Not a new theory for Quantum Theory

[OneSpace]

After hitting reply your posts no longer have the Quote tag at the bottom to use.

*********************************************************

OneSpace (for your scrunity)

0D- 0D is TIME STOPPED or paused

1D- 1D is TIME, it is 1D because it can move foward, point A to point B is a single dimension.

2D- Angular momentum, time that could just move foward now has a left right component. 2D is SPACE, some say space is empty or that it is nothingness, but it is just that space has no thickness, when you look at space you only see its height and width, its depth is invisible because it is not there.

3D- 3D is MATTER, the angular (left/right) momentum (foward/back) takes on the third and final dimension. Time (z) is spun into a flat orbit (y) in two dimensions and if you can imagine that orbit on each revolution moving around the (x) axis a specific amount every orbit. That specific amout quantizing the matter.

*********************************************************

 

ajb & insane

That is interesting how a properties are structure based, also like humans have the property of consciousness for instance from their structure of atoms. But regardless of the complexity of the structure and the properties derived would it be logical to say it is still truely what it is made from?

#1. What something is made from, regardless of the complexity of the structure,(and the properties derived from those structures) is still what it truely is.

 

ajb

(About quantum theory you said):

Very different, yet agrees with every experiment/observation ever carried out. Maybe not so different then?

 

(That is the point i was making, no difference at all if you look at it a different way.)

**********************************************************

Onespace

(looking at the knowledge already gained differently)

Young's double slit experiment says matter is both a wave and a particle. A different way to look this "knowledge already gained", (please let me know if i am getting the scientific facts wrong) I purpose for your scrunity:

 

#1. What something is made from, regardless of the complexity of the structure,(and the properties derived from those structures) is still what it truely is.

#1. The single dimension, regardless or the complexity of the structures (2D, 3D) that are created, (and the properties derived from those structures), is still what it truely is.

 

1D is the wave, 3D is the particle?

Is the particle still truely the wave and the duality of Young's experiment is not a duality at all? Should we only think in tems of a 1D wave?

That is all.

**********************************************************

Klay

I think our point is your analogy can be continued and it still works quite well when you start asking what type of sand etc....

 

(It is an analogy quoted after the premise, it is not about sand, get over it.)

 

If you define something, then you've just sat the definition so this will always be true..

 

(it is a premise not a definition)

 

You're not really doing science here,

 

(i never said i was, the knowledge has already been gained i am only trying to think differently about it)

 

Photons are 4D

(i didn't know there was such a thing as 4D in science, it is not that i don't beleive you and i may be corrected but that is what i have read.)

 

(i found your choice of a color quite hard to talk about using the premise)

 

We're not really treating you like a crackpot

 

(Ok, fine, lets get on with it, I hope to make a good and sensible arguement)

*********************************************************

Moo

(At the end of your previous post)

 

You shouldn't take it personally, but requiring we stop is like requiring we stop thinking scientifically. That won't happen.

 

(I didn't ask you to stop,)

 

Well, I didn't say that

 

(Well, you did)

 

Before the analogies, speak STRAIGHT FORWARD

 

(I did)

(#1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is.

e.g. Sand castles are always just sand.)

 

(I am sorry i won't continue pulling apart your posts like this.)

 

Having an imaginative idea is not against science. A lot of discoveries came from an imaginative "breakthroughs". HOWEVER -- There's no such thing as "stepping out of science". If you step out of science, you stop analyzing the world around you.

 

(Your no dummy, so lets just get on with it and try and enjoy a good arguement)

[iNow]

After hitting reply your posts no longer have the Quote tag at the bottom to use.

 

Try hitting the Quote button instead.

 

Alternatively, you can manually program the quote, such as this:

 

All the stuff username said goes in here

 

 

You then reply to that portion of the post here. After that, you quote the next bit:

 

The next part username said to which you are responding.

 

 

 

Just copy my text above and give it a whirl.

 

 

I'm lazy, and your post above took too much work to figure out with all of the ************ and non quotes, so I'm genuinely trying to help you figure out the formatting bit so we can instead focus on the content bit.

 

 

Cheers.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, look.

 

This is the summary of the thread:

 

• You made claims and premises.
  
• We've READ THEM and took the time to respond.
  
• We're trying to explain that your given claims are illogical, and you claim we are stuck-ups.
  
• We give examples to why they are illogical and unfit to serve as premises, and you say they're analogies.
  
• We ask he speaks straight forward, and you claim we are stuck ups.
  
• We try to ask you to stop saying that and make more substantiated claims we can actually start debating and analyzing, and he you make more analogies.
  

 

During all that time, regardless of not finding the quote tab, you pick and choose what to respond to.

