An Intuitive Particle Wave Model

[TakenItSeriously]

An Intuitive Model for a Theory of Everything

* Part 1: An Intuitive Model of a Particle Wave

* Part 2: An Intuitive Model of Quantum Mechanics

* Part 3: An Intuitive Model of Special Relativity

* Part 4: An Intuitive Model of General Relativity

 

In this post I will only be presenting Part I:

An Intuitive Model of a Particle Wave

 

First, some things you should know:

 

 

Keeping it Intuitive:

Please note that the four intuitive models are all a part of a single Theory of Everything and they are intended to be intuitive models that the layperson can follow so I will be keeping the math to a minimum.

 

It is my hope for many of the alternative theroies that already exist are out there, such as the Big Bounce Theory, and the Quantum Gravity Loop and many others who may see these models as being consistent and complete and to use these models to unify their individual theories and present them as a single Theory of Everything as a large collaborative effort.

 

Another possibility is that these models could be the intuitive model of M Theory which from what I can understand may be a match. If that is the case, then the work is all but done and we have a complete Theory of Everything already.. I saw that their are only two extra-dimensions for a single world line if I'm not mistaken that consist of tiny circles of some kind based on one of Green's documentaries. If those circle dimensions are infinitessimal loops that can be linked up in a series to create world lines then we may be in business.

 

It's difficult to imagine more than one theory that could make everything work so beautifully, or god is quite a prankster, but he doesn't strike me as the Ha! made you look type. And no, I'm not religious. However, I am recently converted from I don't know camp to the, there must be some kind of intelligence that is a lot smarter then humankind that exists beyond the dimension of time camp.

 

Any feedback with mathematical formalism included is fine, but please be aware that I am not a Physicist or mathematician so perhaps some small amount of comments on the math like you might see with coding would be helpful.

 

Explain Something in Parallel?

I've discovered that a natural consequence of a TOE is that you can't cohesively explain a TOE. This was a very frustrating discovery on my part as the number of rewrites must have been in the hundreds, while trying just about every format I could think of.

 

I finally got it through my thick head what must be happening. A theory of everything must take in all of what we already fundamentally understand from multiple theories and connect all of the various concepts down to a single, simple and elegant theory.

 

This means that Ithere may be links to concepts that I haven't written yet or holes in my explanation of a concept that will be filled in later. Therefore, It may appear a little incohesive, or inconsistant at times but if you are patient, you should find the pieces will fill in over time, or reverse time as the case may be, due to convergence.

 

So how that couch got stuck in the stairway landing with no physical means to get it unstuck will finally make sense. -Douglas Adams reference.

 

 

 

 

An Intuitive Model of a Particle Wave

As a retired expert in the field of High Speed Digital Design I've had some problems with accepting the current model of a particle wave for light as shown below.

 

The blue electric wave is perprndicular to the red magnetic wave and together they are said to be self-propagating waves by transferring energy between each other, but I'm unable to understand the mechaniism of how the energy can be transferred between perpendicular waves.

 

Waves require two references, a ground reference in order to measure its amplitude and a clock reference in order to measure its phase but their are no such references for a wave propagating through spacetime

 

This model is similar to a differential signal wave pattern only differential waves are alligned in the same plane. Differential signals are used for the transmission of high speed signals over long distances. Among the advantages are: the wave is self-propagating, though it is still subject to losses to the medium or through the skin effect. Also the signals are self referencing in both the X and Y axis.

 

Figure 2: this is actually an example of an eye diagram because I had trouble finding a clip of a differential signal signal for some reason. However its close enough in that a differential signal is actually two signals that are equal and opposite signals that are traveling in the same direction.

 

 

Figure 3: the EM field created between a Differential signal pair. The black dots represents the motions of the electrons in the two copper traces and their movement creates the EM field. Note the that the field appears to look a lot like a dual helix.

 

 

A proposal for a new particle wave model.

Figure 4: Helix Model from the Wikipedia library, acting as a proposed wave model with a hidden, entangled, anti-matter particlein rotating in a dual orbit.

 

Using the helix model shown above let us assume that at the tip of the arrow their is a particle with some given charge and mass. We can see two orthogonal components of the electromagnetic field create the two perpendicular electric and magnetic waves as predicted by Maxwell's equations.

 

However this kind of rotational motion for a single particle is not consistant with Newtons Laws of Motion without some hidden point source of a force as described by the Inverse Square Law.

