NavajoEverclear Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 What if our entire universe is made of one particle : moving so quickly that nothing is quick enough to detect when the particle is not there (because it hits that place so frequently there is no time to miss it)------ wait i guess that wouldn't work, because everything being made of the particle (in different positions) is made of that particle, and i dont think there is any way for it to collide with itself if it is the only thing in existence----- so say there are TWO particles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted October 7, 2003 Author Share Posted October 7, 2003 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted October 8, 2003 Author Share Posted October 8, 2003 bumping this up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Hmmm.. a bit like the Stack Pointer in a computer program? Naaah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Bumping is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted October 8, 2003 Author Share Posted October 8, 2003 sorry, anyway what about the two particles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 I posted this a while ago in psuedoscience. Is this related? superparticle Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted October 8, 2003 Author Share Posted October 8, 2003 Yes i think so---- thats basically my idea, if the particle moves fast enough, it being in one place is so inconcievable near simotaneous as it being in another, that it would be completely indectable to us at anything but an entire something, our awareness simply doesn't have the resolution to see between it. Of coarse within this posts idea, this particle (or if it requires two) is the ONLY thing, so even your conciousness is created by the two particles. With the right patterns and frequency of being in certain places it creates the image of everything detectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I see an argument in the direction of one particle since nothing in the universe actually touches and also the fact that a photon of light can seem to interfere with itself in an experiment until we actually try to observe it or touch it and all we really see are the effects. This could be explained by us never seeing anything at all except effects. It's possible to synthesize effects to match a script while a movie is being produced and the whole movie is on film. A single particle could create on a certain level the experience of its own patterns apparent effects. All it needs is infinite speed, directional changes, energy, and mass, an incremental pattern, and in our case life to realize it. Just for thought. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted October 9, 2003 Author Share Posted October 9, 2003 Of coarse that life would be made of the particle. What would be the reason for the particle moving in such patterns to synthesize our universe-- would it be based on laws, or is the particle a mechanism controlled by someone for an unknown reason, or is the particle an living entity itself, or do all things exist in spirit, borrowing the particle to manifest physically? Obviously no way to proove any of these possiblities (but there is also no way to disproove them). Your right about the particle synthesizing its own effects--- Its just as likely as there being two particles. So really all thats left is WHY would it (or they) do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I was just proposing that given the resources of the universe, the infinities of size (large and small), time, mass or energy, memory, and direction, and imagining an incremental program, the universe could be created and you wouldn't know the difference. This was the way I would do it but I have no idea past that as to any reason. I just hadn't seen any other actual engineering models of how it all might have come about and I put this out as a reference. We're working intuitive first and the math and proof or disproof comes next. I think it would work though and nothing disproves it yet, but that is the argument that gets this sent to psuedoscience. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGiantHead Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 This 'one particle' notion bears similarity to an interpretation of QM that is, I think, due to Feynmann. It's called the 'sum over histories' approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 this sounds a bit similar to the question I asked in a post a little while ago; http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1895 I wonder if it`s an extension of the same thing? might be worth looking at this Feynmanns work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I searched a little and read how Feynmann proposed in his CPT lectures that anti-matter was mirror image matter travelling bacwards in time. It was interesting. He seemed to be searching by intuitive logic first and proving later just like the rest of us foolish mortals including Einstein. Feynmann proved a lot of what he professed because he was also an excellent mathematician. I'm mostly fascinated where his mind went that is unprovable but only argues logic. He would have loved this forum. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Feynman was a great fellow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 In part of the single paticle theory it can explain the effect noted and accepted that particles of mass in space appear and disappear out of space. If on average over time something that usually is moving very fast is in a space long enough it will be detectable. Otherwise it is invisible but may have the properties and show the effects of dark matter. It would have been great to ask Feynmann what he thought . Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted October 12, 2003 Author Share Posted October 12, 2003 well perhaps the one particle has memory of everything it has created, so in a way it would be rather simple to bring him back. I don't know how to control the particle like that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now