(I beg your pardon but you only answered SNIPPETS of my posts, which were NOT MY MAIN SUBJECT. Picking and choosing what to respond to so that you can "show" us as stuck ups does NOT help your theory to become better scientific).

 

It's borderline Trolling.

It's unscientific.

 

 

Are you here to lecture or to share ideas and analyze them? I believe you need to examine your motivation and reconsider the audience you have chosen.

 

We are not the ones to stop arguing against non-specific circular logic analogies.

 

 

~moo

[OneSpace]

Try hitting the Quote button instead.

 

Alternatively, you can manually program the quote, such as this:

 

All the stuff username said goes in here

 

 

You then reply to that portion of the post here. After that, you quote the next bit:

 

The next part username said to which you are responding.

 

 

 

Just copy my text above and give it a whirl.

 

**********************************************************

Thanks inow, i tried but none of these function seem to work on my com for some unknown reason, i did exactly as you suggested.

 

this is selcted and i have hit BOLD.

 

This is the green smiley

 

Nothing

 

I know how to use the functions they just don't work.

The kids have removed mircosoft word from this com, i wonder if this is the reason.

 

I put the name of the person at the start and answered in brackets, but i will try and reload Word when i get the chance.

 

 

Edit> Ahhhh manually

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Microsoft Word shouldn't matter for this. I'm using a computer that doesn't even have a Microsoft product on it.

 

Looks like the buttons won't work, but you can still do things like to bold text, and so on.

[OneSpace]

Microsoft Word shouldn't matter for this. I'm using a computer that doesn't even have a Microsoft product on it.

 

Looks like the buttons won't work' date=' but you can still do things like to bold text, and so on.[/quote']

 

Thanks

 

From Quantum theory

Strings; Existing in One Dimension

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

Eric5

This information can be found on wikipedia regarding quantum wire and nanotubes. Quantum wire conduct electrons. Quantum wire is made of nanotubes. Nanotubes are cylindrical. Cylindrical means it is 3D. So your quantum wire is 3D.

 

As for your 0D object' date=' electrons are spherical, in order for an object to constrict a sphere it would have to be 3D. If anything is a physical object it is made of electrons. Electrons are 3D, so all objects would be 3D.

 

Klaynos

Ok, the electron confinement is 1D in nanowires... in quantum dots, it is 0D confinement, these are 1D or 0D objects...

 

'electrons are spherical' I'm sorry but this shows a clear and basic misunderstanding of quantum mechanics, and therefore I wonder how you feel justified in making any claims about this kind of thing?[/quote']

 

This was a good arguement Klaynos,

 

OneSpace (for your scrunity)

0D- 0D is TIME STOPPED or paused

1D- 1D is TIME' date=' it is 1D because it can move foward, point A to point B is a single dimension.[/quote']

 

The electron is confined along a time line in 1D.

The quantum dot is confined by paused time in 0D.

 

It was just an observation.

[Klaynos]

When talking about QD's, wires etc... the 0D and 1D refere to spacial dimensions only, so if you talk of the 4 traditional space-time dimensions then they would be 1D and 2D respectively.

 

I'm glad you got quotes working

[OneSpace]

The fourth dimension?

The question is, is there such a thing?

Why is time, which i think you are refering to as the fourth, not seen as 1D operating within 2D or even 3D, i mean why is it added to make another dimension.

This is just another way of looking at it.

 

To expand on this idea using:

0D- 0D is TIME STOPPED or paused

1D- 1D is TIME' date=' it is 1D because it can move foward, point A to point B is a single dimension.

2D- Angular momentum, time that could just move foward now has a left right component. 2D is SPACE, some say space is empty or that it is nothingness, but it is just that space has no thickness, when you look at space you only see its height and width, its depth is invisible because it is not there.

3D- 3D is MATTER, the angular (left/right) momentum (foward/back) takes on the third and final dimension. Time (z) is spun into a flat orbit (y) in two dimensions and if you can imagine that orbit on each revolution moving around the (x) axis a specific amount every orbit. That specific amout quantizing the matter.[/quote']

 

1D builds 2Ds but 1D still exists at the same time.

2D builds 3D but 1D and 2D still exist at the same time.

I don't think i have touched the science here, nothing has changed scientificly, it is just another way of looking at it.

4D or more would not exist, as far as i know there is no scientific proof of it.

 

So if i use the above definitions:

Time(1D) builds space(2D) but time still exists in this new dimension of space.

Space(2D) and time(1D) build a new dimension, matter(3D), but space and time still exist.

 

Matter is inside of space, space is inside of time and they all exist together, you could add them to get 4D or even a chaotic infiniteD but there would still be only the 3.

