Maybeverse Theory

[truedeity]

I want to offer my “theory of the day” to the community for scrutiny. I offer it as is… I do not claim to have a complete understanding of quantum physics; however, I am interested in the concepts and discussions it creates. All that I ask is that I would be credited as the first person whom presented this concept to the scientific community (Incase I got lucky “needle in the milky way”).

 

My theory of the day:

Maybeverse.

What if the essence of matter is “the observer” and the electron only existed within space and time during observation. And the particle(s) state exists in a present time state, yet only existing wherever the electron was present within the subatomic fractures of a multi-verse. Could you imply that dark matter/dark energy is our observation of extra potential gravity interacting with the present time state as if it were not affected by the observer, eg. The wave potential…

End.

 

PS.

have I posted in the wrong place? If so, I am sorry... I am new here… I do want to be able to post tidbit theories on quantum physics forums, with a (soup for thought style approach) which does not necessarily need to be taken seriously, because I have no credibility… However, I believe right brainers generalist, intuitive, creative, approach has much to offer the doableistic (left brainers) psychology on science.

 

I love this forum.

[iNow]

Interesting idea. I need to think some about it. Hopefully, others will respond in the meantime.

 

You might have put this into Speculations, as that's really more what you have. In science, the word "theory" has a very definite meaning, and it's about as close to absolute truth as you get. What you've got is a hypothesis, a conjecture, an idea that needs serious discussion to see where it can be improved and what can be discarded.

 

Enjoy.

 

 

Collapsing wave function through observation, did the wave exist before being collapsed... Interesting.

[Phi for All]

I would caution you in the overuse of the word "theory" to mean "speculation". In science, a theory is the best you can get. Start with an idea, make some predictions based on that idea, design some experiments, collect some data. When others can duplicate your work, you can think about starting to call it a theory.

 

So if anyone seems annoyed at you (which they will if you keep posting a "Theory of the Day" ), it's probably because you're crowning your achievement without the rigor it demands. Maybe you should get used to saying "Hypothesis of the Day" instead.

[Tom Vose]

I want to offer my “theory of the day” to the community for scrutiny. I offer it as is… I do not claim to have a complete understanding of quantum physics; however, I am interested in the concepts and discussions it creates. All that I ask is that I would be credited as the first person whom presented this concept to the scientific community (Incase I got lucky “needle in the milky way”).

 

My theory of the day:

Maybeverse.

What if the essence of matter is “the observer” and the electron only existed within space and time during observation. And the particle(s) state exists in a present time state, yet only existing wherever the electron was present within the subatomic fractures of a multi-verse. Could you imply that dark matter/dark energy is our observation of extra potential gravity interacting with the present time state as if it were not affected by the observer, eg. The wave potential…

End.

 

PS.

have I posted in the wrong place? If so, I am sorry... I am new here… I do want to be able to post tidbit theories on quantum physics forums, with a (soup for thought style approach) which does not necessarily need to be taken seriously, because I have no credibility… However, I believe right brainers generalist, intuitive, creative, approach has much to offer the doableistic (left brainers) psychology on science.

 

I love this forum.

 

 

I have to object.

 

How is this not speculations, compared to a recent thread of mine that was sent to psuedoscience?

[SkepticLance]

A query

If something does not exist without an observer, how can it create outcomes that are observable later, if those outcomes are created while not being observed?

 

For example : If a terrorist plants a bomb with a time fuse and walks off, that bomb is not being observed. Yet the terrorist can wander in later and observe the devastation. The action occurred while not being observed.

 

This is a crude example, but the principle also operates on a quantum level. Quantum phenomena operate without being observed and the results are later seen. Without an observer, by the speculation above, how can this happen?

[truedeity]

A query

If something does not exist without an observer, how can it create outcomes that are observable later, if those outcomes are created while not being observed?

 

For example : If a terrorist plants a bomb with a time fuse and walks off, that bomb is not being observed. Yet the terrorist can wander in later and observe the devastation. The action occurred while not being observed.

 

This is a crude example, but the principle also operates on a quantum level. Quantum phenomena operate without being observed and the results are later seen. Without an observer, by the speculation above, how can this happen?

 

Adding more to the speculation...

 

Well I dont believe we are the only observer in the universe. The observation function is thought of as an action. That's the act of observing.

 

I want to beg this question. What is present time? The right answer is that we can not know. We have never seen present time. Presnet time cannot be captured in a photograph. You can suggest that in exactly 0.000000000009 of a milisecond from, or before now is very close to a present instance of time. The only way to capture an instance of presnet time is to stop time. But we are still working on that one.

