scifimath Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 You make a request by setting something that can analyze the particle during its life/path. You are saying you want the particle to be real/physical. Double slit interpretation: Randomly shot particles are shot through a double slit, if no one places a detector in the path of the particle, the unobserved particle will be in the form of two waves (one for each slit) . Depending on the which wave ends up with more energy (after the split) ..the final position of a channel representing a fringe will be the final resting place of the now collapsed particle. If the energy wasn't unbalanced, I would expect to see only a single channel of fringe be filled in. Now a detector gets placed anywhere along the path between the cannon and the final landing screen. The particle shot will immediately collapse upon leaving the cannon because the type of life that particle has, has already been decided. It won't be waves, just a particle. It's been pulled from the unobserved quantum realm and made physical in spacetime. It will go through one slit and hit the final screen in a normal clump. If you accept this interpretation ..then you accept a particle being either a particle or waves ..not both at the same time. You now also know that placing a detector in an experiment is a request from a human to the dimension of unobserved qm to swap quantum waves into something physical. Observation is then a property of spacetime. General Relativity = Spacetime = the theory of the large scale Unobserved QM = Waves = the theory of the small scale They are both dimensions in the same domain Observation is then a request to bring an object from one dimension to the other. Boom, unified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 Are you asking a question? Or explaining something? It is not really clear. But this forum is the right place for discussing particle/wave duality! There are experts* here that can explain how that duality does not necessarily exist in modern physics. Here is an article that may be interesting https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616, title "There are no particles, there are only fields". *) I'm not one of those. I know about the theories but not nearly enough to attempt to explain them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 I'm explaining that this is how it is. I do want critiques if you have one. Duality is bs. There is a duality of dimensions, but the object in question is either in one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 ! Moderator Note Then this thread belongs in the Speculation forum as it's based on your personal theory. Note the forum rules in the Speculation forum. See pinned threads at the top of the Speculation forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, scifimath said: I'm explaining that this is how it is. Ok. 9 minutes ago, scifimath said: There is a duality of dimensions, but the object in question is either in one or the other. What is a dimension according to you? Edited August 9, 2019 by Ghideon X-posted with Mordred, topic moved to speculations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 I discovered it. I'd love if you could refute any of it. The unobservable is its own dimension separate from spacetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 Just now, scifimath said: The unobservable is its own dimension separate from spacetime. I think you need to provide a lot more details if this discussion is going to be fruitful. How does the mathematical model of this extra dimension look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 It's unobservable, the best we can do is probabilities with the wave function. Side note: The reason for spacetime to exist is for living things to be able to observe. Living things wouldn't like being in an unobservable world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 1 minute ago, scifimath said: The reason for spacetime to exist is for living things to be able to observe. Living things wouldn't like being in an unobservable world. So you are saying spacetime or the maker of spacetime is nice to living things??? That does not seem like anything in the realm of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 1 hour ago, scifimath said: Observation is then a request to bring an object from one dimension to the other. Side note: The reason for spacetime to exist is for living things to be able to observe. Living things wouldn't like being in an unobservable world. When I asked for details I expected some more than one single sentence. I don't think the side note adds any explanation so I'm just skipping that part for now. (I think OP's first day five posts are used, response will be tomorrow?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 10, 2019 Author Share Posted August 10, 2019 (edited) 23 hours ago, Bufofrog said: So you are saying spacetime or the maker of spacetime is nice to living things??? That does not seem like anything in the realm of science. I'm saying there isn't a reason of for spacetime to exist. Spacetime was written to use unobserved wave information for mortals. I've had time to consider what my post implies and it points at a god being involved. Not a god man has described, but one bored out of its existence. The meaning of life is to entertain a god with nothing but time to waste. Each observation we make is something to entertain this god. This contains the Theory of Everything, I'm free to say whatever crazy thing I want. Edited August 10, 2019 by scifimath -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, scifimath said: I'm free to say whatever crazy thing I want. Ok. But better maybe to respond to the feedback you asked for, and got? (And in this forum I think it is best to stick to the rules and listen to moderators.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 10, 2019 Author Share Posted August 10, 2019 This will be seen as a joke, but I laid out a refutable theory ..deal with it. If (full spacetime object){//larger than abbes diffraction limit or being observed current situation = General Relativity;} else{current situation = Unobserved QM;} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 43 minutes ago, scifimath said: I laid out a refutable theory ..deal with it. Ok What you have proposed is incorrect. This thread can be closed. Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 10, 2019 Author Share Posted August 10, 2019 lol -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 On 8/9/2019 at 9:45 PM, scifimath said: Randomly shot particles are shot through a double slit, if no one places a detector in the path of the particle, Clearly, you don’t know how the double slit experiment is done. A detector in the path of the photon would destroy the photon so it would not contribute to the pattern. On 8/9/2019 at 9:45 PM, scifimath said: Boom, unified. What is “unified”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 10, 2019 Author Share Posted August 10, 2019 Any method of analyzing that a particle existed while moving. The theory of the very large and small are unified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, scifimath said: Any method of analyzing that a particle existed while moving. Not sure what that is supposed to mean. It is still not clear that you understand the double slit experiment; how it is performed and what it demonstrates. 7 minutes ago, scifimath said: The theory of the very large and small are unified. Perhaps you could provide some mathematical details of this unification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 11, 2019 Author Share Posted August 11, 2019 The state of the particle is decided before it leaves the gun. I already gave you a conditional statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, scifimath said: The state of the particle is decided before it leaves the gun. I don’t know what that means or how it relates to the double slit experiment. I am now convinced that you don’t understand the experiment. 6 minutes ago, scifimath said: I already gave you a conditional statement. I don’t see any conditional statements. And I certainly don’t see any mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 11, 2019 Author Share Posted August 11, 2019 The if statement. I'm arguably the person that knows more about the double slit than anyone. It held the key to the Theory of Everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 How would one test your conjecture? How could it be falsified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, scifimath said: The if statement. Which if statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scifimath Posted August 11, 2019 Author Share Posted August 11, 2019 14 minutes ago, swansont said: How would one test your conjecture? How could it be falsified? Wouldn't you like to know! ha. My theory already fits to what double slit type experiments demonstrate. 2 minutes ago, Strange said: Which if statement? If (full spacetime object){//larger than abbes diffraction limit or being observed current situation = General Relativity;} else{current situation = Unobserved QM;} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 On 8/9/2019 at 10:29 PM, scifimath said: I'd love if you could refute any of it. There isn’t really anything to refute. All you have done is give some rather garbled descriptions of the predictions of quantum theory and then claimed it is somehow novel. Without some testable (ie mathematical) detail, there is no way of “refuting” your vague claims. The phrase “not even wrong” seems appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts