AbstractDreamer

i need more homework

You dont need to walk anywhere, just arch your back until the RED LINE is vertical, and hold your arms above your head. Or just swing the carrot until you can grab it. I'm going to get this wrong but here's my go: The Hubble limit is our particle horizon or "observable" universe. Its actually not calculated by the distance to the furthest object we can see, but how far a photon emitted from us could have travelled. This is all based on the history of the universe since t=0 Things beyond the observable universe can be moving away at superluminal velocity, but we might be able to observe them one day if the scale factor decreases. The future event horizon is much larger, its is a prediction based on the evolution of scale factor of expansion, from now until the end of time. It is the limit beyond which will never influence us, because they will always stay ahead of a photon emitted from us today. I guess this assumes that expansion will never flip into contraction.

I was just making a general comment. There's a lot of ways of symmetry. Inside out, upside down, leftside right, frontside back, firstone last, clockwise anticlockwise etc An anti-universe doesn't necessarily need to be opposingly symmeterical in all these aspects, but it certainly does need to be symmetrical in at least one. Being symmetrical in one measure, say distance anti-distance, is enough to make it "not of this universe". More than 1 symmetry might lead you back to the original form, via rotations, flips, and inversions.

That stick is too short, or string too long, or carrot too big! The point is the carrot is supposed to be out of reach?

Don't waste your time with me, I probably wont understand much. But if you can comment on your conclusions or possibilities that would be enlightening.

According to wiki there's 4.6% baryonic matter and 23% dark matter. Assuming gravitational constant G is the same for both types, I would expect baryonic matter (BM) to gather and coalesce around dark matter, rather than vice versa. Unless some time in our past the ratios were reversed, particularly around the early formative periods. I recall reading that the ratios evolve over time. It would seem DM is less susceptible to entropy than BM, unless "weak decay" for DM follow different mechanics.

Does antimatter (that follows normal time and gravity) entirely exclude the possibility of anti-time and anti-gravity? Is it possible that both negative energy solutions to Dirac's equations can co-exist? Just symmetries in different direction. PS I'm not really sure what I'm saying.

If you really believe in this yourself, you should focus on defining this statement. Otherwise it sounds like a reading from a fortune teller.

Would you also not require anti-distance, anti-electromagnetism, anti-singularites etc? How do you reconcile retro-causality with anti-retro-causality? Is this interpretation about Mutuality rather than Causality?

One question that springs to mind is if DM "orbits/swirls/forms halos/gathers/loosely collects" around galaxies, then why might it not swirl around real nebulae, solar systems, stars, planets, asteroids? Or why might it not gather in the middle of galaxies, instead of surrounding it? If it tends to swirl surrounding matter, then would there not be even more swirling around bigger super clusters than small galaxies? Do any observations support this? On the other hand, if it is difficult for it to "gather", why would it gather at all? Would it it not be evenly spread out throughout the universe (rather than "form halos" around galaxies). Collisions alone would not cause it to coalesce, they will just be redirected off into space. Perhaps something akin to brownian motion. Also if DM ever did manage to form into a object of significant size, there's no reason for it ever to fall apart (unless it collides with something)? Is DM affected by the strong and weak fundamental forces, or just gravity?

Right so if i understood just the tiniest bit: decoherence over time from the noisy environment eventually causes superposition of many states to "decay" to just one state. I wonder if the mechanism is through elimination of certain probabilities, or adjusting the global set of states so that fewer states become more probable, and many states become less probable? So when the double slit experimenter sticks his measuring device at the slits, he essentially introduces a large influence on the electron and forces it into pretty much one state/location. But even before then, the electron is gradually decohering due to the environment (probably mostly air molecules, other em radiation). So observation is like: the more something is affected, the fewer states/positions it will likely assume. Or the more something is measured, the more definite it becomes. But if we measure it gently enough (like from the environment - probably not enough to glean anything useful) it might not lose all its states. So like uncertainty, if we measure a location of a particle very gently, we only know a very rough estimate of location, but we don't disturb its momentum as much. I hope I'm making sense.