 

One way to resolve this motion is to add a second hidden particle of equal mass and opposite charge in a dual orbit that follows Coulomb's Law. Matter and Antimatter was created at the beginning of time as entangled matter/antimatter particle pairs, yet the anti-matter created in the beginning appears to be missing from the universe. For this model, we will assume the hidden particle is the anti-matter entangled partner to the given particle.

 

This kind of motion is similar to a binary star system which followas the laws of gravity.

 

The force involved with charged particles is the electromagnetic force which follows Coulomb's Law which is a proper analog to the Law of Gravity at a much smaller scale factor, while both forces extend out to infinity in a diminishing curve. Therefore its reasonable to assume that two particles of opposite charge could sustain a dual orbital motion.

 

Together, they create a dual helix model with differential waves that are equal and oppite to each other while being hidden from each other 180⁰ out of phase.

 

How the Dual Helix model can resulve Duality issues in QM

• EPR Paradox where observers and hidden anti-observers provide full information in one location so that their is no information at a distance and gets around Bells Theorem
• Particle/Wave duality is due to entangled pairs causing the wave effect and broken entanglement causing the particle effect.
• The mechanism for how observers can effect the particle wave effect is caused by observers breaking matter/antimatter entanglement.
• and how the information is carried between the two particles, explaining why their is never complete information in a single particle

In part 2 I will expand upon this model and show how the matter/antimatter particles became hidden from each other.

Edited December 11, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Mordred]

Your not describing the first image correctly. The first image is not two electromagnetic fields.

 

It is one electromagnetic field with two components. The vertical axis wave is the electric [latex]\overrightarrow{e}[/latex] and the x axis plane wave is the magnetic. [latex]\overrightarrow{B}[/latex].

 

 

You probably intended to describe such but you wrote two electromagnetic fields above.

The two electromagnetic waves are oriented in planes that are perpendicular to each other and are said to be self-propagating by transferring energy between them, but I'm unable to understand the mechanistic explanation of how this could be achieved when the tow are at right angles to each other.

Did you want the formulas describing the two field interactions? Ie Maxwell equations. The 1/r^3 follows from the two combined dipole moments. Dipole is 1/r^2

 

Each electric and magnetic both being dipolar.

 

If so let me know Griffiths "Introductory to electromagnetism" gives a good lesson on the above.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Mordred

[steveupson]

Your not describing the first image correctly. The first image is not two electromagnetic fields.

 

It is one electromagnetic field with two components. The vertical axis wave is the electric [latex]\overrightarrow{e}[/latex] and the x axis plane wave is the magnetic. [latex]\overrightarrow{B}[/latex].

 

 

The way that I understand it, the two are oriented 90° to one another spatially, but I thought that they were phase shifted 90° to one another temporally. Capitalizing on this spatial orientation is what makes rf directional couplers work. Are the two actually in phase with one another?

[Mordred]

Not in the farfield, To borrow a quote from Wiki. Apparently its a common misconception.

 

"a more correct description is that a time-change in one type of field is proportional to a space-change in the other"

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

 

In the farfield the e and b fields are polarized.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Mordred

[AbstractDreamer]

Everything I say is gibberish, with no mathematical or evidential basis. But i have conceptions based upon my best interpretations of what the text books are trying to explain, and a lot of stuff in my head is contradictory.

The Helix model is a nice conceptual model. Its how my ignorant mind visualises the way ripples propagate in the electric and magnetic perpendicular fields (or a unified EM field). Not sure how this spiralling helix (or double helix with anti-particle) fits with the Maxwells equations.

On my journey of knowledge and discovery, I came across the Crestroyer theory. While I don't quite comprehend some of the conclusions, like hiding antimatter in parallel universes or tangential dimensions, and it doesn't describe any "helix" nature of waves; I do like the idea of vibrations and ripples in the EM field, with matter being standing waves, and photons being waves in motion. Your description reminds me a little of that. It does refer to space-time units being of this creation/destruction mechanism, and might loosely describe the photon as its own double-helical matter/anti matter ripple with a net energy of zero over 1 wavelength.

I've come across other references to the space-time helix where the double helix becomes a single helix when the wave approaches speed of light, describing time dilation. Not sure how this single helix applies to the photon.

