Not a new theory for Quantum Theory

[OneSpace]

Q.

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

 

A.

1D is a single line of momentum, there is only 1 1D thing that i know of and that is time... The universe is 1D with some 2D inside and a little 3D inside that agian. Do you know the Russian stacking dolls? Is the small one inside the the big one, and is the next smallest one also inside the big one?

 

Q.

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

Q.

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

 

A.

Same answer for both,the whole universe is 1D, some of the 1D interacted with some of the other 1D producing some 2D inside of the 1D.

Space is inside of time just as matter is inside of space. (just as it appears in the world)

The 2D (which are 2 1Ds) interacted with another 1D on a third axis producing 3D which is insde 2D which is inside 1D.

 

Q.

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.

 

A.

Does a tree fall in the forest arguement. The cat that is both dead and alive.

I understand the arguement and all i can say is, "are you kidding".

And your saying: "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."

Why not an infinite number of 1D acting as the wave and interacting with itself on seperate axes. I may be wrong, it might just be me then that thinks this is far far more clear-cut and logical.

 

Q.

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

 

A.

1D does not require 2D. 2D is a product of 2 1Ds interacting on seperate axes.

 

Q.

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

 

A.

A single line of momentum is 1D, it is the wave, the wave acts on all axes, with no interaction it is only 1D, when it interacts it becomes 2D and then 3D. Your right, you do have them all at once but that alone does not make them arbitrary.

 

Q.

I don't understand this?

 

A.

See above.

 

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

 

I am doing my best.

[Klaynos]

Q.

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

 

A.

1D is a single line of momentum, there is only 1 1D thing that i know of and that is time... The universe is 1D with some 2D inside and a little 3D inside that agian. Do you know the Russian stacking dolls? Is the small one inside the the big one, and is the next smallest one also inside the big one?

 

Q.

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

Q.

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

 

A.

Same answer for both,the whole universe is 1D, some of the 1D interacted with some of the other 1D producing some 2D inside of the 1D.

Space is inside of time just as matter is inside of space. (just as it appears in the world)

The 2D (which are 2 1Ds) interacted with another 1D on a third axis producing 3D which is insde 2D which is inside 1D.

 

You say the universe is 1D, I say it is AT LEAST 4D, quite possibly more...

 

Q.

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.

 

A.

Does a tree fall in the forest arguement. The cat that is both dead and alive.

I understand the arguement and all i can say is, "are you kidding".

 

The cat argument is a demonstration of the absurdness of quantum mechanics applied to the real world...

 

And your saying: "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."

Why not an infinite number of 1D acting as the wave and interacting with itself on seperate axes. I may be wrong, it might just be me then that thinks this is far far more clear-cut and logical.

 

You have presented no logical path, you state one thing with no evidence and then state that this leads to another thing with no logical path given other than "it follows that"

 

Q.

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

 

A.

1D does not require 2D. 2D is a product of 2 1Ds interacting on seperate axes.

 

What do you mean by "is a product of 2 1Ds interacting"?

 

Q.

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

 

A.

A single line of momentum is 1D, it is the wave, the wave acts on all axes, with no interaction it is only 1D, when it interacts it becomes 2D and then 3D. Your right, you do have them all at once but that alone does not make them arbitrary.

 

What type of wave? Surely if teh wave is interacting with all the dimensions it is part of them all?

 

Q.

I don't understand this?

 

A.

See above.

 

It still makes no sense!

 

I am doing my best.

 

I appreciate that. And don't take any of this as personal attacks, science is trial by fire.

[OneSpace]

ye say teh that big thing that all the stuff is in' date=' ye know? is 1D, I say it is AT LEAST 4D, quite possibly more...

[/quote']

Well i have stated my explaination, is there a question here..

 

teh cat argument is a demonstration of teh absurdness of quantum mechanics applied to teh real world...

 

It would seem the absurdness door has been opened for some time for these explainations, instead of explaining quantum mechanics without weird, it is explained with further weird. (quantum is a different world? really? how does THAT work?)

 

ye have presented no logical path, ye state one thing with no evidence and tehn state that this leads to anotehr thing with no logical path given otehr than "it follows that"

 

And your examples of this is ?????

 

ok, some examples of following logic.

 

1.

3D matter is inside of 2D space, it follows then that 2D is inside 1D.

