metacogitans

Skepticism is cruel but cruel to everything equally; something shouldn't be spared no matter how many doctorates are paraded around in front of it. It's become a strong habit of mine; whenever someone makes any sweeping claim, even if I like the idea, I'll take a side against it and see if supporters can cover all bases. It's an efficient learning process. Yeah I'm not saying it's likely, but there always could be a scandal. What if they're about to lose funding if they don't get some attention somehow to seem worthwhile; so they took the tabloid route for the sake of saving their work team. Not saying that's the case, but it wouldn't be unheard of. I'm not a one-man NASA Until I can poke my head around in all their data and spreadsheets and software and equipment at my leisure, I'm not closing the books on this one. Why does that noise mean 'black holes'? What software are they using to identify the little nuances and conclude 'the best answer is black holes'. What about that 12 second sound clip tells us it was black holes billions of light years away and not something less massive but closer? In the article I read, they said it was too powerful to be a neutron star, but that means it does sound similar? How similar? If they're similar, what makes them so dissimilar we can conclude it wasn't one but the other? If my ideas and guesswork are that outrageous, there should be easy counter examples why it wouldn't work. Solar sails do work. right? If put in formation, the rotational velocity of a centrifuge they're attached to should continue to increase, correct? It probably has more to it, but so did the combustion engine

This. These are the results. http://podcasts.nytimes.com/podcasts/2016/02/11/science/space/ligo-chirp/LIGOChirp.mp3 I admit I didn't look into the details that much. But I knew it was going to be something indecipherable picked up from distant light years away with only a handful of people who know how to explain it. And I'm not saying it's not what they say it is, but wouldn't you rather have proof in hand? Proof you can replicate? Telling someone you saw proof of something isn't as good as telling them how to find it and how to make it themselves. I don't know, a quick search on google for 'relativistic mass gravity' garners a few supporting links: https://www.quora.com/Relativity-physics/Does-relativistic-mass-have-gravity For the sake of the experiment, a near-vacuum has to be achieved, otherwise the centrifuge will push particles or any space debris to the walls of the centrifuge over time, and cause diffraction of light, which would probably look the same as gravitational lensing although it's not. If a 'near-vacuum' to do the experiment in is not possible, then the experiment almost isn't even worth doing. Although, if the diffraction could be accurately accounted for and measured ahead of time, it could be compared to the results to see if they are significantly different. I think the most technically challenging aspect would be figuring out how to make the centrifuge strong enough so it isn't ripped apart by inertia. But if we have carbon nano-tubing down to a science now, I'm confident we could make a seamless centrifuge equipped with solar sails in a water-wheel formation bonded to the structure of the centrifuge. I don't believe that it's not just diffraction. We've never been close enough to the sun to be able to map out the density of its atmosphere; also what about the high temperature of the corona? Or the effect plasma has on light? I have no idea how to interpret whatever it is, so I won't give an opinion on it. Although I do have questions about the equipment that picked it up - was it just a glorified antenna? Any chance someone is misreporting information? Fluke in the equipment? Someone hoaxing them? It'd cost whatever it takes to put it up in orbit plus the cost of building it. I'm guessing it would make use of graphene for its high tensile strength. Its sensitivity would depend on how big you're willing to make it, as it will be measuring the travel time/distance of light emitted from an external source across the inside of the centrifuge while it's rotating, then detected on the other side. Based on where it was detected compared to where it should have been detected, we can deduce the extent of spacetime curvature from the increased relativistic mass of the centrifuge - assuming no other variables disturb the results, which is why it'd be most accurately done in an enclosed vacuum chamber, otherwise space debris might build up against the centrifuge walls over time and throw off results. Well it has to put a decent dent in 300,000,000 m/s; once you start going up fractions of that speed, the relativistic consequences start to become apparent from what I understand -- once that happens, we should be able to look for increased gravity produced by the relativistic mass. Is the tensile strength of graphene great enough to withstand, say, 10,000,000m/s rotation? If I spend the weekend googling formulas I could maybe scrap together something that looks more like numbers; we all know how bad I am at math by now though.. I have a bad habit of leaving out one little thing and my answer getting thrown off by several figures. (My most recent endeavor was trying to re-discover how to calculate sine cosine and tangent without a calculator, and without looking up how they're found. I went through about 20 pages of paper figuring out the slope of 22.5 degrees using only the area formula for a triangle and Pythagorean theorem, and had to reinvent radians. I kept forgetting a square root here or there or forgetting which equation was which. So I figured out how to calculate half of 45 degrees, but what about 1 degree? or 7.4324 degrees? I was stumped and was trying all sorts of combinations of mixing exponents, and eventually I gave up and looked it up and saw you use an equation switching between adding and subtracting factorials going up 2 factorial base numbers each time, and you can keep going until your answer is as precise as you want it to be. I probably spent 4 hours wasting paper.)

