Imparticle Theory.

[fleet1779]

The popular sitcoms explanation of Schrödinger's cat comes to mind "unitl the imparticle is proved or disproved it must be thought of as real and not real"

 

If I may take a personal stab at the idea I would say "if humans has never evolved eyesight it would be hard to prove the existance of light". finding a causeaul link says more about the observer than the imparticle

[tar]

I prefer to think that the universe has not yet done what it is going to do next.

[Bignose]

That's because it is metaphysics. If you're not familiar or studious in metaphysics, this will not make scientific sense to you. It is not merely empirical physics, it is metaphysics, which is another branch of science altogether but inextricably linked to empirical physics nonetheless.

 

I would disagree that metaphysics is in any way "another branch of science" since it apparently doesn't even have to follow the most basic rule of science -- prediction and comparison with observation. That is the very core of science. And, consequently, at the very core of this forum. Since it seems like there doesn't plan to be any prediction and comparison with observation, there is very little interest here.

 

you may like to look over wikipedia's entry on Metaphysics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

 

"Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy"

 

"Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. "

 

both seem pertinent to me. Both seem to strongly suggest that it isn't accepted as a form (or "branch" in your words) of science today. Making it very hard to defend on a science forum that is newer than the end of 18th century.

[tar]

fleet1779

 

Well, good point. Most of our investigations start with one, or a combination of our senses. Our discovery of the entire electromagnetic spectrum was probably based on our awareness of "visible" light.

 

If we were able to "sense" magnetic fields, the world would have the same attributes that is has, but would "appear" or be sensed differently. But we have managed to build equipment that senses magnetic fields, non the less.

 

Is this based on the studies of electromagnetism that were spawned originally by our "sight"? Probably. The electric fields and magnetic fields that "are" light, were found.

 

Probably the same can be said of smell and taste leading us to an understanding of chemicals, or our touch leading us to understandings of heat and pressure, thermodynamics and mechanics.

 

But importantly, things that are, fit together, and can be understood to be the "same" thing that has its "effects" on all these "senses". Say a rock, or the sun. We can inspect it, and learn about it, with more than one sense.

 

If it doesn't show up, in any sense, what importance does it have? If it is real, at least its effects would be sensible.

If something was happening that we could not explain elsewise, we would look for the cause, and attempt to find the principles and particles behind it.

 

Such with gravity. We know it is there, based on the evidence from all our other senses and equipment. And based perhaps on our sense of balance stemming from the arrangement of our inner ear, but it all adds up, and fits together with the other things we sense.

 

There is more than one reason we have, to know its there (even if we don't know exactly what "causes" it.) We can study its nature, and know when and how it will affect us.

 

All we are asking Imparticle to provide is a case or two where the imparticle "shows up".

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Bignose,

 

I personally find Kant had a lot to say.

 

He was not dealing with flights of fancy.

 

He was dealing with reality. And how we come to know it.

 

I am not in favor of Imparticle's use of the term Metaphysics, as if it gives him license to consider real, what works only in his imagination.

 

Nor am I in favor of discarding the sound arguments of Kant, the philosophers that came before him, and those that came after.

 

Seems to me that the total package is best understood when understood from more than one perspective. When both metaphysics and physics, say the same thing.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Bignose]

Bignose,

 

I personally find Kant had a lot to say.

 

He was not dealing with flights of fancy.

 

He was dealing with reality. And how we come to know it.

 

I am not in favor of Imparticle's use of the term Metaphysics, as if it gives him license to consider real, what works only in his imagination.

 

Nor am I in favor of discarding the sound arguments of Kant, the philosophers that came before him, and those that came after.

 

Seems to me that the total package is best understood when understood from more than one perspective. When both metaphysics and physics, say the same thing.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And I never said that I have a problem with philosophy. My problem is that on a science forum -- where the rules of science are paramount -- trying to promote musing and wondering to the level of science isn't fair at all. A major component of science is the prediction and comparison of that prediction with results. Musing and philosophizing alone doesn't give that. I never said that there isn't value in it, but until those musings are turned into specific predictions, they aren't science. It really is as simple as that. And, as it isn't science, it really doesn't belong on a science forum. There are philosophy forums where this kind of discussion would get much more attention than here.