I've also come across ideas of a sea of electric charge (Dirac sea?), and other references to this being a sea of both electrons and positrons. And that it is this Aethereal sea that enables these ripples to propagate. This idea sort of corresponds to zero-point energy fields, where fluctuations are spontaneous within a region of zero average energy. Told I've also been told that space itself is not a medium. So confusion here.

Not sure which ones are legitimate models though and how any of these ideas might be tied together. Looking forward to your next parts.

Edited December 11, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[steveupson]

Ok, that's weird and unexpected. I guess it would be too easy if they were simply one way or the other. OTOH, it explains a lot of confusion that I've been having with this subject.

[Mordred]

lol and on top of this you have Penroses zig and zag model chuckle.

Ok, that's weird and unexpected. I guess it would be too easy if they were simply one way or the other. OTOH, it explains a lot of confusion that I've been having with this subject.

Agreed it would have been easier. Nature likes doing that to us. I've been so focussed on Higg's for the past couple of years I've lost touch with some of this lol. Edited December 11, 2016 by Mordred

[swansont]

Everything I say is gibberish, with no mathematical or evidential basis. But i have conceptions based upon my best interpretations of what the text books are trying to explain, and a lot of stuff in my head is contradictory.

 

The Helix model is a nice conceptual model. Its how my ignorant mind visualises the way ripples propagate in the electric and magnetic perpendicular fields (or a unified EM field). Not sure how this spiralling helix (or double helix with anti-particle) fits with the Maxwells equations.

 

On my journey of knowledge and discovery, I came across the Crestroyer theory. While I don't quite comprehend some of the conclusions, like hiding antimatter in parallel universes or tangential dimensions, and it doesn't describe any "helix" nature of waves; I do like the idea of vibrations and ripples in the EM field, with matter being standing waves, and photons being waves in motion. Your description reminds me a little of that. It does refer to space-time units being of this creation/destruction mechanism, and might loosely describe the photon as its own double-helical matter/anti matter ripple with a net energy of zero over 1 wavelength.

 

I've come across other references to the space-time helix where the double helix becomes a single helix when the wave approaches speed of light, describing time dilation. Not sure how this single helix applies to the photon.

 

I've also come across ideas of a sea of electric charge (Dirac sea?), and other references to this being a sea of both electrons and positrons. And that it is this Aethereal sea that enables these ripples to propagate. This idea sort of corresponds to zero-point energy fields, where fluctuations are spontaneous within a region of zero average energy. Told I've also been told that space itself is not a medium. So confusion here.

 

Not sure which ones are legitimate models though and how any of these ideas might be tied together. Looking forward to your next parts.

!

Moderator Note

This is not the place for this. It's to discuss the OP, not other models you've seen, or anything else. Let's stay on topic

[TakenItSeriously]

Your not describing the first image correctly. The first image is not two electromagnetic fields.

It is one electromagnetic field with two components. The vertical axis wave is the electric [latex]\overrightarrow{e}[/latex] and the x axis plane wave is the magnetic. [latex]\overrightarrow{B}[/latex].

You probably intended to describe such but you wrote two electromagnetic fields above.

Did you want the formulas describing the two field interactions? Ie Maxwell equations. The 1/r^3 follows from the two combined dipole moments. Dipole is 1/r^2

Each electric and magnetic both being dipolar.

If so let me know Griffiths "Introductory to electromagnetism" gives a good lesson on the above.

Thanks, good catch. I made the edits describing the electric wave and magnetic wave and removed the assumption of 90⁰ phase shift.

 

I also added how the model resolves QM wierdness at the end.

[Mordred]

Thats what I figured from previous threads you had. I figured it was simply an error in posting. PS I'm glad to see your spoiler message on TOE.

 

I don't see anything else above that is out of place or misconstrued/misunderstood at the moment. Though further detail and proper definenement will be needed in your QM section on hidden variables, observers, superposition etc. I'll withhold comment till you post the next section.

 

Since section 3 is particularly relevant to section 1 and 2.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Mordred

[TakenItSeriously]

Thats what I figured from previous threads you had. I figured it was simply an error in posting. PS I'm glad to see your spoiler message on TOE.

I don't see anything else above that is out of place or misconstrued/misunderstood at the moment.

Thanks! could be an incredible moment for science if It happened to pan out.

A Grand Unification of Theories

[Mordred]

A different view of the electromagnetic field won't give a TOE or GUT as your only covering SO(3)×SO(2)×U(1) but not detailing the strong and weak interactions under those gauge groups. You would also need the Higgs field on top of the four main forces gauge groups, which invariently will also include Pati-Salam for helicity.