(This is an idea I had for an experiment to prove/disprove General Relativity. I don't think this type of topic is against any rules, let me know if I need to move it. Also, to all you guys who point out something I didn't know before, thanks as always for helping me learn a little more every time I come here). Maybe you've read or heard about one of the latest physics-related news articles going around about how they finally found 'proof' of gravitational waves, confirming General Relativity and spacetime curvature as the source for gravity. But, when reading about cosmological claims like these, us skeptics remind ourselves about the tight bottleneck of measurement. The parameters of the device(s) used and the limitations of the material(s) being used for a catalyst interacting with what is being measured ultimately add up to the big 'conclusion' really just being an exciting guess someone made after arguing over what a few blips on a poor-quality image mean. And bad resolution data from satellites is pretty much all we ever get. Kind of a lack of creativity isn't it? Instead of looking at pictures taken by satellites and looking for something that looks what we're trying to find, we could devise a test for General Relativity with a mechanical experiment: Consider a centrifuge in space with openings around the wall of the centrifuge such that we could shine a light through one opening and have it go through an opening on the other side. The openings are at specific increments such that we could calculate which opening to expect the light to go through on the other side depending on how fast the centrifuge is rotating. Now, Einstein tells us that as an object accelerates, its relativistic mass increases, and the spacetime curvature the object produces should also increase, meaning the gravity produced by the object should also increase. By increasing the rate at which the centrifuge rotates (or 'accelerating' the centrifuge, although that isn't the best term since rotation is already acceleration technically) until the matter making up the centrifuge approaches relativistic speeds, we should begin to find abnormalities in light's travel time due to spacetime curvature (dilation of spacetime within the centrifuge) if Special and General Relativity are correct. If classical mechanics is all that's involved, we should still be able to calculate specific openings light can be sent through just based on the dimensions of the centrifuge, how fast its rotating, and the speed of light. Now, Einstein's Relativity would have us predict the travel time/distance of light would be greater than what we'd expect based on the dimensions of the centrifuge, and this would be more noticeable the faster the centrifuge was rotating -- because as an object approaches the speed of light, its relativistic mass increases. Also, for the experiment to work without random particles in space interfering with the light's trajectory by acting as a medium, it would all have to take place within a vacuum chamber in orbit. Afterthoughts: concerning the energy required to get a centrifuge rotating at relativistic speeds, there certainly aren't very many practical fueling methods, and if we try simply making the centrifuge smaller in design to use less fuel, it'd be harder to produce a noticeable change in gravity due to its smaller mass. The best solution to the fuel problem I'm thinking of would be using solar sails - the biggest problem with that would be the inertia from the rotation ripping everything apart after a certain point; it'd have to be constructed all as one piece with strong atomic bonds attaching everything together, so that the centrifuge couldn't rip apart until it literally starts to reach the relativistic speed limit, and the speed of its rotation starts to contend with the speed of the electromagnetism holding it together. It doesn't have to get near the speed of light, just a fraction of it, which is when the relativistic oddities start to occur. (Posted this on Reddit as well, but I like putting anything I write in two places in case it gets deleted, so I have a time & date of when it was posted).

In extreme scenarios, how can the perturbations be measured if the apparatus being used is offset as well? For example, say there is a super-massive gas cloud consisting almost entirely out of negative ions, with a mass comparable to stars; and is almost dense enough for fusion to take place. What if due to the extreme negative electric activity and density of the gas cloud, the shape and tiering of electron orbitals was different from what it is on Earth? The physics of how matter behaved would be almost entirely different. Any equipment brought inside the gas cloud, would be destroyed; we could only take measurements from far away and try to assume how things behave differently in the gas cloud than they do elsewhere in the universe. I know it probably isn't possible for electron orbitals to be different than what they are; or is it? Don't orbitals only take their shape because its the most stable, and wouldn't that be conditional?