 

But what if the electron only exists in present time? Then particles only exist in present time. Manifesting our physical universe.

 

It is said that for every subatomic fracture a new universe is created. Every possibility that can exist, exists.

 

So what if the particle exists in all realms of it's possibilities? And the act of observation suggests that within the wave of possibilities there once existed a particle here, or there. But now that particle is gone. And so is its electron. And observation merely implys that only the possibilities untill "present time" existed. So the electron faded in and out of all possibilities only existing in present time, and instantly vanished into the next issue of present time. Thus a particle and its electron has no fixed position in the universe.

[Tom Vose]

Was my objection here noted?

 

By the way, a camera always captures present time.

[Sayonara]

Was my objection here noted?

 

By the way, a camera always captures present time.

 

If you object to posts you are much better off using the "report post" function (exclamation point icon) to bring it to our attention. Reported posts are checked regularly.

[Tom Vose]

Secondly, you cannot destinguish actual occurances in spacetime, where something does not experience present time. EVERYTHING occurs in present time (apart from photons and tachyons). That is what makes this time the present. An electron, a camera and even a car all experiences present time, even if we never get a section of a present time that we want, anything that we process through, thought, action or changes all occur in present time. It's the only REAL time ever in existence.

 

So get it right mate.

[truedeity]

The time will inevitably come when mechanistic and atomic thinking will be put out of the minds of all people of wisdom, and instead dynamics and chemistry will come to be seen in all phenomena. When that happens, the divinity of living Nature will unfold before our eyes all the more clearly.

Johann von Goethe, 1812

 

You do not experience present time!!!!!!!!! It is gone before your neurophysiology is able to perceputalize our holographic reality. Yes, I believe present time is rendered in the physical universe. However, I believe electrons materialize in present time at the point of subatomic fractures. Exemplifying, my point. That all waves of possibility that can be expressed by the particle, are expressed in a multiverse of realities.

 

To claim that a photograph is one instance of present time, is stupid... The amount of light that enters the shutter of the lens, is manifested into a photograph. You don’t have to be a quantum guru to comprehend photography class. A Genius is not someone who can perform calculations. Foresight is the rare genius, it is the likes of Nikola Tesla that humanity is longing for. The best knowledge, is not knowing. Let intuition run its course, otherwise, you will learn yourself into a Box of impossibility.

 

All cameras that develop a photo have the fading effect. One moving object can be seen in multiple places on the picture. Even the best stop-motion camera in the world cannot capture a single instance of present reality. Your suggesting the object existed in two places at once...

 

I have been made angry. To anyone that cares. I have no more time for toddler minds. So here is my last vent… If you wish to offer evidence to refute my claim, or either from associated presses, and or bits of established science; provide forceful proof. In the words of Richard Feynman, “It’s not inconceivable? I just conceived it!”

 

 

In my opinion, Quantum Physicists have formed their own religion. They believe only a few of their elite are able to even discuss physics. What a determent to humanity. Claiming they have the ineffable experience, after submerging themselves in long division. As they experience higher dimensions. What a(n) ego trip they are on. So does every fundamental Christian experience the same thing in deep prayer... (see, Richard Dawk for reason explanation.) You guys attack all external possibilities. Hiding behind the complexity of Quantum Physics, don’t over gratifying your own IQ. Physicists try so hard sowing the quilt of math around broken theory. There are so many KNOWN gaps, that science has to reinvent a new particle to explain something else without well known supported theories crumbling… To the extent that they are unable to perceive with intuition; All they know how to do is understand is the math they have spent their whole lives trying to grasp. The inaccuracy though “publish or perish” has mentality clouded their intuitions under the lime lights of obtaining a Nobel Prize.

Besides, some of you responded as if you didn’t understand what I wrote initially anyway. Can anyone smarter post?

 

We think of science as being based on observation and being open to change, but as you learn more about it and about the scientists themselves, you realize how much it is a religion. It is very closed [and] resistive to changing its fundamental principles…

 

-Paul LaViolette

[iNow]

I have been made angry. To anyone that cares.

Well, I can pretty much guarantee you that we don't. What now?

 

 

Besides, some of you responded as if you didn’t understand what I wrote initially anyway. Can anyone smarter post?

Sorry, my dog (surely smarter than you, as even he knows how to encourage people to help him and assist with his needs/desires in a polite fashion) is too busy licking his nut sack right now to trouble himself with a whiner like you.

Edited December 18, 2008 by iNow
left out the letter t

[truedeity]

I have not said anything incorrectly, on this thread…

There is no other more symphonious, and or artistically divine description for the collapsing wave function. The speculation I have drawn, where no other exists, sustains without undermining other established theories.