 

What you have thus far is the U(1) group under SO(1.3) rotations.

 

The only thing were missing from a full blown TOE is literally gravity itself and our inability to quantize gravity.

 

edit I should clarify we still need research to validate Higgs metastability and if the SO (10) can account for DM and DE.

 

Not really relevant at this stage. Far too much to include to even consider at this point lol. Not faulting the work you've put in though. Just simple truth.

 

Back to Your thread

 

Anti-matter and matter fall under those groups using charge. In vector treatment the opposite charges are treated equivalent to change in electromagnetic charge. So they fall under the U(1) guage.

 

SO(3) is your kinematics including relativity. However this also where Pati-Salam subgroups kick in when it comes to helicity involving charges. (including matter/antimatter).

Waves require two references, a ground reference in order to measure its amplitude and a clock reference in order to measure its phase but their are no such references for a wave propagating through spacetime

 

 

We can use strain or interfometers to measure gravitational waves. In fact we have recently done so.

blue electric wave is perprndicular to the red magnetic wave and together they are said to be self-propagating waves by transferring energy between each other, but I'm unable to understand the mechaniism of how the energy can be transferred between perpendicular waves.

 

 

Let me put something together to fix your missing pieces in understanding how this relates to the superposition of the two waves. From that you will have the clues to understanding how energy is treated in this case. PS edits you made are better. Edited December 11, 2016 by Mordred

[TakenItSeriously]

A different view of the electromagnetic field won't give a TOE or GUT as your only covering SO(3)×SO(2)×U(1) but not detailing the strong and weak interactions under those gauge groups. You would also need the Higgs field on top of the four main forces gauge groups, which invariently will also include Pati-Salam for helicity.

What you have thus far is the U(1) group under SO(1.3) rotations.

The only thing were missing from a full blown TOE is literally gravity itself and our inability to quantize gravity.

edit I should clarify we still need research to validate Higgs metastability and if the SO (10) can account for DM and DE.

Not really relevant at this stage. Far too much to include to even consider at this point lol. Not faulting the work you've put in though. Just simple truth.

Back to Your thread

Anti-matter and matter fall under those groups using charge. In vector treatment the opposite charges are treated equivalent to change in electromagnetic charge. So they fall under the U(1) guage.

SO(3) is your kinematics including relativity. However this also where Pati-Salam subgroups kick in when it comes to helicity involving charges. (including matter/antimatter).

We can use strain or interfometers to measure gravitational waves. In fact we have recently done so.

Let me put something together to fix your missing pieces in understanding how this relates to the superposition of the two waves. From that you will have the clues to understanding how energy is treated in this case. PS edits you made are better.

sorry I didnt get back to you sooner but I was thinking about your question and saw something I needed to work out.

 

For the strong and weak forces, I dont think the situation changes with the matter/antimatter dimensions which are completely symmetrical dimensions.

 

explaining everything else at this point is going to have to be taken out of context since their is such an intricate cause and effect chain going on, so it may sound strange but it will make sense in context.

 

BTW, I may as well tell you it's all been modeled from HSDD which, I discovered is a propper analog of the universe.

 

Their are two loops.

The duality loop which is looping two dimensions of matter and antimatter.beginning at the big bounce and ending at the EH

 

The QGL which is looping world lines with return lines in reverse time. QGL begins at the EH where it is unified with the EM force, and ends at the Big Crunch, meaning the source of gravity is in the reverse time dimension where gravitons take on the roll of photons

 

gravity is the near field force

DM is the far field loop force

and together they are the same as the EM force in reverse.

 

The duality loop has both timelines moving in the same direction which is possible because they are equal and opposite waves and are each others return path.

 

the QGL is the world line and return line moving in opposite directions of time but thats ok because black holes stay synchronized by saving all matter on the EH Till its time to return such that everything returns to the big crunch at the same time as energy.

 

for the higgs field, I'm uncertain but for symmetry reasons and for optimal isotropic homogeneous it seems like the higgs bosson belongs at the CMB

 

its symmetrical to the EH because matter annihilates with antimatter on the EH its this action that makes everything at the EH make swnsw

Edited December 11, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Mordred]

well much of that is beyond this particular thread. I tend to prefer LCDM but LQC has its appeals.

 

For GUT based I'm starting to lean toward superstring theory simply as it saves computation time..