Einstein's Special Relativity is the reworking of classical mechanics to include the implications of the speed of light being a constant -- that is, the same in all directions independent of the motion of its source. It is 'special' because it involves specific inertial reference frames. 'General' Relativity was formed as a result of the broader implications of special relativity, such as gravity. It is 'general' because it describes the geometry of space-time for all inertial frames of reference. I said Accelerated Expansion "contradicts Special Relativity" in my post because it violates implications of the speed of light being a constant, but by that I'm not talking about 'space expanding the size of the universe faster than light' - that's not a problem because the constant isn't always going to be ~ 300,000,000 m/s, because whatever a 'meter' is/was has changed and is still changing. A unit of distance can't be defined without using points of reference; even if we based it off the radius of a hydrogen atom in compounds at specific temperatures, spacetime curvature from gravity will result in more/less radii fitting through a manifold than possible with euclidean geometry, resulting in a meter just being 'whatever' depending on where you are in the universe and how much mass there is. Even if we say the speed of light is given as the distance light travels in one second, what's a second? How was it defined? I believe we defined it based on a specific element's isotope which has an abnormally consistent rate of radioactive decay. How does that hold up though if its heated? Or if we fly it through space at relativistic speeds? Or in the presence of different gravitational wells? It's going to be different. When its defined as its speed in a vacuum, that's also an erroneous definition, because there is no such thing as a 'true' vacuum, only near-vacuums, and even if there was, light couldn't exist in it because it's a vacuum -- there'd be no source for the light, or anything to measure its speed, and even if there was, how long would the distance be exactly between the source of the light and where we measured it? there's nothing else to use as a point of reference in a vacuum to give us any perspective, so it'd have a value of "indefinite distance" over "some duration of time". Even if the vacuum speed is approximated, we don't realize our approximation was based on measurements of time/distance made in our solar system. Even if we adjust for the mass of everything in our Solar System, nearby stars, our galaxy, and the region of the supercluster we're in, we're still only getting a value that's true for us, and not everyone else.

Without going into stuff like that wikipedia article not citing any references, or questioning whether space itself expanding is the cause of accelerated expansion, It doesn't matter if the accelerated expansion is caused by space itself expanding or objects being accelerated by a force, because special relativity concerns the travel time of light and the relative velocity of objects. If light's travel time between two objects is increased, the relativistic mass of those objects increases. Pretend the distance between the two objects is "D", and how long it takes light to travel between the objects is used as a metric for time - in one increment of time, light travels D, so the speed of light is 1D/1T . In this case, 'D' can't change, so instead what changes is spacetime at either end of D - which means a gravity well is being produced; hence, an object's relativistic mass increases the faster it is traveling away from an object. But what if we consider more objects? Additional objects will be in the rest-frame of one object more than the other. If the distance between all objects (including individual particles) increased by the same percentage, the net change in position would be 0 - which is why 'space itself expanding' doesn't really hold water as an explanation for accelerated expansion of the universe. If the expansion of space only applies to the space between galaxies and not the space between particles making up those galaxies, then space isn't expanding, it's curving/dilating in the same manner as a gravity well. If that's the case, then expansion can't be accelerating, at least not indefinitely, for reasons described in the first post.

Accelerated expansion, being exponential, would eventually reach relativistic speeds. This would not allow for accelerated expansion for a few reasons: - The exponential increase in relativistic mass would become increasingly substantial, causing the gravitational forces between objects to have a tremendous magnitude, working against accelerated expansion. - As an object approaches the speed of light, the force required to accelerate that object increases. The forces causing accelerated expansion, whatever they might be, would have less and less effect on an object's speed as it approaches the speed of light. - Time dilation would result in no net change in distances being observed, as a slower passage of time would offset measurements made, producing a functional proximity to other objects.

No. Scopolamine is an anticholinergic, which is where it gets most of its psychological effects. You could compare low doses of it to normal doses of doxylamine, but without being an H1 antagonist (an antihistamine). The memory loss isn't that profound, and I don't know where you heard that it causes individuals to be unable to 'refuse commands', but that is simply false.

Not much in the universe follows a binary logic (there are a few examples, such as DNA, or positive and negative electric charges) however, the analog frequency of waves is intrinsically unique; no matter how much binary you use to express analog frequency, the binary will be flawed. If I had to tap into my knowledge of psychology, I'd say you reject the real world (mostly the people in it) for being what you see as 'flawed' - while the world of binary and computers can not be flawed; it can be either "on or off", "yes or no", or else it won't work.

