here are speculative, or logical, I think you have intelligence enough to discern between the two. Not necessarily, What did Monasteries do in the dark ages might I ask? Really? I'm surprised you'd try throwing such a heap of rubbish at me attempting me to catch it and change according to it. Am I a creationist? No I am a practical big bang theorist who states that because we have a limited number of dimensions that there Must be an influencing force, Now whether that is God, or a HIGHLY unlikely happenstance I am not sure, but I believe it is God because the universe is homogenous and isotropic, (This being Belief which is SPECULATION itself). You are highly incorrect in your statement that I was not given a choice, I was, and my beliefs are not one sided, I believe in the doctrine of my faith, the law, and the moral code, as well as most of the teachings, (Although I personally believe most Christians interpret the bible and all it's stories WAYYYYYYYYYYY too literally, the earth is NOT 6,000 years old.) But I look at them differently than most others, I also have refuted most of the "Apologetics" that try to justify interpreting the bible so literally. So no, I am neutrally biased, or without a bias, I have beliefs, but my beliefs are themselves speculation, Which is why I am 99% philosopher and 1% physicist/scientist. I am not egotistical or insightful like you seem to think, I am outsightful if there is such a thing, I think Outside the box, the kinda stuff you go "What the **** is that?" is my speculation, My ego is not an ego, it's a paper showing how much I've screwed up and how much I've gotten right, it's a logbook of my speculation, not a prideful illusion of power and intelligence, In reality I shouldn't even exist, I am an idiot, I am not omniscent, and my total knowledge on the universe is equivalent of 1 compared to 10^9999^99999^999999^99999, It is nothing, The only pride I have is that of the pride to speak my mind. I can't see what you can't see, I only think of what we can see differently, and that is the only thing that makes me any different than you. Did I go around saying "Immana win a nobel prize for me being awesome!"? No. I said "I think this works in this way but IDK if this is even true or works." And yet you say I am prideful when all I do is Speak? Then call everyone else in the world prideful for sharing speculation, No matter how wild and you find yourself being just as prideful as everyone else, and just as imperfect, idiotic, and generally unfit as everyone else. No one is special, but all are diverse and unique in imperfect ways that remove any hint of specialness or superiority to another. We are all weak in different ways.

Ah. Very well then I will make it more understandable then since You asked.

This isn't rewriting physics, it's taking physics and adding to it. I use English because I want to, not because I can't use mathematics, and The reason why this is in speculations is because it is speculative not scientifically correct Otherwise It would be in physics and I would be telling you to hold your tongue. Very well "Dimensions are axes upon which matter translates/exists according to it's quantum state which describes which dimension it exists in" All those dimensions can be described by a single quantum state dependent upon the existence of other quantum states of other dimensions, the exception to this rule being the first dimension, which is the only independently describable dimension, In this way the entire universe can be described by a single quantum state. Also what Geckomancer said. The question is, is that romaine made out of paper?

yes you can visualize anything. Now grab a metaphorical spade and help me with this burial. I hate confusing string theory with Einstein.....

It can be and can't be at the same time, Although it appears to not be in our dimension we cannot disprove it entirely, as we cannot define the totality of matter as a whole. (Our eyes BTW)

Right you are Ok that was a word salad, However let me add substance "Dimensions are mathematical axes upon which matter exists/translates that can be described by dependent quantum states relying on the existence of other dimensional planes down to the first dimension which is the only independently describable dimension."