2.

If one thing can turn into another thing then it must have always been that thing, or it's magic.

3.

If everything is the wave, then there must be an infinite number of waves of the same thing.

 

What do ye mean by "is a product of 2 1Ds interacting"?

 

A 1D wave on one axis' date=' and a 1D wave on the other axis.

 

What type of wave? Surely if teh wave is interacting with all teh dimmensinons it is part of tehm all?

 

A 1D wave. The wave is acting on all axes creating the dimensions, yes it is part of them all, every part.

 

As for my spelling, apart from being a poor speller, sometimes i am in a rush, like the last post just before work this morning.

Don't worry, i don't take anything said over a computer personally, i need to look people in the eyes for that.

 

edit> The, the, them, further

2nd edit> a T H E virus?

3rd edit> i thought you were having a go at my spelling Klaynos.

4th edit> And a Y O U virus? Did you do this?

5th edit> I don't even know if your seeing this but T H E and Y O U even in posts back to the beginning in this thread are jumbled. Can you see this?

Ok i just checked other threads and it is there also.

[ajb]

I don't understand what is meant by a dimension acting on another dimension? (You of course really mean "direction", but still I don't understand)

 

2D inside 1D? I am not sure what you mean by that.

 

e.g. work locally, say coords [math]\{x,y\}[/math] on 2D and coord [math]\{z\}[/math] on 1D. By inside you mean a map (no other restriction at the moment) such that

 

[math]f: 2D \rightarrow 1D[/math]

[math]\{x,y\} \mapsto \{z(x,y)\}[/math] ?

 

This can't be an embedding as 2D is not a submanifold of 1D. So I really don't understand "inside".

 

See if you can explain exactly what you mean even if it is just on [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] and [math]\mathbb{R}^{2}[/math].

[OneSpace]

I don't understand what is meant by a dimension acting on another dimension?

Acting? i said interacting as in one axis interacts with another forming another dimension. Yes a single line of momentum(1D) on 1 axis, becomes a more complex (2D) with angular momentum on 2 axes.

 

2D inside 1D? I am not sure what you mean by that.

From last post.

1.

3D matter is inside of 2D space' date=' it follows then that 2D is inside 1D.

 

This is not the answer you are looking for?

 

The planets and stars are inside of space, 3D matter of any description does not exist outside of 2D space, so 3D matter is said to be inside 2D space. Does it not follow that 2D space is inside 1D time? Is this not the only way that we could be experiencing all three at once? Like Russian stacking dolls, one inside the other?

 

By inside you mean a map (no other restriction at the moment) such that

 

 

?

 

This can't be an embedding as 2D is not a submanifold of 1D. So I really don't understand "inside".

 

Are you trying to say that a 1D point is inside a 2D map so i have it back-to-front?

This is wrong.

The 2D map itself is inside 1D time as shown by each passing second, you can't see 1D, it is not a point, you can only experience it (by being inside it, not by being outside of it). A point can be used to represent 1D but so can a cross, or a picture of a cat, it is arbitrary what you use. If you say no, the point is a real 1D thing then it must have momentum or it is still, and is really 0D.

So.

If it has momentum, has no spatial dimension (3D or 2D), but is as real as (3D or 2D) and we experience it just as we experience (3D or 2D), what is it?

 

3D is a submainfold of 2D, and 2D is a submanifold of 1D. This is also how all the things i see here in the natural world working. i.e complex things being formed by less complex things, less and less complex until you reach the source of the lowest dimension. That from which everything complex came from. That which is an infinite number of waves of the same thing.

 

I am a firefighter not a maths professor, please don't do that again, i am doing the best i can.

[ajb]

Acting? i said interacting as in one axis interacts with another forming another dimension. Yes a single line of momentum(1D) on 1 axis, becomes a more complex (2D) with angular momentum on 2 axes.

 

Ok, so what does axis/dimensions/directions (whatever) interacting mean? I am very unclear on this.

 

Unless you simply mean it takes two numbers to (at least locally) to describe points on a 2D (topological) space?

 

(As an aside, people don't talk about axis in geometry. Picking local coordinates is fine and probably what you really mean. Also, complex has a very specific meaning, so again I would avoid that term.)

 

 

 

From last post.

1.