In 2007 I broke my femur and had a titanium rod put in (through my knee), held in place with titanium nails. I went to a "knee specialist" (yeah, I don't know, guess in Florida, which is where I happened to be at the time, they like to specialize in things like 'just knees', probably because there's so many people down there, they have to break the work load up; "Hey, if I take knee patients and you take back patients, that'll free us up for golf on Thursdays" ) recently to see if anything needed to be taken out, as I was starting to have a lot of pain in my knee where the 'nails' are. He basically told me "if you want to deal with the bills and hassle involved with surgery, I can do surgery to remove them, but it's not necessary and there's no guarantee the pain will go away." Then I asked the important question, which no one seems to know the answer to, 'Don't bones shrink and change shape as a person gets older?' He sort of just plainly said 'Nope" like he hadn't thought about it much. "Well, your back can shrink, but that's from cartilage , not bone" I'm about 95% sure bones (and the bone itself, not just cartilage), have a dynamic structure, and do indeed change shape, shrink, and even continue growing during adulthood. Although I'm guessing just overall changes in bone density and diameter are more common than bones shrinking length-wise, but that is still quite pertinent for me. In my mind, I'd think that the rod would need to come out before reaching old age, or the femur might just sort of disintegrate with all the chunks clinging to the titanium rod for structure. Basically, the rod needs to come out or one day it's going to come out. I would at least suspect it to become very very painful in old age if it's left in. I've heard horror stories, mostly on the internet, of people who were trying to have intramedullary rods and/or nails taken out of their femur, and large chunks of their femur broke off, which is worse than a normal fractured femur, because I'm guessing they then had to have it wired back together surgically then lay in a cast for months and months (which is what they used to do for broken femurs before inserting titanium rods). The thought of that makes me not want to get it removed, but also makes me think I should get it removed sooner rather than later, as it might only get worse with age. I was hoping one of you guys could tell me some of the actual terminology for bones that are shrinking or changing shape; photo evidence of bone size/shape changing would be the best. I'd maybe be able to get a more well thought-out answer next time I go to a doctor instead of just getting the run around. I hope this thread doesn't seem too mundane or boring, like listening to your relative talk about their medical problems at Thanksgiving dinner. Apathy in the medical system runs deep, but let's not even get into that; let's just get in to whether or not 'bones shrink'. I mean, I can maybe deal with lessened bone density some day, as long as that is 'only painful', but if my entire femur is going to disintegrate at some age if I don't get it taken out, and cause crippling pain, you bet your ass I'm going to fight to get it taken it out now. Yes, I plan on living into my 60s, and no, I don't plan on just letting that decade be filled with pain if I could have had the same surgery I'd have to get then that I could get right now to prevent it. I will to go to court to make insurance pay for it. I'll take it all the way to the top if I have to, and let them know that one of the 80,000 'leaks' in the system is that we don't pay to have medical problems treated early, and instead wait until it becomes a larger problem and pay many times as much. And if the 'top' doesn't listen to me, I'll start a God Damn workers party - and take to the streets with hard-hitting propaganda and crowd samples of amphetamine and get everyone in the mood to seize control of the Reichstag and Blitzkrieg Poland and France, or whatever you might consider their modern-day equivalents are anyways...

Has it ever been tested with fMRI? If I was able to set-up time to get to use two of them,, I have a few tests in mind looking for a few different things: First one I have in mind is to have two test subjects having an fMRI scan spend half an hour having a conversation with each other, then put in separate rooms sound-proofed from each other to see if they share any random spikes in activity. This wouldn't be due to mental telepathy exactly, just that sharing a conversation caused them to share their train of thought with each other, so it's likely their brains would both process the conversation in similar ways and at a similar speed. Next, if that turned out to be the case, have the same experiment repeat except in one of the sound proofed rooms, instruct one of the subjects to try and get the other test subject's attention (maybe by tricking them and saying there's microphones in both rooms with speakers going to the other, and we need to sound-test them by calling the other person's name. If the other test subject sitting in the room of silence has any anomalous spikes in activity at the same time their name is called, that would be some pretty good evidence The two soundproof rooms couldn't be anywhere near each other though, so they couldn't actually faintly hear each other. They'd have to be put in opposite ends of the building, and both have to walk down two identical hallways that have a turn at the end going in the same direction to the soundproofed room. If there is 'telepathic communication' through unusual electromagnetic frequencies, the two subjects having a conversation together might have caused them to attune to each others 'telepathic sense', and this might be strongest a short while after a long conversation. The fMRI probably wouldn't show anything unusual happening, but they might for the first test idea.