[tar]

And I never said that I have a problem with philosophy. My problem is that on a science forum -- where the rules of science are paramount -- trying to promote musing and wondering to the level of science isn't fair at all. A major component of science is the prediction and comparison of that prediction with results. Musing and philosophizing alone doesn't give that. I never said that there isn't value in it, but until those musings are turned into specific predictions, they aren't science. It really is as simple as that. And, as it isn't science, it really doesn't belong on a science forum. There are philosophy forums where this kind of discussion would get much more attention than here.

 

Bignose,

 

There is, in my estimation, science behind philosophy, and philosophy behind science.

 

I did not mean to single you out, as having any kind of problem with philosophy, and I agree with you totally in calling Imparticle to task, to bring his "ideas" into the real world, where we can test them, one way or the other. True or false, real or imaginary.

 

But I am in a position, where my own theory leads me to back up both science and metaphysics, and to a certain extent religion as well.

 

It has been stated in various ways, in different threads I have read on this forum, that science and religion are not compatable, that they are talking about different things, in different ways. This may be true in many ways, but I look for the ways that metaphysics can include science, and that science can inspect metaphysics.

 

My thinking is thus. Humans have evolved, along with other lifeforms, here on Earth. It must be true that life can emerge on this planet. Furthermore it must be true that humans can evolve and become conscious, because I am human and conscious. Life did not have to exist before life emerged, humans did not have to exist before humans developed, and consciousness did not have to exist before consciousness emerged.

 

I have a model of the world, that I have learned about, through my senses. The world is not fittable into my skull, yet I contain it somehow, in some analogous fashion, in the folds and synapses and firings in a rather complex neural structure inside my skull. I am therefore of the world, in the world and there is none of me that is "other than" the world.

 

Scientists learn about the same world. Philosophers think about the same world. Religious people worship the same world.

 

No one has the only key to it. Evidently we are all automatically in and of it.

 

And no human, not a scientist, or a philosopher or a religious zealot, has any way to know it, but from a human perspective. Any other perspective is not a human one.

 

So even on a science forum one can explore ideas and thoughts of humans. Those thoughts are both of a real world, and are really occurring in a human skull. Even untrue, incorrect, imaginary things are thought. These are still actual thoughts that are had, and most likely there are reasons why they are had.

 

Imparticle's theory is not unthinkable. But I do not see any evidence of it, outside the human mind. Therefore inspection of it is probably more an inspection of "how we think" than an inspection of reality itself. But still something to explain...scientifically.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Imparticle]

So, back to imparticles...

 

 

I have reasoned that like photons are the quanta of light, so are imparticles the quanta of quantum, or essentially they are the quanta of itself. To reinforce the case for imparticles, I'd like to say that as you break down all matter, indeed all substance or "stuff" that matter and light are constituted of, you eventually come to a level at which something must be constituting things that somehow constitutes itself. Otherwise, quantum mechanics and general relativity wouldn't logically, communicate or make sense between themselves. Many, many attempts have been made to harmonize quantum mechanics and general relativity, the most recent of which is popularly string theory. A lot of people don't agree with string people, and still more people disagree on the specifics of string theory.

I'd just like to say that my theory is not pointless, and does scientifically deserve to be considered.

I thought this might be a more reinforcing summary:

Imagine a particle with no energy and no mass. This is a hyper-quantum particle. So, it is infinitely valueless, and smaller than space. (Remember, space is the involution of mass--*you might want to lookup involution.) I suggested them as the particles that compose all particles that have mass or energy, in other words, the fundamental constituent of all things. As you break down all matter, indeed all substance or "stuff" that matter and light are constituted of, you eventually come to a level at which something must be constituting things that somehow constitutes itself. Otherwise, quantum mechanics and general relativity wouldn't logically, communicate or make sense between themselves.

 

I found that if particles have mass or even energy, they are transient and cannot be fundamental, so in relentless attempts to break down the subatomic and possible hyper-quantum particles scientists apparently continue to discover, I found invisible particles that exist interchangeably, simultaneously, composing all that exists at the same time. I call it theImparticle. I spent many years trying to prove how they don't exist, but they eventually convinced me logically.

 

They also explain why everything is interconnected. Because everything is fundamentally composed of imparticles, and they can never be separated in any process, they prove that nothing can be disassociated with anything else, everything is fundamentally intertwined. Since we observe intellectually that all things are connected in a web of energy (potential), i.e. the butterfly effect, I have found that the scientific source of this is the Imparticle Singularity Principle. Or Harley's Singularity Principle, as I sometimes think of it.