3D matter is inside of 2D space' date=' it follows then that 2D is inside 1D.

 

This is not the answer you are looking for?

 

The planets and stars are inside of space, 3D matter of any description does not exist outside of 2D space, so 3D matter is said to be inside 2D space. Does it not follow that 2D space is inside 1D time? Is this not the only way that we could be experiencing all three at once? Like Russian stacking dolls, one inside the other?

[/quote']

 

You are defining the idea of "inside" here somehow. Just by dimensional reduction?

 

A is inside B iff dim A > dim B ?

 

You are absolutely free to define it as you wish. Now you have to show that it is a useful idea.

 

 

Are you trying to say that a 1D point is inside a 2D map so i have it back-to-front?

This is wrong.

The 2D map itself is inside 1D time as shown by each passing second' date=' you can't see 1D, it is not a point, you can only experience it (by being inside it, not by being outside of it). A point can be used to represent 1D but so can a cross, or a picture of a cat, it is arbitrary what you use. If you say no, the point is a real 1D thing then it must have momentum or it is still, and is really 0D.

So.

If it has momentum, has no spatial dimension (3D or 2D), but is as real as (3D or 2D) and we experience it just as we experience (3D or 2D), what is it?

 

3D is a submainfold of 2D, and 2D is a submanifold of 1D. This is also how all the things i see here in the natural world working. i.e complex things being formed by less complex things, less and less complex until you reach the source of the lowest dimension. That from which everything complex came from. That which is an infinite number of waves of the same thing.

[/quote']

 

You have this all wrong. Roughly;

 

A point is by definition 0D.

 

A space (I mean a manifold without boundary really) is a collection of points. (given a topology, but we don't need that now) (so it is a set.)

 

A coordinate system is a (local) assignment of numbers used to describe the points. (Points exist independently of of coordinates.) Eg. Any point p,on a 1d space can be described locally by a number {x(p)}. 2D {x{p}, y{p}} and so on.

 

The dimension of a space is the number of numbers needed to describe a point on a space. i.e 2D takes 2 numbers etc.

 

We also have some confusion with some terminology.

A map is a "function" between spaces. It maps points of one space to points of another. (You can use maps between a space and R^n to define your coordinate systems)

 

 

A submanifold/subspace is exactly that. It is a subset of a larger (higher dim) manifold/ space, which itself is a manifold/space in its own right. It simply has to be of lower or equal dimensions.

 

I am a firefighter not a maths professor' date=' please don't do that again, i am doing the best i can.[/quote']

 

I understand that, but if you are going to post on this forum then you must be willing to accept scientific criticism. None of my posts are of a personal nature and all I want to do is help you.

[OneSpace]

Time, a single dimension, a single line of momentum, described by a single number along a one dimensional line, using a single axis, 1D.

 

Space, angular momentum, a flat sheet without thickness, described by a pair of numbers of lenght and width, using two axis, 2D.

 

I would be happy to describe dimensions any way you want as long as we both know what is meant, and we can move along.

 

You are defining the idea of "inside" here somehow. Just by dimensional reduction?

 

Somehow? The planets and stars are inside space' date=' how is this confusing? Time first, 1D. Within this infinite number of waves of 1D time there is an interaction between the waves creating a continuious changing of direction of some of these waves -angular momentum- now any position can be described with two points along two different axes. This interaction between the waves, in this way, creates 2D space.

 

Space second,2D. Again some of the the infinite number of 1D waves interact around 2D space to create 3D matter, which by looking at the amount of matter in space is a rare occurance.

 

Is matter inside space, and is space inside time? Well that is how it appears in the real world, but what i am describing really has no inside and outside, it is all one thing (1D time), and what appears (is built) as space and matter is still just time regardless of the interaction. 1D time is both time and that which is built from it's interaction with other waves of itself. 1D waves interact with other 1D waves to form 2D and 3D, it appears that 3D is inside 2D but i accept your criticism this is not an acurate description. 1D still is 2D and 3D, the forms taken by 3D objects only appear to be inside 2D space because it is a lesser dimension.

 

A point does describe 0D, it has no momentum, if 1D time is momentum along a single line and that momentum is stopped by a point to give a position along that line then it is describing stopped time.

 

I understand that, but if you are going to post on this forum then you must be willing to accept scientific criticism. None of my posts are of a personal nature and all I want to do is help you.