 

Just to show how we look at it at the moment:

 

 

Originally Posted by OneSpace

is the whole universe just one single wave

 

Zephir

Yes' date=' the universe can be considered as a single quantum wave, just in infinite number of dimensions, therefore we can see it as a random chaos.

[/quote']

 

Please point out any holes.

[insane_alien]

the numbering of the dimensions is arbitrary. it is convention to call time the fourth as this was the last to be considered a dimension as it is not spatial.

[Klaynos]

It appears rather nicely in the 4vector though

[OneSpace]

the numbering of the dimensions is arbitrary. it is convention to call time the fourth as this was the last to be considered a dimension as it is not spatial.

 

Yes, but IF time is the first dimension (1D) it can't also be called the fourth.

 

It appears rather nicely in the 4vector though

 

I can't even imagine that except as an addition within and of the first three.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, but IF time is the first dimension (1D) it can't also be called the fourth.

Does it matter what number we give it?

[Klaynos]

the numbering/naming is arbitrary.

 

Relativity shows us that the dimensions can all turn into each other...

[OneSpace]

Does it matter what number we give it?

Well yes, if there are only three.

1D would be that which moves along a single line of momentum like time

2D would be that which would have the added quality of angular momentum (left and right)

and 3D would be that which had the further quality of being able to move around angular momentum on a third axis, completing the sphere.

 

the numbering/naming is arbitrary.

 

Relativity shows us that the dimensions can all turn into each other...

 

Well that follows, they are all just 1D on 3 different axis.

[iNow]

Well yes, if there are only three.

1D would be that which moves along a single line of momentum like time

2D would be that which would have the added quality of angular momentum (left and right)

and 3D would be that which had the further quality of being able to move around angular momentum on a third axis, completing the sphere.

 

It doesn't matter, though. It's as if you're arguing against me because I've chosen to call my middle finger number 1 instead of 3, but the real meat of the issue is that it's one of five, so I could call it Fred or Janice and it would still be the same finger I'm describing.

[Klaynos]

Well yes, if there are only three.

1D would be that which moves along a single line of momentum like time

2D would be that which would have the added quality of angular momentum (left and right)

and 3D would be that which had the further quality of being able to move around angular momentum on a third axis, completing the sphere.

 

 

 

Well that follows, they are all just 1D on 3 different axis.

 

1D on 4 different axis

[OneSpace]

Sorry i was a bit slow on the uptake in relation to the definition of arbitrary.

 

Arbitrary dimensions i think would mean that you could have say 3D without the need for first having 1D or 2D. I think you are saying this premise is backed up by relativity showing that dimensions can all turn into each other.

So therefore this is like arguing the choice of numbering any one dimension before another is not logical, like numbering your middle finger 1 or 3, it would not matter, it is arbitrary.

 

The arguement is that you cannot have a 3D without first having a 2D, and you cannot have a 2D without first having 1D.

Relativety is showing that dimensions can all turn into each other, you will not have an arguement here, but there is more than one way of looking at what is shown.

 

A 1D thing exists in one axis, the same 1D thing exists as the second axis, and the same 1D thing exists as the third axis. They can turn into one another because they are one another.

This is not arbitrary, you need to have 1D before you have 2D, and you need

2D before you have 3D.

 

An infinite number of waves of the same thing.

 

Please point out any holes.

[Klaynos]

Why do you need one before the other? Why can't you have all of them at once?

[OneSpace]

Why do you need one before the other? Why can't you have all of them at once?

 

Good question, the answer is when you have all three existing you do have them all at once, time can exist on it's own but to have space you need time and to have matter you need time and space.

 

The axis are the dimensions, they build 1 by 1. If space (the middle) did not exist you could not jump straight to matter (the end).

 

Holes please.

[Klaynos]

Why can time exist on it's own and space can't? Matter is not a dimension, but I think you know that already.

[thedarkshade]

Matter energy space and time are things that just cannot be without each other. I don't know why but I'm sure it's this way.

[OneSpace]

1D is a confinement where only time can exist.

2D is a confinement where space can exist, and time.

3D is a confinement where matter can exist, and space, and time.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Says who?

 

Matter is not a dimension in any way, shape, or form. The three spatial dimensions are the x, y and z axes you might see on a 3D graph.

 

If you wish to redefine "dimension", I suggest you use a different word so the mathematicians don't come after you.

[OneSpace]

I didn't know i was redefining "dimension". I didn't say i could see every angle, just a different angle, if there is something i am not seeing please point it out.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensions

 

Length width height?

A coordinate system?

 

I am not saying that matter is a dimension, but only that is what exists within the dimension.

