Jump to content

QuantumT

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    476
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Nice

1 Follower

About QuantumT

  • Rank
    Molecule

Recent Profile Visitors

1597 profile views
  1. So, you're saying that (collapsed) particles display wave behavior? Where do we observe that?
  2. If our brain can be described as an instrument (it certainly bares the trademarks of one), then the wave/particles of our bodies are in a constant collapsed state, because the brain, as a detector, is always turned on. Just my two cents.
  3. Are you saying that free will requires a god? That determinism is the only other option?
  4. Is it just me, or is the word parallel all wrong in this context? As far as I know it derives from the 'many worlds hypothesis', so what they must have meant is a multiverse, like in M-theory. Right? But even if they did mean a multiverse, how could a neighbor universe make voids in ours? Wouldn't its gravitational pull have the opposite effect?
  5. I love this subject. Time in accordance to relativity. If all aliens (incl. humans) in the universe gathered one place to establish universal time, it would probably look like the House of Commons during Brexit 😄
  6. I understand it perfectly well, I just interpret it differently than you do.
  7. But unlike the Wigner's experiment, you can google what happened to Mandela, and determine that one of them was mistaken. He did not die in prison, no matter how clearly the memory is. To me, the Wigner's experiment only shows, that a particle is capable of returning to the wave state, when observer A stops observing. So when observer B starts observing, the wave collapses again. It's a new event. Not the same event with two outcomes.
  8. In string theory the gravity is there. It's just out of reach. Is it really so silly to imagine a way to get it out? We know that a vacuum won't do it, so maybe the opposite could? Yes, I know it's speculation, thus the category of this thread.
  9. Positrons are very real, but difficult to contain, because they will annihilate when they come in contact with electrons, due to them being antimatter. That is one reason that they're useless as a source of electricity. Another reason is that we don't have enough antimatter to make an electrical system of it.
  10. I have that. I just need to learn the equations, which is easier said than done. Where do I start? Who's gonna tell me what all the symbols mean? I have the skills and the will, but no teacher.
  11. I cut the crusts off my sandwiches, but besides that I have almost zero waste. My freezer is so stuffed, that the plastic drawers in it have cracked 😁
  12. You are probably right, that DM is a much better answer. I'm just trying to chip in. Contributing to science is my highest aspiration.
  13. Very good point. I did not take gravitational lensing into account. My bad. But I might have a fix for that. I call it 'the lemon effect'. The lemon effect takes the hiding gravity from the extra dimensions of string theory. Under the enormous pressure inside stars, it is squeezed out from the particles in the nucleus. Like squeezing a lemon to make lemonade. The wormhole would arise when the star is formed. I don't know at what point the gravity would be strong enough to make it happen, but there would be a point. The reverse of that would answer this question: It would have to follow mathematical laws, like everything else in the universe, I suppose. That's what I'm here to figure out. Is this at all plausible? If not, thank you for helping me figuring that out!
  14. First of all I'd like to thank this forum, for allowing me to present my ideas. And let me say, I'm not an opponent of dark matter, just a little skeptical about it. I have for long been looking for a replacement for it. Something that wasn't undetectable, or atleast didn't require the total mass of the universe to be multiplied six times. Since I don't know the math of what I'm about to suggest, please be gentle with me, when you reject and disprove my suggestion. My suggestion is that wormholes are much more common than we thought. They are between all adjacent stars, and form an invisible gravity web, that makes stars able to form galaxies. Yes, it's quite simple, and just needs a slightly different approach to gravity. Of course these wormholes can't be used for travel. They're just strong enough for stars not to drift apart. Am I completely mistaken?
×
×
  • 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.