 

I am accepting your criticism, I don't think your posts are of a personal nature, and thankyou.

[Klaynos]

I still don't really understand what you mean by all of this, but....

 

Is matter inside space time? Yes.

 

Is space inside time? No.

[OneSpace]

It would help for you to take a position on the things i say so i know where the arguement actually is.

 

 

1.

3D matter is made from 2D space, 2D space is made from 1D time?

2.

If one thing can turn into another thing then it must have always been that thing, or it's magic?

3.

If everything is the wave, then there must be an infinite number of waves of the same thing?

4.

0D is time stopped or paused?

1D is where only time can exist?

2D is where space exists, built from and existing with 1D time?

3D is where matter exists, built from and existing with 2D space, which inturn is built from and existing with 1D time?

5.

If there is only the infinite number of the same wave then it must be creating all dimensions.

6.

The statement:

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.

 

It is either up or down, not both, this is an absurdity used to balance what seems the absurdity in quantum mechanics?

 

If i knew what i was arguing against it would help greatly......................

 

I still don't really understand what you mean by all of this' date=' but....

 

Is matter inside space time? Yes.

 

Is space inside time? No. [/quote']

 

What is your position on time being 1 Dimensional, space being 2 Dimensional and matter being 3 Dimensional?

If you agree they are then the logic is 3D is made from (a sub catagory of) 2D and it that 2D is made from (a sub catagory of )1D. The reason that 2D and 3D are sub catagories is that there are an infinite number of 1D but a lesser number of 2D and an even lessor number of 3D. Each dimension being an addition to the one before.

 

That said, after the constructive criticism when saying "inside", i agree it is not the right word.

A better way to express this would be to say 3D is built from 2D and 2D is built from 1D and it only appears that 3D is inside 2D.

So

Matter is not inside space time it only appears that way because 2D is lesser than 3D. 2D is not inside 1D it is built from it.

 

The bottom line here is that the quantum mechanics absurdity is being explained without greater absurdity, superposition is explained by points 2,3 and 4 above. The absurdity is reduced to an infinite number of the same wave and these waves interacting with one another to from greater dimensions for things to exist.

 

I may be wrong, but please show me where you stand on what i have said so i know where the arguement is, and if you disagee please explain why.

[Klaynos]

It would help for you to take a position on the things i say so i know where the arguement actually is.

 

I'm just stating things just like you are.

 

1.

3D matter is made from 2D space, 2D space is made from 1D time?

 

4D matter exists in 4 dimensions of space-time.

 

2.

If one thing can turn into another thing then it must have always been that thing, or it's magic?

 

Nope, and it't not magic, if you consider beta decay, you get a quark changing.

 

 

3.

If everything is the wave, then there must be an infinite number of waves of the same thing?

 

Do you mean one thing is made of an infinite number of probability waves? If so no. If you mean there's an infinite number of electrons (for example) in the universe then there's so many that that's not a bad approximation.

 

4.

0D is time stopped or paused?

 

0D normally refers to 0 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations.

 

1D is where only time can exist?

 

1D normally refers to 1 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations, and some linear movement.

 

2D is where space exists, built from and existing with 1D time?

 

2D normally refers to 2 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations, and 2 directions for motion.

 

3D is where matter exists, built from and existing with 2D space, which inturn is built from and existing with 1D time?

 

Matter can be confined to any one of 3D, 2D, 1D or 0D. It is not a dimension on it's own, nor is it derived from one.

 

5.

If there is only the infinite number of the same wave then it must be creating all dimensions.

 

How? You're going to explain this mathematically, and show that there is an infinite number of the same wave.

 

6.

The statement:

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.

 

It is either up or down, not both, this is an absurdity used to balance what seems the absurdity in quantum mechanics?

 

It is both, quantum mechanics doesn't have to obey the what you consider to be absurd.

 

If i knew what i was arguing against it would help greatly......................

 

We feel the same way.

 

What is your position on time being 1 Dimensional, space being 2 Dimensional and matter being 3 Dimensional?

 

My opinion is that there is at least one time, and three spacial dimensions and that matter exist within this framework.

 

If you agree they are then the logic is 3D is made from (a sub catagory of) 2D and it that 2D is made from (a sub catagory of )1D.

