MirceaKitsune

Thank you, that is helpful. More answers are of course welcome to paint a better picture from all.

There's actually one thing I've been trying to understand here: Do particles (such as electrons) really spin? As in, do the "surface" of the particle or the quarks inside it actually rotate if you give the particle an anagular velocity, or should particles be imagined as something that no rotation can be attributed to and can only be represented by a position in space (in other words as nothing but points mathematically)?

Depends what people see as stable. To living beings on Earth in general, stable usually means predictable and safe... such as rocks not causing a nuclear explosion when dropping to the ground. If each universe indeed has unique physical rules in each and every aspect, any has very different physical rules and chemical reactions from what we can begin to imagine. In some there is no such thing as light or fire, in others particles don't even become mutually attracted to form atoms and molecules so there's no such thing as solid objects. Stable is a fuzzy concept to imagine at such a scale. Overall though, I think each universe both has or lacks a lot of "functionality" and strange things we see in ours... but different things and even different forms of life can exist in each.

Although I only understood and accepted this recently, matter existed long before the universe had any concept of life or consciousness. So conscious observation most likely doesn't change what any particle is or does... all particles / atoms / molecules were there and doing the same thing to begin with. Personally however, I believe there are systems within this complex mechanism of the universe that make awareness and thoughts project certain effects directly onto particles. How no one knows... and speculations without a mathematical formula likely qualify as paranormal more than anything. I believe the first step in finding an answer will be explaining how consciousness and spirit really work... in a fully scientific and zero religious way. Sadly that still seems pretty far away, but the day will come when science will figure this out too.

I haven't fully understood this myself. But from what I read, quarks are what make up particles and define what they are. The count as well as shape of quarks define the mass of a particle, its electric charge, and pretty much everything. Note that I'm only stating what I understood, don't take this for granted as I might be wrong. In a documentary about the multiverse theory, I heard that the shape of quarks are what defines the properties of an universe. So in another universe, there might be 4 spatial dimensions and time is the 5th dimension... or "flatland" might literally exist. I find it a rather beautiful thought personally, if this really happens to be true.

Never heard about about more than 2 particles getting tangled myself. Neither that it should be possible nor that it shouldn't... so no idea. As for entanglement being usable as a means of instant communication, my personal opinion is that soon enough entanglement should make it possible to create "instant walkie-talkie telegraphs". I really hope this happens before Mars One sends people to Mars and the like, as such should make it possible to talk to anyone at any distance with virtually 0 lag. If >2 way entanglement is possible too, this will certainly mean a new age for the internet... where the concept of connection speed should vanish entirely, and neither wires nor radio are needed to connect online.

I've recently been interested in understanding physics and how the universe works. About a month ago, I've gotten to a conclusion which I believe might explain the basis of quantum mechanics. Fot those interested to read about it, see this thread (warning, huge post, but IMO worth looking at if you have the time and energy). Although it's a hypothesis I strongly believe in (because it makes sense in every logical aspect), it's highly incomplete and has no mathematics behind it, as others have pointed out. For this reason, I'm trying to understand a few details about quantum physics, which might help make more sense of how this works. They're the sort of thing I tend to have trouble finding in Google searches, so I thought it would be best to ask. These are the questions I have so far, though I might add new ones later if any come to mind: 1 - From what I heard, it's confirmed that the low mass of a particle is a key factor in its quantum behavior. But how exactly does a higher or lower mass change the behavior of such particles, if this was ever possible to measure? For example, do lighter particles have multiple states they switch between, or leap from one state to another more quickly, or have higher chances of tunneling through an obstacle? While heavier particles would do this more rarely or in a different pattern? 2 - Does the speed at which a particle travels affect its quantum behavior? Such as electrons in an atom that has a high velocity changing orbit more frequently than the electrons in an atom which moves slowly or stands still. 3 - How does the charge of a particle affect quantum behavior? Do only electrons behave by the commonly known quantum laws, or so do protons and / or neutrons? Does the behavior differ in any way for each? I assume no one knows how this goes for anti-matter too since it can't be actually tested. 4 - Has anyone tested how quantum particles behave in different gravity environments? Such as comparing the behavior of a particle here at ground level, with the behavior of an identical particle on the International Space Station in microgravity. Can gravity caused by nearby objects change the outcome in any way? 5 - Are there any known cases when not single particles, but also linked particles behave by quantum laws? In other words, are there any atoms or even simple molecules that change states or tunnel as a whole? 6 - My last question for now is about the double slit experiment; Each particle of light seemingly acts as if it went through both holes at the same time, until it is observed. Once observed by a person, it becomes clear which of the holes it went through. My question is this: Once the particle has been observed, does the "verdict" stick and stay the same no matter what? Or if the scientist was to close their eyes after observing the particle, then open them a few moments later, he might find that the particle went through the other hole instead? Also, if another scientist observes the particle after the first one finished observing it, might he see a different result?