 

Quite frankly I'm not familiar with the model you just described.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Mordred

[TakenItSeriously]

well much of that is beyond this particular thread. I tend to prefer LCDM but LQC has its appeals.

For GUT based I'm starting to lean toward superstring theory simply as it saves computation time..

Quite frankly I'm not familiar with the model you just described.

Sorry that was my mistake. I was tired when I posted that and forgot myself.

 

HSDD, is High Speed Digital Design, which is the field of engineering I had retired from. It was when I was working in that field that I thought I could see parallels with physics which I though might include a propper analog to physics, specifically QM, SR, and GR based on what I could recall from childhood. I grew up wanting to be a physicist, but my dad had other plans for me.

 

What made me seriously doubt myself was how could it be an analog to all three, which seemed impossible.

 

It was right before the time that my work in that field had been acknowleged and my career took off in the mid nineties. Since I could do my PCB design job on auto-pilot and I had literally run out of things to think about in that field, I needed some new mental challenge to pass the time as I worked.

 

On a lark, I decided to test my hypothesis of the propper analog for physics and try to build a model for the universe based on the model of HSDD which I had bassed mostly from Dr Howard Johnsons early research, but it included included some of my own models including a rolling wheel model for the rising edge of a digital wave, that worked very well for 2D PCB geometries.

 

I knew how preposterous it seemed, but I already thought I could improve the particle wave model for light so I may as well do that first and see where that lead me.

 

I used the rolling wheel model was the bassis for the 3D partical helix model. The matter/antimatter Duality Universe was based on the transmission line model of a differential pair. And the Gravity Loop was based on a micro-stripline structure of a differential pair.

 

I had half expected to just give up after a couple days when the analog would fail to pan out but the child physicist in me new otherwise and the model of the universe just flew together so I knew the analog had to be at least a proper analog, but then I started to think it could possibly be a scaled down model of electromagnetism that could scale to any size which I had also discovered back then using a simple 2D impedance solver which I had programmed as a simple batch program. Meaning the impedance of a trace over a plane would remain constant if I scaled the entire structure though I didn't see the practical value of that at the time.

 

The analog never faild so it had to be real. So I guess all my silly childhood fantasies of science could come true.

Edited December 11, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Mordred]

ah gotcha, Have you ever looked into N-body codes and quantum information theory.

 

Both provide techniques to model something as varied as our universe and provide numerous process time saving techniques.

[TakenItSeriously]

 

 

ah gotcha, Have you ever looked into N-body codes and quantum information theory.

Both provide techniques to model something as varied as our universe and provide numerous process time saving techniques.

I looked at quantum information theory a little whan I had based SR on the conservation of information, meaning the distance between observer ans light source must be ∝ the average λ. But I was thinking more in temrs of Hawking and... I forgot his name and I just saw a couple ov videos of his lectures, which I thought were great BTW, they had a bet over whether a BH could destroy information or something to that effect.

 

 

Found it, His name was Kip Thorne, I knew that, here's the bet:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThorneHawkingPreskill_bet

 

Anyway, that looks interesting, do you have a specific example of how they can be used as a model, I mean is it the mental model type or for computer modeling.

 

 

edit to add:

I missed this stuff from before

edit I should clarify we still need research to validate Higgs metastability and if the SO (10) can account for DM and DE.

Not really relevant at this stage. Far too much to include to even consider at this point lol. Not faulting the work you've put in though. Just simple truth.

That's fair, but that was why I was hoping for some kind of collaborative effort. Despite my earlier comments, I'm under no illusion of being a real physicist and what I know only scratches the surface. I'm just good at making intuitive models, and I might have a clever thought now and then.

 

I'm beginning to think a TOE is not the right name. I think it may be More like a complete fundamental theory of the origional three theories which completes the loops and finds the hidden domains but theirs all that science on top of that foundation that's still valid, I'm sure, but probably nuch of it could be expanded on in the modified context as well.

 

Back to Your thread

Anti-matter and matter fall under those groups using charge. In vector treatment the opposite charges are treated equivalent to change in electromagnetic charge. So they fall under the U(1) guage.

SO(3) is your kinematics including relativity. However this also where Pati-Salam subgroups kick in when it comes to helicity involving charges. (including matter/antimatter).

I'll have to look into it, but I'd still like to try to get the whole model layed out first to get a baseline version to start from.

 

We can use strain or interfometers to measure gravitational waves. In fact we have recently done so.