I've been trying to grasp the concept of 'tensors' mathematically and their role in the EFE for a long time, and kept thinking I was missing some part of the explanation. I but I think it just clicked for me. Does each tensor boil down to a 4th dimensional derivative? And when put together gives a value for velocity at a given point which can be plotted out consecutively to determine geodesics?

Thanks, "self-excitation" was the term I was looking for. I wasted way too much time trying to find that on google. The electromagnets can be hooked up to the same battery that's being charged, right?

If I have a source of mechanical energy (say, a windmill) to rotate a coil in a generator, could I use copper coil electromagnets hooked up to the same battery the commutator is connected to instead of permanent magnets?

If you ask me, it's never been given a serious attempt at being proven/disproven, Would something like 'mental telepathy' really be any more hard to believe than a TV stations sending moving talking pictures through the air invisibly that end up on screens inside a persons house?

Just a speculation here, but wouldn't the neuron shut down the affected dendrite(s)? Excessive activity causes the neuron begin building up chemical signals for downregulating receptors. If the device were to produce activity greater than what the neuron experiences naturally, the neuron would begin downregulating receptors, reducing the intensity of signals coming to the cell naturally, and making it harder for an action potential to be generated.. So the device would basically cause the neuron to shut down if it were producing any significant amount of activity greater than whats it produces naturally. How many neurons with the device attached would there need to be to produce the desired result? Because the greater the number of neurons affected by devices, the more it would interfere with the natural functioning of that region of the brain, and that region of the brain couldn't be 'hacked' or manipulated then because it wouldn't be working properly.

We might not actually have any such receptors, but it definitely could be possible and isn't necessarily a superstition. Some reasons why they haven't been identified though could be: - They might be too sparse to find, and no one has been looking for them. - Receptors can lock shut when not in use; the receptors might only activate as part of a particular environmental response. - There might not be any of the receptors in our body currently, but we might have the instructions and capability to make them if for some reason they were put into production as an environmental response. After all, a significant portion of human DNA is 'retired' genetic code from a different epoch. As for vision, its actually amazing we can even see anything at all. If we could freeze frame our vision and look at what a still image during one instant of our vision actually looks like, it'd be nothing but an incoherent mess of blurry smudges. There is also 'noise' from the optical nerve which has to be filtered out by the visual cortex, otherwise we'd constantly have something similar-looking to white noise in our vision. It turns out we are all actually near-blind and our visual cortex is just a master of making deductions. The visual cortex is also lazy however, and doesn't completely deduce what something is until told to. It only 'fills in the blanks' as much as it has to in order to conserve resources and also because it might simply not be big enough for multitasking with focus on multiple things at once.

Photoreceptors cover a range of frequencies. Although photo-receptors do not identify specific colors, they can identify stimulus as being between two different colors. Any particular frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum could have a receptor where that frequency is included in the receptor's range of frequencies.The action potential generated by a frequency-based sensory neuron indicates a frequency within a given range. I wasn't trying to imply that an exact frequency can be identified by a receptor; I did mention 'range of frequencies' in the original post, in the second sentence. I didn't really think it was necessary to repeatedly specify that receptors are limited to detecting a particular range of frequencies and thought that just came with the context of what I was saying.

Of the 5 traditional senses, 2 are the result of chemical stimulus (smell and taste) and 3 result from frequency-based stimulus. 2 of the latter 3 result from kinetic stimulus (touch and hearing) and one is the result from electromagnetic radiation in a certain range of frequencies (vision). Right away, we can add another sense and say that perception of temperature is its own sense, as it results from radiation in the 'infrared' range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum - which is distinct from the kinetic stimulus resulting in 'touch'. Presumably, sensory neurons can exist for any frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum. It is more unlikely for there not to be sensory neurons somewhere in the body which specialize in different frequencies in the spectrum than those used by the traditional 5 (6) senses. Many of the different frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum are capable of passing through the human body without being absorbed by the body. Although they pass through us, they still slightly influence the particles within the human body; this 'slight influence' could be picked up by specialized sensory neurons. The receptors specializing in these frequencies would not necessarily even have to be limited to a designated sensory neuron; and could be dispersed throughout the nervous system. The traditional 5 (6) senses might just be the senses requiring external sensory input. There could be a far greater number of different senses picking up on radiation that passes through the body. Receptors specializing in radiation passing through the body might be found on all sorts of neurons throughout the nervous system where they play a secondary role for that neuron, detecting conditional stimulus. Some of these frequencies may not be found often enough for the nervous system to need to have designated neurons for them - instead just having a few receptors sprinkled throughout the nervous system (as part of a secondary role for the whichever neuron they're attached to) might be sufficient for the nervous system to be made aware of their presence. Edit: Deleted a paragraph that was disputable and not relevant to the central idea of the post.