Problem with the counter approach…

Aside from super massive egos, my momentary distaste is that this is an "intelligent" community. And we should all breed intelligent discussion.

Aside from the most primal impulse, to discredit all new speculations that surfaces before they sustain a process of interrogation on their own. Yet we accept blindly, all the ‘Now’ theories, that ALREADY CONFLICT with the Ether? The only ones we seem to support are our own…

There may not be enough time to absorb the implications of disproving every single theory that is presented in this community, however, a new theory should be ranked and not ridiculed. Granted, it is my FIRST post. But if instead there was a ranking system, for placing speculation into its own perspective, then, over time it may grow and earn merit. As it finds more support from other ranking members. Rather than, being lost in the Ether-net…

In closing, there is no exiting theory in quantum physics or modern science that started without violent opposition...

Is there anyone that wants me to elaborate more on the details of my original post? Am I not making a sound argument…?

 

SkepticLance (Primate)

If something does not exist without an observer, how can it create outcomes that are observable later, if those outcomes are created while not being observed?

 

Clarification:

What I intend to mean, is that the universe is a part of the observation function. For which, there is no previous definition, or discussion. This is a completely new idea that has never been considered. And there are practical implications. But I believe it is the barrier that creates the universe of substance.

 

Atoms are considered to be empty forces of energy. So if you’re asking me how can manifest destiny exist? In my view, all possibilities that can exist do exist.

But I ask, which of you can explain why Atom’s materialize a physical universe at all? Atoms are considered empty forces of energy potential.

[truedeity]

status?

[Ophiolite]

I'm going to take a wild assed guess here, Truedeity. Your opening post was interesting and its tenor excellent. You offered a speculation, but you did so in a self-deprecating manner. That was very encouraging.

 

Why was that important? This and other forums have been filled with nonsense by people who 'have a theory'. (iNow and Phi for All both offered friendly advice on the dangers of calling your own speculation a 'theory'.)

 

Then, enter stage left, the banned and discredited Tom Vose. In apparent response to his post you offer up a lengthy piece that includes the words "I have been made angry. To anyone that cares. I have no more time for toddler minds."

 

Whether you intended it or not, that pretty well identified you as a classic "I have a theory" woo-woo. Then you resurface 3 months later as if nothing had happened.

 

Status? No one gives a damn. You might try apologising to iNow and Phi for All for implying that they were toddler minds. You might try reining in your ego. You might try keeping a clamp on your temper. I don't think it will do much good, but I suspect it's the only course of action that might.

[Kaeroll]

Maybeverse.

What if the essence of matter is “the observer” and the electron only existed within space and time during observation. And the particle(s) state exists in a present time state, yet only existing wherever the electron was present within the subatomic fractures of a multi-verse. Could you imply that dark matter/dark energy is our observation of extra potential gravity interacting with the present time state as if it were not affected by the observer, eg. The wave potential…

End.

Question/problem: looking at your basic premise - electron/observer interaction as the basis of, well, everything - it seems somewhat anthropocentric. The only observer we know of is ourselves; we are made up in part of electrons. If these electrons don't exist until observed, how can they 'observe' the rest of the universe to make that spring into being?

 

I don't buy the notion that everything vanishes when you close your eyes,which is what your speculation suggests. If an electron only exists when you measure it with some scientific method, which is what the term observe means in this context, what's to stop my body turning to steam and dust?

 

Kaeroll

[truedeity]

we are not the observer.

[Ophiolite]

we are not the observer.

Earlier you said "What if the essence of matter is “the observer” and the electron only existed within space and time during observation. And the particle(s) state exists in a present time state, yet only existing wherever the electron was present within the subatomic fractures of a multi-verse."

 

There seems to be some cirularity in your cause and effect. Would you clarify your meaning please.

[truedeity]

Earlier you said "What if the essence of matter is “the observer” and the electron only existed within space and time during observation. And the particle(s) state exists in a present time state, yet only existing wherever the electron was present within the subatomic fractures of a multi-verse."

 

There seems to be some cirularity in your cause and effect. Would you clarify your meaning please.

 

 

Nothing said is redundant here, just a different age of knowledge. For every sub atomic fracture a new universe of possibilities is created. Which literally means every second there are billions of possibilities as stated above. What I am implying, is that only those possibilities that are observable exist. All other possibilities do exist, but fade out of existence as the electron leaves that parallel universe instance and into a new instance. Since time is an aspect of the 7th dimension (and gravity), we are only able to comprehend a single aspect of it. All of these possibilities exist for us, but which of these possibilities will we observe? This is a time of great importance, and we need to not observe ourselves out of existence because there is a threshold.