It explains why it's harder to test and prove, it's understandable. I will keep the idea in mind, and if someday I'll be able to understand similar formulas I shall attempt one for this.

I knew before making this thread that at least a mathematical formula is necessary for an idea to be taken seriously, so I didn't get many hopes up. I guess my interest and logical thinking went ahead of my knowledge and skill in mathematics. I spend my free time looking at the universe like a detective, rather than cracking down formulas. I was however hoping that ideas and hypothesis might have some use as well... such as triggering someone interested and skilled to look into the formulas instead. Anyway, I did propose some practical experiments, even if with no mathematics behind them. Not hoping anyone might actually cary them out, as people who possess labs will only turn their head toward theories that have a minumum solidity to them, unlike this idea at this stage.

No mathematics like I said. In that case hypothesis is more correct, sorry about that.

A few things to clarify before I get started: I am aware this is a theory I came up with, which is untested and has no mathematics behind it. I don't claim to be the only one to have thought of it either, although I never saw it discussed anywhere else and concluded it's an obscure concept. Even if my observation holds some truth to it, it's likely incomplete and not fully correct... but it might at least provide a basis for a new way of looking at the subject. I'm hoping that posting this will spark further ideas that will continue mine, and that someone who has the hardware to attempt experiments in this sense might do so as well. In essence, I believe I found part of the explanation to quantum physics, and the behavior of tiny particles at subatomic scales. My theory is based on another theory, the existence of "time lines". I will begin with my take on this subject first, then explain my vision of the quantum world and why I believe this might be the answer. - The timeline theory: It's known since Einstein's day that time and space are a single entity (timespace). Space consists of the first three dimensions, hence why everything we see are 3D objects. This leaves time as the 4th dimension, a fact accepted by science. If we could observe our universe in 4 dimensions instead of just 3, we'd see a trail representing the trajectory of every particle, since the moment it came to be to the moment it ceased to exist (in some cases the beginning and end of the universe). Were I to look many kilometers back on time's axis, I'd see myself as a baby walking across the floor... a few kilometers forth and I'd be watching my own funeral. Everything that happened, is happening now, or is going to happen, already exists on the 4th "axis" and stays unchanged. A theory which is also known but not backed up by as many facts, is that of parallel time lines, which lay in the 5th dimension. Whenever a probability occurs, such as a conscious decision being taken, the 4th dimension forks into the 5th... creating a parallel time containing everything that happened accounting that outcome. The 5th dimension therefore holds countless stacks or bubbles of the 4th, which are all the times that could exist due to randomness in the universe. To my knowledge, there is less proof of this theory, except for a few considerable facts. The most striking one is that time (4th dimension) exists from start to end, and is not modified as events unfold (time would then require time to be built and that would be a paradox). Yet things can have multiple outcomes and can't always be predicted. Living beings are the best example: They reason and take conscious decisions, rather than their bodies being meant to animate in a fixed direction. One could argue that the brain is a mechanism that automates everything and creates the illusion of choice... but I think any in-depth analysis proves there isn't just one outcome and we influence what we experience, otherwise evolution itself would have probably not happened. For this to be possible, it requires a stack of parallel times. So everything I could do already exists in some form, while my mind moves between times with every little choice. My theory of quantum physics (which I will get to bellow) should also support the existence of time lines if proven right. - What lead me to the quantum theory: During the last weeks I watched many documentaries and read several articles about quantum physics. Primarily how electrons seem to teleport into different orbits around a nucleus, quantum tunneling, the double slit experiment, entanglement, and other basics and experiments. I barely understand mathematics unfortunately, but I try hard to analyze things logically and put knowledge and facts together. So I spent part of my free time asking the question "why would particles behave in such a way"? The first thing that seemed off was the idea that anything (even a particle with "wave-like properties") would simply snap to different locations in space. How could anything get from point A to point B without traveling there at some speed? Even more peculiar is that the particle maintains a velocity in an expected direction, rather than getting another inertia each time it "teleports" and going all over the place. Why does it go back and forth between similar locations and states too, and not always a new place? It's almost as if the particle travels between multiple existences. I envision all dimensions spatially... including time and time lines. In my head, the 3D physical space we see is the surface of a hypersphere (4D sphere). That hypersphere expands, each expansion being a new "frame" in time. The hypersphere however is itself the surface of a 5D sphere, which is also expanding. Each expansion in the 5th direction is a whole new timeline generated by probability. The process repeats for higher dimensions. This might not be entirely correct and realistic... I'm only describing my basic conception of the universe's fabric, which contributed to my conclusion. I recommend watching animations of a spinning tesseract on all axes, which I spent several hours staring at when I was first introduced to 4D space. This page has several, and there are also a few on Youtube. Having a basic "4D vision" can help in better understanding my point. I've also read the known facts about quarks, the building blocks of particles. From what I concluded after various descriptions, quarks exist in all possible dimensions at once. They aren't predominantly 3D, 4D, 7D, etc. shapes... but can vary, and their overall shape defines how they and therefore matter behave. This means that apart from being the building blocks of everything, they can be considered a connection point between space, time, timelines, and all higher dimensions... because they are part of all at once. - The timeline based quantum theory: Finally, we get to the theory I came up with: Subatomic particles don't randomly teleport around space at all. Their low mass causes them to be unstable in the 5th dimension, wobbling and moving by a small amount in its direction. Because we only perceive three dimensions spatially, we see the particle snapping around the place. In reality, it's moving through time lines. The further it's slung back and forth, the higher the number of parallel times it intersects, going into more and more distant probabilities. The wave like pattern might be a result of the neat way in which the particle moves. To use a less realistic example but which explains the idea properly: Let's consider that a scientist is bringing an atom to the lab for studying. Due to an unforeseen circumstance, he trips and drops the container on the ground, the shock nudging the atom and changing the position of its electrons. Because the scientist tripping was an unlikely event, this incident did not occur in all other time lines, where the scientist never tripped and never dropped the container. Once the scientist (in either time line) finally gets the atom to its destination and begins examining it, he notices an electron is switching between two orbits. One might be the orbit it's originally had in this time, where the container was dropped. The other might be the orbit the electron would have had if the container wouldn't have been dropped. The electron is simply slinging between the two realities, by moving in the 5th direction. - Proof behind the theory: I'm not a mathematician, I can't write a formula to prove this. I'm actually hoping this might inspire someone good at mathematics to try finding one. I believe this theory because it fits all experiments and observations so far, while nothing else can justify the mechanics behind quantum physics in any logical form. Here are several examples I can list: * Electrons changing orbits: I found two things worth noting here. First of all, the particle seems to flawlessly appear in another location, without traveling there or any signs of motion being applied to it. If we conclude the particle somehow moved there, we have two main issues: What would trigger such an exact change of origin, and how is it possible without defying the laws of physics? If we look at it dimensionally however, this is exactly the kind result we'd expect to see when an entity is moved in a dimension higher than those we perceive directly. Time is the case we're most used to, but time is smooth. In the case of the 5th dimension, we cannot notice any smooth transition. We can only be in one time line at a given moment, because time lines are above time itself. So if we move in the 5th dimension in relation to the particle, we suddenly see the particle in another location like it's always been there. Second piece of evidence is the particle's motion. If the particle was indeed poofing to its new location, we would definitely see it having a different movement. It should either retain its inertia from before moving, get a