Jump to content
Trestone

Interaction - a new non-local dimension?

Recommended Posts

Hello,

in my research to a new logic
I also encountered the following more physical problem:

According to my theory it could be that the interaction of two particles
was different (or not possible) if both have previously had different interactions
(e.g. since the Big Bang or on a pool table).

In practice, particles or billiard balls can always interact with each other,
no matter how many and different interactions preceded.
Ockham's razor therefore says that the interaction stories are not relevant.

I counter this with the "pocket knife of my imagination":

We can also assume that all interactions in the universe are always counted,
and this counter is available universally and simultaneously (= not locally) in the universe.
It can only increase, so it has a direction.
And only particles with the same interaction counter reading can interact and increase the counter by 1.
We see that this counter is very similar to classic Newtonian time.
Therefore, I consider it a new dimension of time / impact /interaction.

Of course the whole thing would be superfluous if it only explained interactions,
for which you don't need it at all.

But you can (along with a local time reversal)
explain many of the curiosities of quantum theory.

First of all, I have to clarify that when interacting
gravity (or space-time curvature) is excluded.
One reason is that it is less easy to define.
A second is that the physicists have not yet come to equal treatment of the four basic forces
and my new extra time could make space-time difficulties.
Since I am not a physicist, we can also say that I separated it “intuitively”.


My model for a quantum interaction looks like this:
At a starting point (e.g. in front of a double slit) a particle has
according to the uncertainty relation, several possibilities to reach target points
where interactions could take place.

These possibilities explore swarms of "virtual possibility particles".
As long as the interaction at the target has not yet taken place, these are not real
and can return to the start (with information from the target) inversely in time.
At the start, the virtual target information cannot be read.
Therefore, one of the options (including the virtual information) is selected blindly (quantum coincidence),
this becomes real and triggers an interaction at the goal.
This also increases the universal interaction counter by 1.
The particle from the start can no longer interact due to the lower counter.

(You can also interpret it as "it moved from start to target",
however, the possibility paths are not particle paths
and can e.g. go through two slits (interference)).


Entanglement can also be explained with the interaction counter and inverse possibility particles.
Here the virtual information about the polarization filter angle is brought back (time inverse) to the start,
after selecting these angles go through and then become real with the interaction at the target
(or the two targets) and the counter increases.

The time reversal for virtual possibility particles was in these considerations
maybe more important than the interaction counter,
that makes an interaction real and fixes the result (quantum measurement).


But there is also an application in which the influence of the impact counter could be shown more directly:
We assume that our computers (with the exception of errors) work independently of time.
So if we determine the prime factorization of a large number,
the same result should be delivered yesterday, today and tomorrow.


Now I was able to show that logic and mathematics may apply (layer logic),
where the prime factorization could be layer-dependent,
and where in reality the layer could correspond to the levels of the interaction counters.

So it would be conceivable that if the computer tried again to determine the prime factors of a large number,
would suddenly produce different results.
Unfortunately, in this experiment we may have to wait until the end of the universe ...


I do not want to hide one disadvantage of the interaction counter:


Although I allow time travel "on a small scale", "on a large scale" I make it impossible:


If my grandfather lived in front of me at interaction counter k,
that's how i was born at k + r.
So I can only interact with objects with interaction counter k + r or larger,
but not with my grandfather in the past at k.

So the grandfather murder was murdered.


The lottery numbers are similar:
If the drawing of the lottery numbers at counter k + r, this cannot provide information about counter k
be brought before the drawing because there is nothing to interact with.
 

So maybe you can go back in time,
but that's only useful for quantums,
because in the second time dimension interaction counter
everything is ordered (macroscopically) monotonously.

Anyone interested in details of the layer logic from which all of this started
here the link:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96134-layer-logic-alternative-for-humans-and-aliens/?tab=comments#replyForm


Yours
Trestone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations.

Note that the rules for this part of the forum require you to support your idea with evidence or mathematics. Please show that your idea can reproduce the same results as current theory (in other words, that it matches the real world).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trestone said:

Hello,

in my research to a new logic
I also encountered the following more physical problem:

According to my theory it could be that the interaction of two particles
was different (or not possible) if both have previously had different interactions
(e.g. since the Big Bang or on a pool table).

