Comments:


dragon     Sun, Jun 5, 2011  Permanent link
I'm not much of a physicist, but I will have an undergraduate chemistry degree at the end of the year so I can posit a few ideas for you which may or may not be any good.

1. Quantum Physics: Quantized things do not exist on a number line. +1, -1 is how matter seems to take shape even if the quarks have fractional charge they cannot be isolated. I would suggest http://www.particleadventure.org  for some light reading. Also the second law of thermodynamics seems somewhat appropriate.

2. Constructive vs. destructive interference?

3. I fail to see how this solves consciousness. Maybe I should read up on multiverse theory before I comment. Right now I've got to get to bed, exam starts in 6 hours and this stuff won't help with environmental chemistry.

Hope there was a little springboard in there somewhere and I'm not just giving you old information that led you to these conclusions?
BenRayfield     Mon, Jun 6, 2011  Permanent link
Quantized things do not exist on a number line. +1, -1 is how matter seems to take shape even if the quarks have fractional charge they cannot be isolated.


Heisenberg uncertainty describes a limit on what scientists have been able to measure, on pairs of things like position and momentum. If you are 2 times as accurate measuring the position, then you would be half as accurate measuring the momentum. Position and momentum are subject to bell curves instead of quantization (being one thing).

What I said about bell curves was meant about the angle a particle takes. Each place there is a reason to branch (like coming to a double slit), the multiverse branches on at least 1 dimension of bell curve in the angle (and other things like momentum) of path it takes. It branches into an infinite number of angles, which are each quantized as 1 or -1, as you said.

Constructive vs. destructive interference?


When I said "in phase", I meant constructive interference.

I fail to see how this solves consciousness.


I define consciousness as the universe, which is independent of how information tends to flow from past to future. When a wavefunction, normalized to be centered on the left slit of the double-slit experiment, hits an opposite wavefunction normalized on the right slit, and those are 2 specific wavefunctions for 2 very specific paths (each normalized differently), they cancel out when they hit the destructive interference spots on the back wall of the double slit. What I have explained about consciousness is that it is simultaneously everywhere in the universe and therefore you don't need a path from that place reality is cancelled out to the place it is not cancelled out. You simply stop experiencing consciousness at that place, and continue experiencing it other places. Consciousness is everywhere and everything, while information only flows in certain ways so we are also individuals. That does not mean the universe is one mind. Its a lot of individuals that fit together in a lot of ways. The main thing I've explained about consciousness is why we do not need a path between reality being cancelled out and whatever we experience next.

To normalize a wavefunction on a particle in a specific position, momentum, etc, (and I've not done the math on this, but this is what I'm thinking in terms of geometry), you would write a new wavefunction as if that particle does not exist and it has no movement, no mass, no momentum, everything about it being relatively normalized to 0. That is the consciousness of being that particle.

This way of normalizing wavefunctions, a particle going through the left slit and one through the right slit, cancelling out, would instead cancel out both of their entire realities since such realities are defined in terms of the particles that (if they existed in this model) get cancelled out. This can be used to determine what I mean as new way of normalizing. To completely remove a specific particle from a reality, but have other parts of that reality act the same way in its absense, you may need to redefine the laws of physics (temporarily in this new definition of one wavefunction), so this may be the same as defining the particle as a new type of boson (force carrier), but I don't think it would be that simple. It would be much simpler to define the wavefunction as only accurate for a short time/space, before the particle interacts with anything, and that should be a practical way to do this new kind of normalizing.

It is an error to write a wavefunction without defining the consciousness of the observer as the zero position of everything, an error which quantum scientists know no way to avoid. An observer can not be a variable in the equation. The act of observing is the act of being the thing that is observed.
dragon     Sat, Jun 11, 2011  Permanent link
It would be wrong of me to talk about things I don't pretend to understand any further. Go into a University and find a physics professor. Or even a 3rd year or higher student. Post this on a physics forum or something. If you can come up with an experiment to test your theories they might even let you do it, depending on the associated cost of course. But let me warn you that unless you have come to grips with the existing mathematics of quantum physics, general and special relativity and their derivations you're probably not going to get very far. From the little bit of stuff I've done with quantum physics I have come to understand it as being very much counter-intuitive, but that the mathematics that has been derived is useful and accurate - otherwise all of the instruments that I use in the chem lab would not work. Before you get too excited about your theories you have to look at what other people have done on the same problem, people have been thinking about this stuff for a long time. But given your interest in the topic I would also say that there aren't many people who have the drive to do this kind of stuff, you should go for it.