random new velocity, while the sudden change in position could even generate an excruciating tension and launch it away. Yet it instantly orbits at its new location, without any acceleration or deceleration being noticeable, as if nothing happened. That's because nothing did happen: In each parallel time, the electron is orbiting its nucleus at a constant speed on a predictable trajectory, without any interference. We're changing 5 dimensional position so we just see a new reality. * Quantum tunneling: So how could a particle go through a solid barrier as if the barrier never existed? It's said that it does so by borrowing energy from its surroundings and paying it back later, although that still makes little sense to me. More so, why is there only a probability for it to pass, and sometimes it will not tunnel through but collide with the obstacle? Time lines also explain this; As the particle is approaching the barrier, it might move in the 5th dimension before hitting it, ending up in a time where the obstacle never existed. Once it passes the location of the obstacle, it might move back to a time where the obstacle is there, but since it's already passed it and is moving away from it this no longer matters. * The double slit experiment: When a special neon is shined in front of a wall containing two holes, particles of light behave as if they went through both holes at the same time. This would be explained by the timeline theory, if the light source is likely to throw particles very randomly, creating a lot of probability and 5-dimensional forks. The particle keeps vibrating between time lines where it went through the left hole and time lines where it went through the right hole. There is one more aspect of the double slit experiment, which offers the strongest argument to the idea that particles wobble between time lines: Whenever a light particle is observed by a scientist, it behaves like it was always there, and went through either the left or the right hole to begin with. Figured out what this means yet? The moment you watch the particle, you "catch" it in one of the time lines. So you are indeed looking at a particle that never went anywhere else than through the hole you caught it in. * Wave like behavior: Subatomic particles have been described as behaving like both matter and waves. Considering that particles fling between time lines, their motion might be similar to that of a guitar cord for instance. When pulled on and released, a cord vibrates in the direction it's released from until it eventually stops. In this case the motion never ends, but the movement pattern feels rather similar. Imagine stacking multiple sheets of paper (time slices) on top of each other, then running a pencil up and down with constant forward motion across one of their edges. You'd be drawing a line that looks like a wave, and is uniform if you perceive each segment as a point by looking from the edge of each sheet in order. * Einstein's doubts: My last argument is one which isn't scientific, so it can be taken less seriously. When Einstein came across the concepts of quantum physics, he was skeptical about a lot of things. While he didn't deem it as incorrect, but rather considered it incomplete, there were things he was strongly against. Such as the idea that particles would come in and out of existence at random, in a way that couldn't be predicted mathematically... a view he's stated as "God does not play dice". Of course, quantum physics might have simply spooked Einstein to the extent that he refused to look at it rationally any longer. But based on what I heard about him, I doubt he'd be wrong in such a manner. Instead I'm inclined to believe he had reasons to think particles zapping through space at random would simply not be possible. Movement in a higher dimension would likely match Einstein's vision. Particles in this case move due to a clear reason, and actually travel between points 1 and 2. This can likely be explained mathematically too if investigated thoroughly enough. - Experiments that could test the theory: I've come up with two theoretical experiments, which someone who disposes of an advanced laboratory would be able to preform. In essence, this theory can be tested by comparing the leap of particles to common sense probabilities. This is probably an unique concept in science... but after all the test must correspond to what's being tested, in this case probabilities. * Controlled decision and intention in manipulating a particle: The scientist positions the particle in place, and notes down its initial quantum behavior. Afterward he prepares to manipulate the particle by changing its rotation for example. Now for the tricky part: The scientist would have to make last-second decisions, and change his mind frequently about when and how he manipulates the particle. Further more, he must also know what the result would be if he'd have carried on any of his intentions exerted toward the particle. After doing