TJ McCaustland

You're doing great! I am following everything so far, and I imagine you lose these constructs with the step up to the 4 D because of "self folding" nature of some 4 D geometric shapes such as tesseracts because of the way translation occurs on 4 axis' instead of 3? Eh probably got that wrong but still that is the only part I do not get

Got it. So it is much simpler than I initially thought and the ordered pair example I gave was correct, in that for n dimensions there will be n variables. Neat. Thanks.

In short, I am curious about how this even works and I want to know because I enjoy math, so I decided to ask people with a higher education than mine and who definitely know more about math than I do. So my understanding of graphing in three dimensions to give you an idea of my level of understanding of the concept so you can explain it better is essentially this: In order to graph in more than two dimensions we must simply add a third axis: Z. Z represents the depth axis and intersects X and Y at the origin vertically relative to the plane that X and Y form. The Z axis forms a plane with the Y axis vertically and the X axis horizontally. Graphing a function in three dimensions is somewhat similar to graphing a function in two dimensions except that at least from the way I have been exploring it you have to have a chain of functions or relations: X has to be a function of Y, and Z has to be a function of X or Y or some combination of the three. For example (probably incorrect notation) x2=y3=z2 is an exponential function that is always y positive because of the odd exponent that y has, and thus the output of Y's function is always in the domain positive integers while X and Z's are simply integers. I'm not sure if this is correct since I have not yet run into 3-D graphing past a cursory level in my education but it should give you enough information to explain how graphing in more than three dimensions works in terms that I can understand. For reference, this is the graph of x2=y3=z2 So, probably going to get this totally wrong, but would then a four dimensional function not look something like this where we simply add an axis? X=Y=Z=A? Or some other combination of axis names? And the ordered pairs would look like (X,Y,Z,A) just like with 3D graphing? Probably getting ahead of myself, but what would intervals look like with that many dimensions? Also, is anyone willing to work with me on 3D vectors? I am mostly self taught since I have not come across this in my degree classes and I am interested.

Well it's just by stating that the entire universe is not indirectly entangled to itself kinda refutes quantum entanglement entirely. I should have worded the OP better, "All matter is entangled to itself indirectly" True, but this entanglement can't really dissipate because if the universe is entangled to itself then unless the entirety of the universe is destroyed by antimatter all at once it would still be entangled because the annihilation of one particle which is indirectly entangled to all others wouldn't start an unentanglement process because there are multiple particles entangled to multiple particles, Or am I chasing a non-existent wild goose? I was just thinking because of this model of entanglement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement Which although both photons are type II and are entangled, many photons could also exist as type II and become entangled with these which is where my OP came from.

Guess that could work, I just thought of using a different directory to avoid a highly cluttered x86 directory which I have no desire to clean up, and I don't really want to scrap ALL my data, but I guess I can put my data I want to save on an EHD and then do that.

Not really, because I never really took a shortcut at all, I took a portion of the path, and bunched it up to get to here, working on the rest of it while I speculate wildly, such as here, And BTW I haven't really lost a chance at schooled science at all, I just am working on both things simultaneously. Also, I wouldn't be happy on a vegetarian science forum either, I speculate and cite where I can, and sometimes I get WAY ahead of myself, but I also know a good bit of classical science, just not enough to count for where my thinking goes, My thoughts are the blueprints of a prestigious structure which will take years to build, my knowledge is the current progress on that structure. Now I will vacate this thread.

Okay. So then a single group of photons is not entangleable to another group of photons?

I was thinking ionic binding breakoffs Also with the environment needed to do such a thing it would be something like my figure or am I chasing a non-existent wild goose?

Well they wouldn't necessarily be caught if they were smart and REALLY knew what they were doing. There are some people, like members of Anonymous, who can bounce IP's around all day like it's nothing and laugh when the FBI or CIA knocks on a door 350 miles away because you used their IP address. The real points of hacking are usually a) To impress a girl or some friends, (Neutral hacking) b) To simply screw with people and laugh your A%# off about it (Like the famed CBS hack) (Neutral hacking) c) To steal information/money (Black hat hacking) d) To test security/counterhack (White hat hacking)

It depends, like ajb said, on what university it is. It also depends on what job you are looking for in one of those companies. If you want to hired a regular employee and work your way up to higher jobs stay at Thompson Rivers, if you want to be hired a manager of a department or project look at going to a big university like cambridge.

You need to know two things, 1) Space is information without more information, or matter, basically it's not non-existence, its just void of extra information, or matter. 2) Time is only a non-simultaneousness of events, it is why a and b are a and b and not ab.

Just because my thoughts look like a ball of string after Schrodinger's cat before entering the box played with it doesn't mean I don't know what speculation vs. fact means. Fact has been proven (Avogadro's number for example of how many atoms per mole.) Speculation is kind of a Think this works like this but IDK (My speculation on dimensional unity in quantum state for example which is 1) Not supported by anything other than basic, basic logic and reasoning, and 2) Has about 8x10^25 holes in it that need to be patched.) Or you can do both........ You just need to throw the illogical thoughts I produce out the window to get to the tiny juicy bit of "Possible but not probable" I guess what needs to be said here is that this thread hinges on one thing, Belief. Belief in something, or nothing at all, it all hinges on belief, and I don't think it's very scientific to discuss such a large matter without much evidence, which is why I will be taking my thoughts, interests, and time elsewhere, Gentlemen, thank you for the excellent discussion. Beatus Tractantibus!

So I've been discussing this with several members of SFN and I find that this might actually amount to something should it be refined and processed. So a list of the basic principles of this highly speculative hypothesis looks like: 1) All non-antimatter matter is entangled to each other remotely through quantum entanglement via a single group of particles being definable by a single quantum state in which there exists one or more particles which are entangled with another group of particles that are still definable by a single compound quantum state due to their linking with the first group of particles. 2) Matter is entangled across dimensions with existence of higher dimension matter being represented in a lower dimension by the presence of dark matter/energy which is entangled to all the other matter in the universe just like everything else. 3) The entire non-antimatter universe is definable by a single quantum state because of a phenomenon which I will now call quantum-circular-linking which would exist according to the explanation in 1, That being said a representation of the universe when defined by a single quantum state would a point on a graph with infinite octagonal axes. Please help me improve this by poking as many holes as possible with as many laws of cosmology, physics, etc. but please be sure that all of the holes you poke are based off of laws and not speculative phenomenon that are not yet proven, unless they have a large amount of evidence backing them. I'd like to write a paper on this eventually when it leaves the realms of speculation and the Mods declare it a theory on SFN (Which please do so when you believe it is), I will give credit to all the users who helped shaped and redefine this as well as to the SFN mods once it reaches that point. Until then beatus tractantibus!

Well that's what I was getting at, you see I'd like to set up a file grouping bypass that uses a different directory than x86 to possibly speed up an old computer of mine.

Nothing as of yet but a twisted speculation with a tidbit of juicy goodness known as possibility Right, right, now that symmetry group is what I was getting at, so since the way dimensions affect the matter that exists on their planes kinda goes 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 are all the same (According to Swansont.) then with this symmetry I come back to my conjecture that the universe when defined by a single quantum state produces a point on a graph with infinite octagonal axes, supporting my OP that all matter exists in quantum state as one, and therefore is technically without dimensions because it is entangled with itself across all dimensions.