 

Even if I agreed I don't follow this logic?

 

The reason that 2D and 3D are sub catagories is that there are an infinite number of 1D but a lesser number of 2D and an even lessor number of 3D. Each dimension being an addition to the one before.

 

Why is that? What makes you think this?

 

That said, after the constructive criticism when saying "inside", i agree it is not the right word.

A better way to express this would be to say 3D is built from 2D and 2D is built from 1D and it only appears that 3D is inside 2D.

 

But they're orthogonal so how can they be built from one another?

 

So

Matter is not inside space time it only appears that way because 2D is lesser than 3D. 2D is not inside 1D it is built from it.

 

The bottom line here is that the quantum mechanics absurdity is being explained without greater absurdity, superposition is explained by points 2,3 and 4 above. The absurdity is reduced to an infinite number of the same wave and these waves interacting with one another to from greater dimensions for things to exist.

 

There is no experimental evidence that suggest quantum mechanics is incorrect, it has continued to agree. What you consider to be absurd is in fact reality.

 

may be wrong, but please show me where you stand on what i have said so i know where the arguement is, and if you disagee please explain why.

[OneSpace]

Q. by Onespace & A. by Klaynos,

 

1.

Q.

3D matter is made from 2D space, 2D space is made from 1D time?

A.

4D matter exists in 4 dimensions of space-time.

 

Onespace-

Time being the fourth right? So what is a single line of momentum if not 1D?

I have already asked this but as yet have not had an answer. Don't get me wrong here, i appriciate yours and everybody's time.

 

2.

Q

If one thing can turn into another thing then it must have always been that thing, or it's magic?

A.

Nope, and it't not magic, if you consider beta decay, you get a quark changing.

 

Onespace-

You mean a conversion from a down to an up quark? I would think it was still always what it was built from.

Atoms build into all matter, this doesn't mean even after great change it stops them from being atoms, right?

 

3.

Q

If everything is the wave, then there must be an infinite number of waves of the same thing?

A

Do you mean one thing is made of an infinite number of probability waves? If so no. If you mean there's an infinite number of electrons (for example) in the universe then there's so many that that's not a bad approximation.

 

Onespace-

I think you have missed the question altogether here.

No, i mean if there is only the wave then everything is the wave, if by everything i mean more than one thing, which there is, and which i do mean by saying everything, and by one wave i mean only one type of wave, then that one type of wave must be the many waves of the same thing. It is a question of logic, not about what waves are made from which is another question altogether. Do you agree with this logic or do you see it another way?

 

4a.

Q

0D is time stopped or paused?

A

0D normally refers to 0 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations.

 

Onespace-

I agree with 0 spatial dimensions but i don't know how you justify time variation without a dimension for time to exist in. Would time not need at least a single line to exist in, to move along?

 

4b.

Q

1D is where only time can exist?

A

1D normally refers to 1 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations, and some linear movement.

 

Onespace-

I agree with 1 dimension and linear movement but you would need at least 2D for something to be refered to as a spatial dimension, a single line of momentum is invisible and has no provision for space but it IS real and it IS experienced. Time is the only thing i can think of that fits the Bill, do you have another answer?

 

4c.

Q

2D is where space exists, built from and existing with 1D time?

A

2D normally refers to 2 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations, and 2 directions for motion.

 

Onespace-

I agree, But 2 directions of motion suggests to me that this motion began in only 1 direction and through some interaction became 2 directions of motion. Is this not how all other things in the universe work, evolution for instance? Don't we need to take one step before we take another? Does it not follow we need one dimension before we have two.

 

4d.

Q

3D is where matter exists, built from and existing with 2D space, which inturn is built from and existing with 1D time?

A

Matter can be confined to any one of 3D, 2D, 1D or 0D. It is not a dimension on it's own, nor is it derived from one.

 

Onespace-

Matter is not a dimension, i agree yet again, but matter is what exists and therefore what is derived from the existance of a third 3 Dimension. Not 2 and not 1. If this is how you see it explain then how 3 dimensional objects exist in only 1 or 2 dimensions?

I think adsurdity is like a cancer that grows and multiplies if left unchallanged.

If there were only 2 dimensions for everything to exist in then how could you have the impossible 3 Dimensional object in the first place, i can only see this as the spreading of the absurdity cancer from the original, "both up spin and down spin" idea in QM.