If properties like charge, color, spin, etc.. don't cohere with 3 geometrical dimensions, why not just quantize them? Why bother adding more sets of coordinates if they don't cohere with the 3 geometrical and 1 time? What's the benefit? Furthermore, why did everyone just give up on trying to fit them into 3 geometrical dimensions and 1 of time? I understand what you're saying though; instead of trying to cram charge, color, spin, etc. into the first 4 dimensions which are already tedious to calculate, you can just add a fresh set of coordinates and save yourself some time. But what's the benefit of having coordinates for them instead of just leaving them quantized? Why are coordinates needed?

A cylinder-shaped 5th dimension present at every point in the universe seems pretty gimmicky to me.. It also defeats the point of trying to unify General Relativity with Electromagnetism in a way that's wholly geometrical. Why even have a 5th dimension to explain charge? Charge might as well just be quantized, since that's basically what it's trying to do but taking unnecessary middle steps. Besides that, the predicted measurements using Kaluza-Klein Theory with a 5th dimension were way off from observed measurements, which is why it was scrapped. The original goal of unifying two forces geometrically is what inspires me. On the topic of string theory, it seems too similar to just inventing a new dimension each time you need to explain-away something. It's too much fantasizing about multiple dimensions and not enough practical science.

With rotation/spin of curved spacetime being used to describe charge, flipping the pole of that rotating curvatures would not only cause a change in charge, but would cause spacetime curvature throughout the hadron to 're-adjust' into a different configuration - and curvature throughout the hadron would presumably be of a slightly different shape, as up quarks have a more significant charge (2/3 instead of 1/3) and are less massive than down quarks. This change in shape means that some of the rotating spacetime curvature was lost, presumably expelled from the nucleus (what I referred to in the original post as a 'ripple' in spacetime). This lost curvature expelled from the nucleus into the space surrounding the hadron might form into the electron and electron anti-neutrino emitted during beta-minus decay. It just seemed to fit together with the weak force - the geometrical assumption that flipping poles not only reverses charge but results in energy expelled from the nucleus (from the curvature changing shape) that's unaccounted for. Changing charges and expelling junk byproducts out of the nucleus sounded like it had to be beta decay, and couldn't be a coincidence.

I'm simplifying what it says, I'll give you that. "Anti-symmetry of two fermion's total wave function" is tantamount to saying they can't occupy the same location or collide with one another. 'Occupying' and 'same location' aren't terms QM uses. 'Quantum numbers' is QM jargon. For electrons, two electrons can not be in the same orbitals with same angular momentum, with the same energy levels in a subshell, with the same spin angular momentum. I'll be honest that I'm not an expert on what each of those quantum numbers actually mean, but I know enough to know that an electron can not be in the same exact location as another electron because that would mean it shares all the same quantum numbers, which the Pauli Exclusion Principle says can't happen. Was there somewhere in this thread I appeared to be saying the opposite? I thought I made it pretty clear, 'Point Particle', by saying it over and over. I think I found where it sounded like I was talking about particles having structure; In the original post I said 'polarity of a quark flipping' - what I meant was "The 'polarity' of the spinning/rotating spacetime curvature produced by a quark flipping", and I edited that into my original post now. The reason I left it shortened to just 'polarity of the quark flipping' is because if I had to keep retyping "spinning/rotating spacetime curvature produced by a quark" every time that's what I was talking about, the post would have ended up unreadable.

