Jump to content

TJ McCaustland

Senior Members
  • Posts

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TJ McCaustland

  1. Haven't we already buried that sword? I'm not saying I can comprehend 4th dimensional matter with my 3rd dimensional mind, However I can state that because there are a finite number of mathematical dimensions that an outside force exists (Unless Einstein's 10 dimensions are refuted)
  2. Well at least not quantum entanglement, now seeing he posted a second variable of "Cannon rotation" We can have entanglement because now we have both X and Y to entangle. and not just X or Z.
  3. State of matter being a state of which matter exists, Basically length width time all that.
  4. Yes, they are all quantum states of matter because they are states of matter, remove them and matter is stateless which is impossible, so the only conclusion is that they are quantum states of matter because they technically don't exist without the quantum state of matter because time is again a quantum state of matter because it is the non-simultaneous-ness of two events, which again is a state of matter, and therefore a quantum state of matter at the same time. Because entangling entangled particles that are already entangled to another particle on the other side of the universe or to one that exists only as dark matter/energy supplants the nature of the universe and nullifies it's existence.
  5. Because that's the scenario, it's an "Or" scenario, not an "And/or" scenario, which means that it's one again an Annihilation scenario instead of a coeexistence scenario which pertains to the realm of physics involving antimatter vs matter destruction of matter and antimatter even though it seems to not be related to the OP I'm just pointing out that entanglement cannot exist in the given scenario of the OP.
  6. 99.999% nonsense=helps you visualize nothing beyond your understanding 0.001% truth=changes your perspective of view so that things effect you mentally in a different way. He could, but your problem with that lies in your own question, we need God for things to exist. To support this I'll define existence, "The state of being", Now how and where could all this matter and energy come from? Do you know just how unlikely existence itself is, its like 10-99999999999999999% for existence. Also explain the creation of the universe and give me an EXACT model of how EVERYTHING came to be, how you developed consciousness, and how you proposed that question in the first place. The answer to that is you can't, which although it seems like a "The God of Gaps" Scenario because the universe is infinite potential with finite mass, how can you create infinity without infinity? You can't create infinity without infinity at all which points to an infinite influence.
  7. You cannot have technically have perfection in physical reality just as you cannot have a perfect, neutral, temperature of perfectly and exactly 0 degrees. This isn't entanglement at all because you're dealing basically with matter and antimatter, which are unentangleable, a down pin and an up pin cannot exist at the same time so you cannot have entaglement, If you had a 2 barreled cannon THEN you could have entanglement because you would need to predict 2 results which is a "cooexistence" scenario instead of an either or "Annihilation" scenario.
  8. Ok so I'm going to go with a mish-mash of my definition and a mathematical definition: "A dimension is a quantum state of relativistic and non-relativistic matter, and all non-antimatter atoms, where these atoms enjoy freedom of translation through any medium or space according to their dimension described by their quantum state." To answer your second question the graph would have as many orthogonal axes as the thing you were describing with the quantum state, but doesn't that technically go with "Infinitely complex" Although I was vague there? Well I am a little skeptical on your second sentence because if you think about it every non-antimatter thing in existence in our universe is entangled, every atom, muon, boson, and positron, are all entangled and therefore definable by a single quantum state, now in this entangled universe there are two types of matter/energy that are entangleable, relativistic (Normal matter/energy) and non-relativistic (Dark matter/energy), the relativistic matter is governed by the laws of physics and therefore is effected by it, and the non-relativistic matter is the result of entanglement, it is the interconnected quantum state of existence of all matter in all 10 dimensions that exist besides our 3rd dimension, now it makes sense that this extra-dimensional matter would not be affected by our laws of physics of the third dimension ( Just to add a bit more onto my answer for Bill Angel) but at the same time be able to affect change in our dimension or mini-quantum state because it is entangled to our matter in our dimension via the gigantic web of entanglement of all matter that is the universe as a whole. Now that I've explained that my evidence for my OP is that we are not transcendent of dimensions in normal state, but rather in quantum state because we are entangled to everything, which makes us "Transcendent" of dimensions, or technically dimensionless as a whole, while still maintaining mathematical dimensions and actual physical dimensions (As is freedom of translation that is unique to the dimension described by our quantum state). So in essence dimensions do not exist at all in the realm of entanglement, but do exist in reality, so we are Transcendent of dimensions quantumly (for lack of a better term) but not physically. So yes we "exist" in that electron in that planet in Andromeda, just as we exist everywhere there is potential for us to exist, just as the universe is a single, infinitely complex point on a graph with infinite orthogonal axes because we exist infinitely in the realm of entanglement because we are entangled to everything and exist in all dimensions in the realm of entanglement. ^Dimension definition in the above post^