 

Q

5.

If there is only the infinite number of the same wave then it must be creating all dimensions.

A

How? You're going to explain this mathematically, and show that there is an infinite number of the same wave.

 

Onespace-

To get to 2D you must add 1D + 1D. (1+1=2), and show there is an infinite number of the same wave? (refer back to Q.3) If everything is the wave?

Well most of science i thought says when solving problems using QM think of objects only in the form of the wave, would you not agree?

Nothing starts as a complex or conbination of things, it is always and without exception a process of starting from a simple or single thing and evolving into the more complex combinations. The only arguement you could have with this i can see is a religious one where i would just have to agree to disagree.

So if there is only the one wave i would suggest it is a 1D wave creating all the other more complex combinations of 2 and 3 dimensions and the more complex combinations that are the things those dimensions contain.

The math is simply a procession because you have to have 1 before you can get 2 or your talking god.

 

6.

Q

The statement:

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.

A

It is both, quantum mechanics doesn't have to obey the what you consider to be absurd.

 

Onespace-

Hey everybody has a BS meter and this makes mine go right of the scale.

I think of this like the coin in my hand is both heads and tails before i look, it is just BS, it looks like BS, it sounds like BS, it smells like BS and yuck it tastes like it to, that is because it is BS. An absurdity used to explain an absurdity in every way. And where does it lead, it is a total dead end and spreads like a BS cancer. We must be willing to think about this a different way or we will never get anywhere.

 

Conclusion-

I hope you realise we are all on the same side, the side of truth.

I also hope you don't think you have to be a physicist or a mathematician to care about this stuff.

Science means i don't have chicken bones shaken above my head when i am sick, or my wife and daughter is not scarficed because of bird signs, so i care.

I may be wrong but you sure are not pointing out where.

[Klaynos]

Q. by Onespace & A. by Klaynos,

 

1.

Q.

3D matter is made from 2D space, 2D space is made from 1D time?

A.

4D matter exists in 4 dimensions of space-time.

 

Onespace-

Time being the fourth right? So what is a single line of momentum if not 1D?

I have already asked this but as yet have not had an answer. Don't get me wrong here, i appriciate yours and everybody's time.

 

This is probably due to no one really understanding what you mean here.

 

2.

Q

If one thing can turn into another thing then it must have always been that thing, or it's magic?

A.

Nope, and it't not magic, if you consider beta decay, you get a quark changing.

 

Onespace-

You mean a conversion from a down to an up quark? I would think it was still always what it was built from.

Atoms build into all matter, this doesn't mean even after great change it stops them from being atoms, right?

 

Atoms are not fundemental they're made of stuff. Quarks are fundemental, they change from down to an up, they physically change an up is not just a down with another thing added in...

 

3.

Q

If everything is the wave, then there must be an infinite number of waves of the same thing?

A

Do you mean one thing is made of an infinite number of probability waves? If so no. If you mean there's an infinite number of electrons (for example) in the universe then there's so many that that's not a bad approximation.

 

Onespace-

I think you have missed the question altogether here.

No, i mean if there is only the wave then everything is the wave, if by everything i mean more than one thing, which there is, and which i do mean by saying everything, and by one wave i mean only one type of wave, then that one type of wave must be the many waves of the same thing. It is a question of logic, not about what waves are made from which is another question altogether. Do you agree with this logic or do you see it another way?

 

This still makes no sense to me, sorry.

 

4a.

Q

0D is time stopped or paused?

A

0D normally refers to 0 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations.

 

Onespace-

I agree with 0 spatial dimensions but i don't know how you justify time variation without a dimension for time to exist in. Would time not need at least a single line to exist in, to move along?

 

You missunderstand what I was saying, when people say 0D, what they are saying is 0 spacial dimensions + 1 time dimensions.

 

4b.

Q

1D is where only time can exist?

A

1D normally refers to 1 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations, and some linear movement.

 

Onespace-

I agree with 1 dimension and linear movement but you would need at least 2D for something to be refered to as a spatial dimension, a single line of momentum is invisible and has no provision for space but it IS real and it IS experienced. Time is the only thing i can think of that fits the Bill, do you have another answer?

