SuperPolymath Posted November 18, 2017 Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) On 11/16/2017 at 8:15 PM, Vmedvil said: means forever or infinity, which wouldn't describe the universe Infinite & ageless could most certainly describe the universe. & that's only between 2 & 3 out of 5 dimensions in my theory, & that's just the amount of baryonic matter above the planck length. There's an horizon we can't see beyond. I explain why that is in my theory which I still don't think you've read. I think you were plugging in for interactions partially beneath the planck length though, in the subplanckian particles of a particle-wave. Or at least where the gravity experiences lorentz transformations. There's infinite interactions occurring between any two points of space in this model, it's just a matter of how minuscule & quick they occur. But the behavior of these interactions is the same. That is, governed by the scale relativity equivalent of gravity wherever C dilates. Edited November 18, 2017 by SuperPolymath
SuperPolymath Posted November 18, 2017 Author Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) That sameness is crucial to building the first quantum computer, as I was trying to explain in the pms. The first is only a few million strings across, because that's the limit in processing power for using this + fractal geometry sets to graph the behavior of the particle waves using current computing power. But once you have this quantum computer, you can process information at the rate of something x 10^4 C. Think about what calculations you could then. It would be enough to make a bigger quantum computer, which could make even bigger ones. The implications are profound as I explained in the above link to my theory. Anyway back to the ... which is infinity in summation notation, the reason that happened was that TuvFuv to 0. When you plug this equation into the julia sets, don't do that. They need to be <h (smaller than a planck length) because where dealing with the whole C dilation thing, but only so much so but you need to find out how close to 0 you need to do the TuvFuv transform. You'll have to literally have to calculate how far into infinitesimal space you'll need to go for this equation. But you'll get an approximate for the speed of QE which should be consistent with 4 orders of magnitude greater than C, you should, through iterating sets, be able to construct some graphs that will tell you how your observer effect will re-polarize & displace all surrounding particles (again, approximately). That data would be used to construct a tiny quantum network in the lab, get enough of these going & you can construct larger networks which could be used for all sorts of mischief. Edited November 18, 2017 by SuperPolymath
SuperPolymath Posted November 18, 2017 Author Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) Or, if you'd prefer, this devilry. Yeah, set your TuvFuv transform to close enough to zero & plug it in as zed for your iterative sets Edited November 18, 2017 by SuperPolymath
SuperPolymath Posted November 18, 2017 Author Posted November 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Phi for All said: ! Moderator Note Three posts promoting a pet idea were split off to the Trash. Please, NEVER interject non-mainstream science into a mainstream discussion. We have a Speculations section for a reason. It could become a mainstream model. It explains 4 quantum mechanical effects, 2 anomalies in the CMB, it's a UFT, & it has a mechanism for expansion & mass that covers anything from DE to the Higgs field. BoT: got that ... (infinity or forever in summation notation) because your TuvFuv transform was 0. Can't be 0.
Recommended Posts