  9. But I do have another question for you, Take into account the fact that we know for the most part, that dark matter and energy influence that gravity. Now we do not know if (If Einstein's 10 dimensional universe is realistic which I believe it is) in the case of higher dimensional cases such as the cases of 10 dimensional galaxies (Which according to my OP if it is anything akin to realistic are also 3 dimensional.) that dark matter and energy could have a lesser effect than it does in our very own 3rd dimension, inversely it could have a greater affect, but what I'm getting at, that if (Which your problem you pointed out is quite valid) dark matter and energy could a) exist in different proportions relative to higher dimensional matter or transcendent matter, b) have a different affect relative to that matter, or c) could cease to exist in higher dimensions/make up all the matter/energy in the highest dimensions. I personally support c's second statement, but that's simply because I believe it is possible, however improbable that all that dark matter and energy could be a higher dimensional quantum state of our matter that is entangled with our 3rd dimensional matter and effects it. If this were true then we would be transcendent or dimensionless in quantum state. @imatfaal, OK that makes sense, but as soon as they're done poking holes in this, if this conjecture does not sink, I ask you to at least consider moving this to physics.
  10. Nailed it Phi +1 BTW to enlarge discussion on this topic if I upload some equations to support my conjecture then will you two move this to Physics?
  11. Because although these theories have been extensively tested he is like I used to be, He wants to reeinvent science instead of using it.
  12. Well you seem to have stumbled upon a bit of a philosophical niche of metaphysics. You see space is an illusion, but then again so is everything else, the only way to see everything as it truly is is to remove the un-simultaneous-ness of two events, in essence remove time, because time makes the universe spatial instead of a single point. So if you're looking at this period . , and if this period is infinitely small, large, fast, slow, and everything else at once, you're looking at the universe.
  13. This isn't technically entanglement at all because you cannot define the result of either an up pin or a down pin by a single state because they are unentanglable, even if you had a situation where you had both an up pin and a down pin it still couldn't be defined by a single state because you're basically trying to define matter and antimatter by a single quantum state, it just doesn't work. You should research quantum entanglement and defining things with quantum states.
  14. Right, Right, But when we get to the point of where an entire universe can be defined by a single quantum state we are without spatial coordinates because the entire graph you'd produce with this would be a single point, This is where I get my conjecture and question that aren't we all transcendental of dimensions, or dimensionless because we exist in all dimensions? Because although we never can define the entire universe in a single quantum state, it can be defined by a single, infinitely complex quantum state, just not by means within our reach.
  15. Dimensions are quantum states of space and matter. Nothing more.
  16. So I was thinking earlier, and I have a BIG question to ask. So because everything in the universe can be defined by a quantum state, do we not necessarily exist as 10, 9, 8, etc etc dimensional beings as well as 3 dimensional beings in quantum state? It's just that if the theory of Quantum entanglement is correct (Which it REALLY looks that way) then wouldn't everything in the universe being definable by a single quantum state make us all 10 dimensional and 3 dimensional at the same because of the relative nature of mass time and space?
  17. OK fine, disprove this statement, "This sentence is false." Because you don't necessarily know whether or not the sentence is or is not false because you don't know what exactly it is referring to you cannot prove or disprove it entirely, just as my earlier conjecture. Even theories which are "Disproven and refuted" are never truly disproven or refuted because we can never truly prove them false, only in out eyes can they be false. But if there are no eyes or mouths to say it's false then it isn't really false is it, because it can apply and not apply at the same time. Just like a crazy Austrian Monk's experiment with a cat.....
  18. "Religion is what allows us to conceptualize things far beyond our current understanding, " It is 99.999% nonsense and 0.001% tidbit of truth, it makes you think differently as I stated earlier, but it DOES NOT In any way allow you to visualize a 10 dimensional object for example as it seems I was stating, I am indeed wrong in that fact.
  19. Well yes, everything is 10 dimensional and 3 dimensional and 5 dimensional at the same time, it's just its 5 dimensional and 3 dimensional in quantum state, and 3 dimensional in reality, So yes I am indeed a 10 dimensional being, and you are as well, but we are also 3 dimensional beings in our understanding and reality because our intellect is 3 dimensional
  20. Maybe..... Just Maybe...... you should look at computer science some time lol.
  21. Really? Prove then that I am not a 10 dimensional being who is sitting on my couch, in my desk chair, and in my armchair all at once.
  22. Whoops. Universe sorry. Dimensions are transcendal......
  23. Then disprove this statement if you are all powerful and wise my friend. The universe technically shouldn't even exist because where exactly could the 10 dimensions we call home and all the matter and energy come from? Can't really use the big bang theory, because that relies on one facet of the existence of a) higher dimensions, or b) the preexistence of matter. Nor can you apply any other theory of yours because if all those theories do truly rely on the laws of physics, or the laws of quantum mechanics, then they would follow the basic principle that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only transmuted and changed. So you're looking for an apology. You could have said so a LONG time ago. I apologize, you may indeed be able to visualize anything even though what you visualize is different from what others visualize based upon the same stimuli. I was wrong in that facet of my speech, but I am not wrong in saying you see things differently than another, though you are still able to see anything you can indeed envision.
  24. I may have said that, but you cannot disprove the modified point now can you?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.