Sometimes, as is the case for time it is all that can exist in 1D so it is the thing that must be making the dimension by default. (Cause and effect, time is the effect and if time is all there is, it must also be the cause.)

 

If time is an infinite number of waves of the same thing and one dimension can become another then it follows that time alone is acting on all three axes.

It would follow that 3D is inside of 2D and 2D is inside of 1D and that is exactly how it appears in the physical world.

 

OneSpace (Quark) 03-28-2008' date=' 06:48 AM #44

 

The axis are the dimensions, they build 1 by 1. If space (the middle) did not exist you could not jump straight to matter (the end).

 

[/quote']

 

I do realise i have to be precise when dealing with science, i meant, "The axes make the dimensions".

 

In an attempt to answer every question:

Says who?

 

All of you by your lack of arguement.

 

I am not sure if you agree with this information from wiki so don't take it personally.

I know there are more than a dozen theories for Quantum and none of them are clear-cut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

Superposition Principle

The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any configuration' date=' any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state which is a mixture of the two, where the amount of each configuration that is in the mixture is specified by a complex number.

 

 

Then the world can be in a state which is a mixture of the two? Are they kidding?

THE TWO? Any two what, an infinite arrangements of particles, the one we see and some magical reality we don't, and they are mixing??????????????

[b']Says Who??????????[/b]

 

ok so lets have a look how i am describing it then for what i hope will turn into some kind of thought provoking arguement .

 

1.

A 1D thing is a single line of momentum

A 2D thing is angular momentum

A 3D thing is angular momentum with a third axis of momentum.

 

2.

A single line of momentum has to exist before you can have another line of momentum.

This means it is not arbitrary but there is a procession that must be followed.

 

3.

Every line of momentum is every other line of momentum i.e. the same 1D thing is on every axis. This agrees with the results from relativity.

 

4.

Superposition exists because the first dimension contains only one thing (the wave) and all other dimensions are inside of, and made from, the first.

 

So who says, i do because it is all clear-cut and it all follows.

[Klaynos]

I didn't know i was redefining "dimension". I didn't say i could see every angle, just a different angle, if there is something i am not seeing please point it out.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensions

 

Length width height?

A coordinate system?

 

I am not saying that matter is a dimension, but only that is what exists within the dimension.

Sometimes, as is the case for time it is all that can exist in 1D so it is the thing that must be making the dimension by default. (Cause and effect, time is the effect and if time is all there is, it must also be the cause.)

 

I don't get what you mean here, by "can exist in 1D", so can any of the spacial dimensions.

 

If time is an infinite number of waves of the same thing and one dimension can become another then it follows that time alone is acting on all three axes.

 

How does it follow? Time acts on the other 3 as each of the other 3 act on the other 3...

 

It would follow that 3D is inside of 2D and 2D is inside of 1D and that is exactly how it appears in the physical world.

 

Why do they have to be inside each other? HOW can they be inside each other? They're orthogonal to each other...

 

I do realise i have to be precise when dealing with science, i meant, "The axes make the dimensions".

 

In an attempt to answer every question:

 

 

All of you by your lack of arguement.

 

I am not sure if you agree with this information from wiki so don't take it personally.

I know there are more than a dozen theories for Quantum and none of them are clear-cut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

Superposition Principle

The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any configuration, any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state which is a mixture of the two, where the amount of each configuration that is in the mixture is specified by a complex number.

 

 

Then the world can be in a state which is a mixture of the two? Are they kidding?

THE TWO? Any two what, an infinite arrangements of particles, the one we see and some magical reality we don't, and they are mixing??????????????

Says Who??????????

 

Any two superposition states, so you have an electron, it is either up spin or down spin, before you measure it, it is in both states, a superposition.

 

ok so lets have a look how i am describing it then for what i hope will turn into some kind of thought provoking arguement .

 

1.

A 1D thing is a single line of momentum

A 2D thing is angular momentum

A 3D thing is angular momentum with a third axis of momentum.

 

But they're not, the first requires 2D at least.

 

2.

A single line of momentum has to exist before you can have another line of momentum.

 

No it doesn't you can have them all at once.

 

This means it is not arbitrary but there is a procession that must be followed.

 

See above.

 

3.

Every line of momentum is every other line of momentum i.e. the same 1D thing is on every axis. This agrees with the results from relativity.

 

I don't understand this?

 

4.

Superposition exists because the first dimension contains only one thing (the wave) and all other dimensions are inside of, and made from, the first.

 

So who says, i do because it is all clear-cut and it all follows.

 

But it doesn't follow... It follows about the same as "when I turn my car engine on I get power and can move therefore there must be a gremlin on a treadmill inside the bonnet."

 

For something to follow you need to explain HOW it follows, preferably with maths.