In practice, particles or billiard balls can always interact with each other,
no matter how many and different interactions preceded.
Ockham's razor therefore says that the interaction stories are not relevant.

I counter this with the "pocket knife of my imagination":

We can also assume that all interactions in the universe are always counted,
and this counter is available universally and simultaneously (= not locally) in the universe.
It can only increase, so it has a direction.
And only particles with the same interaction counter reading can interact and increase the counter by 1.
We see that this counter is very similar to classic Newtonian time.
Therefore, I consider it a new dimension of time / impact /interaction.
 

 

Does this make it so that you could e.g. tell electrons apart, based on their interactions?

How would you test your conjecture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Trestone said:

We can also assume that all interactions in the universe are always counted,
and this counter is available universally and simultaneously (= not locally) in the universe.

How can it be available simultaneously when two different observers may disagree about whether two events are simultaneous or not (or even the order in which they occur).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be doing the counting some dreamland Abacus ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strange said:

How can it be available simultaneously when two different observers may disagree about whether two events are simultaneous or not (or even the order in which they occur).

Hello Strange.

You are right, relativity is a problem to my theory.

Perhaps we can assume a universe for every observer.
If the observer notices an interaction, the count is increased in his universe.
If an other observer does not notice an interaction, the count stays unchanged.

So we have a (universal) count for every observer.

Wether this approach is working, I do not know.

 

Yours
Trestone

2 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Does this make it so that you could e.g. tell electrons apart, based on their interactions?

How would you test your conjecture?

Hello swansont,

I don´t believe that my theory helps to tell electrons apart.
 

Near to the end of my text I described a possible test:

We assume that our computers (with the exception of errors) work independently of time.
So if we determine the prime factorization of a large number,
the same result should be delivered yesterday, today and tomorrow.


Now I was able to show that logic and mathematics may apply (layer logic),
where the prime factorization could be layer-dependent,
and where in reality the layer could correspond to the levels of the interaction counters.

So it would be conceivable that if the computer tried again to determine the prime factors of a large number,
would suddenly produce different results.
Unfortunately, in this experiment we may have to wait until the end of the universe ...”

Yours

Trestone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Trestone said:

You are right, relativity is a problem to my theory.

There goes your theory.

15 minutes ago, Trestone said:

Perhaps we can assume a universe for every observer.

Ockam's razor. A universe for every observer is inordinately uneconomic. We have enough universes, thank you very much.

 

16 minutes ago, Trestone said:

If the observer notices an interaction, the count is increased in his universe.

Observer-dependent is a bad, bad thing. I think there are unsolved problems in QM --other people disagree--, but this in not one of them.

How many 'observers' are there in the union of all universes? Are there observers without universe? And universes without observers? How do different observers relate to each other and correlate their observations? Is there a meta-universe where they all correlate? Do different universes correlate in the first place? How do you define a universe? And an observer? What is an observation? Is a rock an observer? And a cat? If I see an amoeba and you see an amoeba, how do our universes agree on the 'amoeba' aspects of our observations?

From what I can understand in what you say, your ideas go against the grain of what science is about. Objectivity is far more important than reality.

17 minutes ago, Trestone said:

where the prime factorization could be layer-dependent,

How could that be? Prime factorization depends on the properties of the integers. What does 'layer-dependent' mean? What does 'layer' mean? What do you mean by 'could be'? You don't know?

Quote

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Albert Einstein

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trestone said:


I don´t believe that my theory helps to tell electrons apart.
 

Near to the end of my text I described a possible test:

We assume that our computers (with the exception of errors) work independently of time.
So if we determine the prime factorization of a large number,
the same result should be delivered yesterday, today and tomorrow.


Now I was able to show that logic and mathematics may apply (layer logic),
where the prime factorization could be layer-dependent,
and where in reality the layer could correspond to the levels of the interaction counters.

So it would be conceivable that if the computer tried again to determine the prime factors of a large number,
would suddenly produce different results.

 

Is math different? (i.e. the number changes between prime and not prime)?