 

Fortunatly we've got 4 dimensions, 3 of which are spacial.... But no you just need 1 dimension to describe it as spacial. Of course as you're talking about momentum this would have to be a phase-space.

 

I don't know what bill you're trying to fit here.

 

4c.

Q

2D is where space exists, built from and existing with 1D time?

A

2D normally refers to 2 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations, and 2 directions for motion.

 

Onespace-

I agree, But 2 directions of motion suggests to me that this motion began in only 1 direction and through some interaction became 2 directions of motion. Is this not how all other things in the universe work, evolution for instance? Don't we need to take one step before we take another? Does it not follow we need one dimension before we have two.

 

What does this suggest itself to you? What is your thought process here.

 

Nope that's not how everything in the universe happens, you don't need one before you can have two.

 

4d.

Q

3D is where matter exists, built from and existing with 2D space, which inturn is built from and existing with 1D time?

A

Matter can be confined to any one of 3D, 2D, 1D or 0D. It is not a dimension on it's own, nor is it derived from one.

 

Onespace-

Matter is not a dimension, i agree yet again, but matter is what exists and therefore what is derived from the existance of a third 3 Dimension.

 

I don't think it's derived from the existance of it.

 

Not 2 and not 1. If this is how you see it explain then how 3 dimensional objects exist in only 1 or 2 dimensions?

 

As far as I know there's no reason why you cna't have matter in 1D or even 0D or maybe 10000D... infact it's done regularly to confine electrons, matter, to 0D.

 

I think adsurdity is like a cancer that grows and multiplies if left unchallanged.

 

No one told the universe it had to obey what humans think of as absurd. To think it would is absurd.

 

If there were only 2 dimensions for everything to exist in then how could you have the impossible 3 Dimensional object in the first place, i can only see this as the spreading of the absurdity cancer from the original, "both up spin and down spin" idea in QM.

 

If you don't like QM we're going to have to stop because unfortunately the evidence is against you. And trust me when I say there is ALOT of evidence.

 

Q

5.

If there is only the infinite number of the same wave then it must be creating all dimensions.

A

How? You're going to explain this mathematically, and show that there is an infinite number of the same wave.

 

Onespace-

To get to 2D you must add 1D + 1D. (1+1=2),

 

Why must you add 1D + 1D to get 2D why can't you just have 2D?

 

and show there is an infinite number of the same wave? (refer back to Q.3) If everything is the wave?

 

You didn't show anything you waffled.

 

Well most of science i thought says when solving problems using QM think of objects only in the form of the wave, would you not agree?

 

I disagree.

 

Wave-particle duality is fundamental to QM, as is the idea of probability waves. But what you can't do is think in a classical world.

 

Nothing starts as a complex or conbination of things, it is always and without exception a process of starting from a simple or single thing and evolving into the more complex combinations. The only arguement you could have with this i can see is a religious one where i would just have to agree to disagree.

 

You've not stated any evidence. Without evidence you don't have an argument.

 

So if there is only the one wave i would suggest it is a 1D wave creating all the other more complex combinations of 2 and 3 dimensions and the more complex combinations that are the things those dimensions contain.

 

If there is only one wave why would it be confined to one dimension? It's trivial to write down a wave equation in multiple dimensions.

 

The math is simply a procession because you have to have 1 before you can get 2 or your talking god.

 

You don't have to have 1 before you can have 2 with dimensions though, you can have all at once. According to one hypothosis I read a little while ago it suggested that the curled up dimensions in string theory didn't used to be curled up, so there used to be about 11... of course this was only conjecture of what was around before the BB.

 

6.

Q

The statement:

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.

A

It is both, quantum mechanics doesn't have to obey the what you consider to be absurd.

 

Onespace-

Hey everybody has a BS meter and this makes mine go right of the scale.

I think of this like the coin in my hand is both heads and tails before i look, it is just BS, it looks like BS, it sounds like BS, it smells like BS and yuck it tastes like it to, that is because it is BS. An absurdity used to explain an absurdity in every way. And where does it lead, it is a total dead end and spreads like a BS cancer. We must be willing to think about this a different way or we will never get anywhere.

 

You can't think classically. Unfortunately quantum mechanics is right, you are wrong. There are numerous experiments done every day that back up quantum mechanics and you have no evidence.

 

Conclusion-

I hope you realise we are all on the same side, the side of truth.