Not according to this article: http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/141220_wave_particle.php "An international team of researchers has proved that two peculiar features of the quantum world – previously considered distinct – are different manifestations of the same thing. The result is published 19 December in Nature Communications. Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner made the breakthrough while at the Centre for Quantum Technologies at the National University of Singapore. They found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one." Let me clarify I do not view particles 'like a ball'. They can be viewed as point-particles because the Pauli Exclusion Principle allows for them to be viewed that way - as point particles, we escape the confusion of having to explain volume or occupying 'space'; the implications of the Pauli Exclusion Principle explains how particles are able to occupy space for us. No matter how close two particles are to each other, they can not occupy the same location simultaneously, and are therefore inherently 'side by side' at best - since this is a given, how particles occupy space results from their inability to occupy the same location simultaneously. Point particles are just the easiest way to describe them in a few words without typing out an essay trying to give an explanation for what they actually are; whatever they actually are is intangible - we just know they have a relation to other particles. The most we can say really is there is a network of relations which we deduce the existence of particles out of. Kantian Metaphysics also attempted to explain this issue, positing that phenomenon as they appear to an observer are fundamentally dissimilar to the 'Thing In Itself'. It's more a philosophical debate whether it is correct to view fundamental particles as point particles.

Those were in reference to space-time curvature produced by the particle, not the particle itself. I view fundamental particles as point particles, with the Pauli exclusion principle giving the illusion of occupying space. Stable composite particles like protons I view as being a grouping of point particles that came within close enough proximity to each other that they're stuck at a scale removed from other particles -- most interactions with other particles affect the composite particle as a whole; its constituents can only be dispersed (as far as manmade interactions go) by forcing another particle into very close proximity, such as what takes place in a hadron collider. I also view a particle's field as separate from the particle, with a particle's field being responsible for the wave-like behaviors of the particle -- the particle itself I view as being static, but capable of interacting with its own field. So I don't share the popular belief in wave-particle duality; I see it as readily explainable geometric phenomenon without all the spooky stage-tactics of pop physics. Everything I ever learned in quantum physics about 'inherent uncertainty in the subatomic world', 'anomalous fluctuations', and 'inconsistencies being a guarantee' turned out to seemingly just be mankind's physical inability to make arbitrarily precise measurements, and the rules of causality are alive and well at subatomic scales (we just can't capture all the nuances behind causality). Also, I think 'Cat State' Qubits are the 'Emperor's New Clothes' of the science world -- I think what they've actually made are just unorthodox transistors which harness wave phenomenon which seemingly defies classic mechanics, but is no more special than using electromagnetic waves to transmit TV signals. If developing transistors that can be more than just on/off is what they want, there are different mechanical approaches to micro-architecture that could be developed and give the desired 'placeholder' effect of having more than one value; the unfortunate thing is no one needs them for anything; reconceptualizing micro-architecture to perform specific tasks has no application that wouldn't be simpler to just use regular microarchitecture for. Optical processing on the other hand could lead to some worthwhile breakthroughs, but no one has the ambition or creative vision to pursue its potential who isn't already happy just settling for what we have now. Like a friend of mine told me, "20 years I've watched optical processing go nowhere". It would lead to technological breakthroughs though. As long as we're still going to see more advancement in the future and haven't actually just finished work on everything, then sometime in the near future we'll start to see things like true analog monitors (no more pixels) with the screen's display working like a projector, except using information stored optically and not film like a movie projector. Oh yeah, optical storage - for storing information made up of electromagnetic frequencies instead of binary. People are so hooked on binary though they can't understand why optical would be superior... I guess they don't like perfect sound and image quality and infinite room for file storage. I've been trying to get my foot in the door and play the role of quacky inventor and bring some WIlly Wonka level game changers to the table, but there's no way to actually do that. I tried getting in contact with a few computer hardware companies asking for an internship and they could see where it goes, but I don't think they took it seriously. Corporate Heads of Research and Development know that it's not economical to change up everything anyways; it's better for the company to just milk the current paradigm, and only apply improvements ever so slightly. Otherwise, I just need money to be able to afford a patent. Pretty sure no one else has thought of optical displays yet; that's a billion dollar idea.. If I could afford a patent for that I'd sell it and use the profits to patent everything else I have in mind. I don't know how picky the patent office is but I bet if my jargon is different than their standards it will be declined and then possibly stolen. Well, at least I typed it here on this forum so there is some proof, if only for brag rights, that I thought it up first. I don't know why my post became about quantum computers instead of Kaluza-Klein theory, excuse the tangent.