Or is it the computer? If the latter, why, specifically, does it err?

Quote


Unfortunately, in this experiment we may have to wait until the end of the universe ...”

Not testable, then. Thanks for playing.

 

Quote

 

You are right, relativity is a problem to my theory.

Perhaps we can assume a universe for every observer.
If the observer notices an interaction, the count is increased in his universe.
If an other observer does not notice an interaction, the count stays unchanged.

No, it cannot work that way. If an event happens, it happens for everyone.

Quote

Wether this approach is working, I do not know.

It doesn’t. Now you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not testable, then. Thanks for playing.

I forgot this. Your theory must be falsifiable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello swansont,

with layer logic math is different.

The proofs of Cantor and Gödel are valid no more
and also the proof, that the prime factoriztion is unique,
as there could be different factorizations in different layers.

More details at this link:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96134-layer-logic-alternative-for-humans-and-aliens/?tab=comments#replyForm

(The parts about logic and math are more serious than this speculations about physics,
but there nobody answered for a long time)

Yours
Trestone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Trestone said:

with layer logic math is different.

Try to say that when they stop you for speeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, joigus said:

Observer-dependent is a bad, bad thing. I think there are unsolved problems in QM --other people disagree--, but this in not one of them.

How many 'observers' are there in the union of all universes? Are there observers without universe? And universes without observers? How do different observers relate to each other and correlate their observations? Is there a meta-universe where they all correlate? Do different universes correlate in the first place? How do you define a universe? And an observer? What is an observation? Is a rock an observer? And a cat? If I see an amoeba and you see an amoeba, how do our universes agree on the 'amoeba' aspects of our observations?

From what I can understand in what you say, your ideas go against the grain of what science is about. Objectivity is far more important than reality.

Hello joigus,

the observer-dependency was not my invention,
but is a consequence of relativity.
From a physical view it is not relevant if observers are “amoebe” or “humans”,
as long as they are in the same frame of reference.

Of course it would be nice, if we could compute the differences between frames of refernce also for my interaction count – and what consequences this has.
As I do not know most consequences of different counts, I am far away from this.
(And I do not know, how an amoeba experiences the world).

 

Yours
Trestone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Trestone said:

Hello swansont,

with layer logic math is different.

A claim that demand evidence.

Quote

The proofs of Cantor and Gödel are valid no more
and also the proof, that the prime factoriztion is unique,
as there could be different factorizations in different layers.

More details at this link:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96134-layer-logic-alternative-for-humans-and-aliens/?tab=comments#replyForm

You can’t formulate one speculation on top of another one. Speculation has to gave at least one foot in established science.

If math is different, you need evidence of it. Not some unsupported conjecture.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Trestone said:

the observer-dependency was not my invention,
but is a consequence of relativity.

Hello, Trestone. Special Relativity is not an observer-dependent theory. All observers sharing the same reference frame agree on their observations.

A very common misconception of relativity is that it's about subjectivity. Quite the contrary. It's about carefully distinguishing which observations are frame-dependent and which are not (invariants.) Once the matter is settled, SR goes on to work on non-frame dependent quantities in order to assure that the physics is not ill-defined.

Working out for yourself some dynamical problems of decay, collision, etc. is very illuminating in this respect.

Experiment has always supported the theory, which is the most important point.

2 hours ago, Trestone said:

(And I do not know, how an amoeba experiences the world).

 

Thereby my point. If you don't know what qualifies as observer, how can you tell with any degree of confidence what you must include in your picture of the multi-observer, multi-universe framing of the physical world?

I have nothing against your theory, and far less against you. I'm just calling you to task. If what you want to do is set forth a new scientific theory, I think you must work on those details. So far, and I don't think I'm alone in this, I don't think you have proposed a scientific theory.

And thank you for your sportsmanship and good manners. Not everybody one disagrees with is like that.

10 minutes ago, Trestone said:

here my proof that Cantors diagonalisation ore different infinities are no more valid with layer logic.

If you have to go to a different logic to disprove Cantor's diagonal argument, that kind of says it all.

Edited by joigus
minor re-wording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Posts on layer logic have been moved to that thread. Please keep that discussion separate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.