 

I am on the side of evidence.

 

I also hope you don't think you have to be a physicist or a mathematician to care about this stuff.

 

Care no, but I've spent 6 years pretty much dedicated to learning about this stuff, 2 I spent about 1/4 of my time doing it and 4 it's been all I've done every single day. And I'm no where near being a qualified researcher (ha, bad wording I know by this I mean a phd). It's complicated, and QM doesn't do what you'd expect it to, but that's how the universe is.

 

Science means i don't have chicken bones shaken above my head when i am sick, or my wife and daughter is not scarficed because of bird signs, so i care.

I may be wrong but you sure are not pointing out where.

 

TBH I wish more people cared :|

[OneSpace]

I am only trying to show an idea that a 3D object such as an atom is made up from 2D parts and those 2D parts are made from 1D parts and therefore only one 1D thing (A 1D wave).

 

Yes, the universe can be considered as a single quantum wave

A wave being an infinite number of waves that make up that wave (this is how others here described the quantum wave to me are they wrong?)

 

I am using the evidence not disagreeing with it.

You said the dimensions are arbitrary-

We (3D objects) move in space and move in time.

Time does not move in us nor does space, we would have our own space and our own time if it did, so the dimensions are not arbitrary they are ordered.

 

Just like everything in the universe the simpliest of things builds into the more complex things. (This is not just my personal idea of how things work i would think it is most peoples)

 

If you can argue just this one point then you could show how, "3D object such as an atom is made up from 2D parts and those 2D parts are made from 1D parts" IS WRONG. That is all it takes, one piece of evidence.

[Klaynos]

Just because something is true in one case does not mean it's true in all cases. QM shows us how our preconceptions of the world are just wrong for many things.

[OneSpace]

I think QM can be explained without any more absurdity than "A wave being an infinite number of waves that make up that wave".

 

I think the evidence (which is right) of QM will show us that the classical world in exactly the same way as the Quantum world, that the truth is the quantum evidence fits with the classical evidence (which is right) if we look at it the right way.

 

The wrong way being arbitrary dimensions and the coin in my hand being both heads and tails till i look.

 

PS edit>

I didn't say the evidence for QM is wrong (yes there is buckets of ) only that we may be looking at the evidence the wrong way, there is a difference..

[ajb]

I think QM can be explained without any more absurdity than "A wave being an infinite number of waves that make up that wave".

 

Fourier series of periodic waves.

Wavlets.

Orthonormal basis on [math]L^{2}[/math] spaces (Hilbert spaces).

(Bäcklund transformation transformations in soliton theory?)

 

So, there is no problem decomposing waves into a "series" of infinite "basic" waves.

[thedarkshade]

I think the evidence (which is right) of QM will show us that the classical world in exactly the same way as the Quantum world...

Why would it be different? It is the same world that is the object of study.

[Klaynos]

Lots of people have spent alot of time trying to disprove QM... No ones done it yet....

[OneSpace]

I am not trying to disprove QM at all, exactly the opposite.

What I am trying to show is that QM is the true way that things are, that by looking at the classical world in a different way it will fit exactly with the truth of the QM world evidence.

 

I don't explain it like a scientist because i am not, i am trying my best so please bear with my misuse of words and try and see what i am actually saying. The point here is that it is a different way of looking at the classical world to agree with the quantum world without changing any of the evidence gathered.

 

The hypothsis is that the quantum wave is a 1D single line function, it creates time. A combination of the quantum waves creates 2D space and a further combination creates 3D matter. (a non arbitrary interpertation of dimensions)

 

The classical world has the evidence of relativity, all dimensions can turn into one another. This fits exactly because they are each other to begin with in this hypothsis.

Again the point being that none of the evidence changes for either quantum or classical.

 

The quantum wave is one but it is many is the appearant absurdity, but a true absurdity that i agree with because of the evidence. I completely think it is true and if looked at properly is not an absurdity at all.

 

By looking at up spin and down spin that we discussed before, using this hypothsis they are each other to begin with, but without meaning they are both up and down at the same time, a further and unnecessary absurdity.

 

PS Edit>

Reading back over this thread i think you have all been pretty patient with me, so thanks.

One piece of evidence, any piece, showing that dimensions have to be arbitrary is enough to put this to bed, so if there is such evidence then please let me know.