this for long enough and creating enough probabilities, the verdict should be that some states the particle will assume are the result of intentions that were nearly carried out. * Examining quantum tunneling based on probability of the obstacle: The probability of a particle to tunnel through an obstacle might be influenced by the amount of time lines the obstacle is present on. That itself should be determined by how likely it is for the obstacle to exist and be located there. The scientist would have to find an object which is thin enough to allow for tunneling, but which has been there for a long time, in an area where it's unlikely that anything could have moved or damaged it. Such could include the tip of a rock found naturally, which has resided in place for hundreds or thousands of years, in a place where weather was unlikely to move or corrode it. The experiment would have to be carried out without moving the rock in the slightest, as the scientist's action would then become a probability factor. Normally, there should be a lower chance of particles tunneling through there. Oppositely, scientists could keep launching particles in a vacuum where there are no obstacles. As a last minute decision and in an unlikely circumstance, the scientist can then drop an obstacle in the way. If there are few probabilities behind this action, there should be a higher chance of electrons to tunnel through it. - What this means: If my theory happens to be true even partly, I believe it would have some interesting implications. First of all, it would further support the idea that time lines exist and are the role of the 5th dimension. Further more, it would prove that particles can travel between time lines in either direction. If for example a particle could transport information, this movement could be used to inform us of something that could have happened or not happened. If a way to harness the power of this mechanism would ever be discovered, people could find ways to even travel between time lines. This means canceling an event that happened years ago, or adding a new one. We could move to a reality where 9/11 never happened and the twin towers are still standing. Or a time where the second world war never occurred, and a lot of things might be different today due to that. Note that we wouldn't move on the 4th dimension (time travel), so clocks would indicate the hour and date we'd expect to have passed like in everyday life. An interesting outcome for science itself is that this should mean it's possible to write a mathematical formula which predicts the movements seen in the quantum world, ditching the old probability formula. The equation would have to consider the wobble of the particle in the 5th dimension, as well as its state in all of the time lines it intersects. Further more, it would have to describe not three dimensional movement, but movement in 5-dimensional space. The particle must be envisioned as a point which can move not only up - down / left - right / back - forth, but all of these plus present - past / plus probabilities - minus probabilities. For this reason, it will probably be a pain figuring it out until this can be examined to the fullest. - Final words: Like I said, I don't claim this as certain truth. I do however believe I am onto something, and could say I'm fairly convinced there must be at least a grain of truth in it. Maybe the wobble isn't in the 5th dimension but a higher one... who knows. But if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that movement in a dimension higher than we perceive directly explains part of the quantum world. If enough people with better knowledge conclude this isn't all crazy talk, I'm hoping the idea might be taken seriously higher in the scientific community, so experiments and mathematical formulas can be attempted. Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think.

Hello there. My name is Mircea, usually known as MirceaKitsune or Taoki. I'm mostly a computer nerd... frequently into game development and animation. Over the recent years, I've also been highly interested in how the universe as well as life work, and eager to understand matter and why things are the way they are. Part of my quest with science is personal... but like many people I want to know the deeper truths behind the way everything is like. I found this place while searching for a solid forum where such subjects and more can be discussed. So far I've been watching many documentaries created for television, as well as reading various Wikipedia articles. Since I'm dislexic (have problems reading too much at a time) and very bad at mathematics, I don't expect to grasp the full picture behind everything too soon. But I am interested in analyzing at least the logics behind things, and hope that someday I might be able to contribute at debunking mysteries science is trying to explain. Even if not, I'll try to be around and follow the news and anything that sparks new ideas.