There was a crowdfunded project for an RnD device called Triton in 2014 from S.Korea. Doubtful it ever worked.

Appreciate the help. I'm not trying to be obtuse. Just this point of observability is bugging me. Seems like it is relative to the object being measured. If its small enough relative to the object being measured it can be ignored. So that kind of contradicts the uncertainty in measuring principle. That's why i was thinking along the lines of degrees of observation, and degrees of superposition, and some continuous (maybe quantisable) scale. And what about the Earths magnetic field? Does that not influence the (moving) electron in such a way as to act as an observer, determine its position or momentum, collapse the wave function, and make it behave like a particle? The two questions are: How large does an influence have to be in order to count as an observer? How small does an influence need to be to unable to affect an object enough to make it lose superposition (to any degree).

Doesn't that mean "very little" and "negligible" are irrelevant? I thought anything above zero is enough to act as an observer? How large does an influence have to be in order to count as an observer?

If a goat laid a chicken egg, it will hatch into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness, from goatness If a chicken laid a goat egg, it will hatch into a goat. The egg is of goatness, from chickeness. conversely If a chicken egg, laid by a chicken, hatches into a goat. The egg is of goatness, from chickeness. If a goat egg, laid by goat, hatches into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness, from goatness. Which one makes the most sense?

How is it that the Earth's gravity field or the Earth's magnetic field do not collapse the wave function the moment the electron is emitted from the source? That they are not being measured by humans is supposedly irrelevant? That the electron has an infinitesimally small affect on the Earth's fields and is immeasurable with our technology is also supposedly irrelevant? How does the electron maintain super position when the Earth is in perpetual observation?

I know, i just didn't get Moon's point. What does eggs coming before birds have to do with chickens and chicken eggs? IMO, the adjective describes what comes out, not who it belongs to. A chicken egg hatches into a chicken. A chicken's egg comes from a chicken. If a goat laid a chicken egg, it will hatch into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness. If a chicken laid a goat egg, it will hatch into a goat. The egg is of goatness.

Eggs didn't precede amoeba, bacteria, viruses, self replicating molecules.

edited, cant change your quote though

If an almost-chicken laid an almost-chicken egg, and the mutation happened within the egg after it was laid, but before it hatched. Then it was an almost-chicken egg that turned into a chicken egg >> the chicken egg came first. On the other hand if what was hatched was an almost-chicken that then mutated into a chicken >> the chicken came first.

deleted

But you can limit the probabilities, and reduce the positions right? if there are no slits, there are no probabilities for the electron to hit the detector. if there is 1 slit, the probabilities are particle like. If there are two slits, the probabilities show wave like interference. So like with observations, as the electron moves through the Earth's gravitic and magnetic fields, the Earth's observations are so tiny they hardly affect the probabilities and the positions of the electron. But when the experimenter sticks his measuring device at the slit, that observation is significant enough to limit the probability and positions to particle-like behaviour. By that reasoning, observation is degree of measurement and on a continuous scale (perhaps quantisable) and it similarly affects super position? So if the experimenter used a really bad measuring device, a very insensitive device, such that he is only 50% sure that the electron has passed through one slit and not the other, would that have any affect on the interference pattern? Or if the experimenter used a banana to measure the electron at the slits, that would surely not affect the interference the pattern at all?

Is super position a continuous measure? Or is it black and white; "in super position" or "not in superposition"? If the location of the electron on the detector is a probability function, and if all measurements are inherently uncertain: Surely observation is degree of observation, super position lost is degree of super position lost? In other words, the more certain we are of the electron going through one slit, the less interference would be detected? If its continuous, is this continuity in discreet quanta?

So does retrocausality preserve free will? But if you extrapolate this idea, the state of today is determined influenced by choices in the future? Is that not retro-superdeterminism? Does the alternative action-at-a-distance imply "magic"? I'm not sure which is more worrying.

But there is still [math] r^2 [/math] to consider. [Math] F=G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2} [/math] So moving from mass from one object to another also changes the center of gravity for both objects. But Newton's Theory of Gravity is only an approximation I think. Its good enough in non-relativistic situations.