 

I have known about this, oh,,, roughly 8 years now... I cant even explain how I know certain things. Sometimes, when you think, you think, its not just you...................

 

There's more of a shared thing happening here...

....

I'd love to illustrate aspects of something that's ineffable..... But it can only be experienced....

....

You might be surprised that even you, can figure this out...

....

The more you try to get detailed about whats really happening behind the curtains, the more you get locked into impossibility. Although, this is not the only thing, I feel we should have caught up long ago....

 

It's less Left, and more Right.... If you get my drift... You get to a point where you have to look inward for the best answers.......

 

Observation, is actually an aspect of consciousness, for the universe as a living organism. Yes, I said the universe is a living organism... -,- well, It is...

 

Think about this, the most elaborate creation in the universe is the human brain. Do you think its just a coincidence? The universe didn't just start out with that advancement. It merely observed all of its possibilities along the way... The question is, what is our role? And what's next? And why is the universe hiding its singularity?

 

I believe the universe is trying to evolve in order to save its own life. As the photonphere is seeping outside of the static layers... (That means its dieing.) So it stimulates billions of observational possibilities, until it reaches its threshold. Now that we are aware of that, its death is nearing. Because we are limiting its options by having comprehension of this concept.

 

A thought is made of sound, frequency, energy, and vibration. If you ask yourself what atoms are made of, you would have to agree that they are made of the same thing thoughts are made of. And everything else for that matter. Only difference is that we have a bio-electromagnetic field around our body, and our thoughts ripple though that field and though other conducting fields in the universe. But its not "in-delay" as you would think. The universe is knowledgeable of itself fully...

 

I hold nothing against agnostic people, as I used to be somewhat agnostic when I was younger. Until I started grasping these concepts and meditating about them for years. Let's that God as we "Believe" him to exist, and observe that he exists with belief, we taunt his essence into existence. I think that the universe is more less "Godding" in some since. If you consider some of the Biblical passages, it might seem creepy how perfectly this lines up.

 

Ask yourself this question, "if god was an all loving creator, why would he allow genocide to exist?"

 

What if the answer to that is a bit more complicated than most fundamental Christians try to tackle and wrap into "he gave us free choice"... What if the answer is a paradox. What if God doesn't exist Yet... What if he exists in the future? What if he is cultivated as a consciousness with our thoughts, and the universe becomes that essence. Because time is a concept of the 7th dimension it means that it had already occurred, however, the sequence of events that designed his existence allowed for the universe to exist via. observational omnipresent function.

 

 

I wager that evolution does exist, as a co-operative force that helps the universe survive for itself and inadvertently creates the loving concept of god with 6000+ years of human belief in God. Thus evolution does exist, just not in the same aspect that most categorize it with.

 

So we are helping the self awareness of the universe in a particular since.

 

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

 

---- seemly, the passage is more than just God created man in his image...

 

its also,....

---- god created man in his image. in that image god created him... male and female he created them.---

 

think ... look it up. Elohim................

 

-------------------

 

also consider, I am the alpha and the omega, the being, and the end.

 

Nothing in the bible suggest that God was not created in the future and presently here since the beginning... Watching, waiting for the opportunity to step in so that he can do his work.. but he has to wait, so that he can exist first....

 

 

 

 

As we mature, and observe, we harness more and more of these reality implication's from a comprehensible point of view. This is observation that can be tested, with implication that can be expected...

 

The time is now for people to wake up. I could debate this, but would waste way to much time. If you want to know how deep this rabit hole really is:

 

Email Me: [==removed==]

 

I've exposed this knowledge to many, and my understanding of it, is coherent not just abstract, we all have a synchronous way of growing intelligently. Let's make use of it. I'd rather join our egos, not destroy them...

Edited May 27, 2009 by mooeypoo

[mooeypoo]

This is a science forum, not a religious preaching stage. The thread started out semi-scientifically-based and became religious, and it is now closed pending moderation.

 

 

truedeity, you came to us, we did not come to you. When you signed up to this forum, you agreed to its rules. There is a speculation policy, which you should read, and there is a reason why we do not allow religious "discussions" in this forum. If you want to talk about religion, go elsewhere.

 

Further, if your sole meaning of this thread was to lead us to a religious "ha!" moment, you clearly failed. The right thing to do is answer the questions put forth to you, not run away and tell people to talk to you "one on one".

 

I recommend you read the rules of the forum, the internet etiquette, and the entire wikipedia entry about logical fallacies.

 

 

This thread is closed pending moderation for religious discussion.