Let me put something together to fix your missing pieces in understanding how this relates to the superposition of the two waves. From that you will have the clues to understanding how energy is treated in this case. PS edits you made are better.

But with gravitational waves, which are compression waves, In a sense you are using a ground, because wouldn't the instruments be anchored to measure the force?...

 

Or perhaps it's a compression of spacetime your measuring? Now that I think about the two long perpendicular arms of LIGO I wasnt paying that much attention to the gravity wave news when I was still so swamped with just learning the science that I needed at the time.

 

I'm still not sure that applies to the much weaker forces of light waves though, maybe it's color that provides the reference? I don't know, I'm just grasping at straws now. I'm too used to thinking in terms of needing a reference.

 

I am an old dog you know and learning new tricks isnt as easy as it used to be ;-) Don't get me worng, I'm still very interested and willing to learn more but I dont want to set my goals too high.

Edited December 11, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[steveupson]

 

HSDD, is High Speed Digital Design...

 

Not according to the google.

 

[Mordred]

 

Not according to the google.

 

lol

But with gravitational waves, which are compression waves, In a sense you are using a ground, because wouldn't the instruments be anchored to measure the force?...

 

Or perhaps it's a compression of spacetime your measuring? Now that I think about the two long perpendicular arms of LIGO I wasnt paying that much attention to the gravity wave news when I was still so swamped with just learning the science that I needed at the time.

 

I'm still not sure that applies to the much weaker forces of light waves though, maybe it's color that provides the reference? I don't know, I'm just grasping at straws now. I'm too used to thinking in terms of needing a reference.

 

I am an old dog you know and learning new tricks isnt as easy as it used to be ;-) Don't get me worng, I'm still very interested and willing to learn more but I dont want to set my goals too high.

The important detail is you don't necessarily require a grounded reference. One simple electronic example is measuring voltage across two resistors.

 

You only require some form of reliable reference.

 

The reason I mentioned N-body and quantum information theory. Is that both provide excellent examples and methodology in programming extremely complex many particle systems.

 

As programming is your expertise I figured you may find those techniques useful.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Mordred

[TakenItSeriously]

Not according to the google.

 

High Speed Digital Design is the name Dr. Howard Johnson gave it, and he was the first to do any real research in the field. for years. Everything else at the time was just crackpot nonsense.

 

You could call it Signal Integrity, but that doesnt include EMI issues which is the largest problem for ports. Also the simulation and modeling industry started to claim that name and I was dead set against the methods they used, or the excuses they tried to give to not learning the models that could tell you everything you needed to know to avoid problems in the first place.

 

You could even call it Black Magic which was the term the industry used before they could understand that they were in the middle of a paradigm shift. But I'll always refer to it as HSDD because that was what the man who made the first contributions to the field named it.

[Mordred]

Could you clarify your "Hidden" statements in the OP. I hope your aware QM and Bell's inequality disproved local hidden variables. However as you haven't mentioned entanglement I'm not sure your suggesting hidden variables in regards to quantum superposition.

[TakenItSeriously]

Could you clarify your "Hidden" statements in the OP. I hope your aware QM and Bell's inequality disproved local hidden variables. However as you haven't mentioned entanglement I'm not sure your suggesting hidden variables in regards to quantum superposition.

Sure, Bell didn't account for hidden observers, so there would be a Bob and an Anti-Bob making opposite observations

[Mordred]

How can you have hidden observers lol. Isn't that the same thing as a hidden variable that generates enough interferance to cause superposition collapse?

 

So in fact based on what constitutes an observer (interferance) Bell does take that into consideration as it is testing for that very thing.

[TakenItSeriously]

How can you have hidden observers lol. Isn't that the same thing as a hidden variable that generates enough interferance to cause superposition collapse?

So in fact based on what constitutes an observer (interferance) Bell does take that into consideration as it is testing for that very thing.

By virtue of every particle having an entangled antiparticle, therefore dual entangled universes

[Mordred]

Define universe then. You certainly don't require dual universe for two particles to have a conserved shared state. Nor does one require a multiverse to describe extra dimensions (independant degrees of freedom) where a field only interacts with its associative particle.

 

As per String theory,ADS/cft correspondance, Desitter/Anti-Desitter for examples are not referring to extra universes. The extra dimensions are essentially mathematical. That corresponds to a particles quantum numbers ie spin and how spin etc are effective degrees of freedom.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Mordred