 

Imparticles naturally exist without time and without space, but in being intrinsically entangled, they are miraculously forced into order. Not random order, but all possible order. And what we observe in the universe is all the order that can occur; that is to say, the convulsion of imparticles. Furthermore, we observe this in accordance with the Imparticle Singularity Principle.

 

 

And here is an excerpt saying a little about string theory.

 

 

 

 

String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcilequantum mechanics and general relativity.^[1] It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a manner of describing the known fundamental forces and matter in a mathematically complete system. The theory has yet to make novel experimental predictions at accessible energy scales, leading some scientists to claim that it cannot be considered a part ofscience.^[2]

 

String theory mainly posits that the electrons and quarks within an atom are not 0-dimensional objects, but rather 1-dimensional oscillating lines ("strings"). The earliest string model, the bosonic string, incorporated only bosons, although this view developed to thesuperstring theory, which posits that a connection (a "supersymmetry") exists between bosons and fermions. String theories also require the existence of several extra, unobservable dimensions to the universe, in addition to the four known spacetime dimensions.

 

 

 

[uncool]

Imparticle, what distinguishes your idea from a story? What makes your idea in any way worth discussing? Do you make any specific, testable, falsifiable predictions?

=Uncool-

[Imparticle]

Imparticle, what distinguishes your idea from a story? What makes your idea in any way worth discussing? Do you make any specific, testable, falsifiable predictions?

=Uncool-

 

It's worth discussing because it explains several things. Also, because it is a logical conclusion.

A lot of people say, something that has no mass cannot constitute something of mass. But these people never actually argue there point, they give no reasons. If something has mass, and it is broken down to its most possibly fundamental constituents, those constituents cannot have mass. Are atoms made up of atoms? Nope. Why? Because those massive particles would require further constituents to be there from the first. Therefore, some sort of hyper-quantum particles must be constituting them in their own way. I say their own way, because you cannot imagine particles with no energy or mass to constitute things in the same "way" that we understand massive particles to. They exist without space and between time, and it is in this facet of the universe that they convulse and BUILD into massive particles. They are hyper-quantum for a reason. I'm not just vomiting out words, I am making sense. That's why I used String Theory as a contrast, to point out that obviously this theory is legitimate.

[uncool]

It's worth discussing because it explains several things.

What precisely does it explain, and how?

Also, because it is a logical conclusion.

A lot of people say, something that has no mass cannot constitute something of mass. But these people never actually argue there point, they give no reasons.

Actually, they do. Mass is additive. That has been both demonstrated and provides a necessary cornerstone of much of modern physics.

If something has mass, and it is broken down to its most possibly fundamental constituents, those constituents cannot have mass. Are atoms made up of atoms? Nope. Why? Because those massive particles would require further constituents to be there from the first. Therefore, some sort of hyper-quantum particles must be constituting them in their own way.

How does this follow?

I say their own way, because you cannot imagine particles with no energy or mass to constitute things in the same "way" that we understand massive particles to. They exist without space

What, precisely, does this mean?

and between time,

Again, what precisely does this mean?

and it is in this facet of the universe that they convulse

And for a third time, what does this mean?

and BUILD into massive particles. They are hyper-quantum

What does this mean?

for a reason. I'm not just vomiting out words, I am making sense.

The entire above paragraph is made of words without any physical meaning. So yes, it seems you are just vomiting out words.

That's why I used String Theory as a contrast, to point out that obviously this theory is legitimate.

Err.

 

That's not how science works. No, it's not "obvious" that your idea - not a theory - is legitimate. If you want anyone to pay attention, you have to either:

 

1) Make specific, quantitative predictions based off of your theory, or

2) Show that your theory both reproduces the current theory AND is simpler than the current theory.

 

You have done neither. Therefore there is no reason for anyone to pay any attention.

 

Again, what differentiates your idea from a story?

=Uncool-

Edited December 2, 2011 by uncool

[Imparticle]

Therefore there is no reason for anyone to pay any attention.

Many, many people of different angles have payed loads of attention to my theory. They've discussed it, turned it inside out and backwards, and gone through logical experiments with it on their own and with third parties. Just because my posts are getting grounded on this forum doesn't mean people do not or even should not have reason to pay attention. This forum is not the end-word on scientific theory. This forum is for discussion.

 

1) Make specific, quantitative predictions based off of your theory, or

2) Show that your theory both reproduces the current theory AND is simpler than the current theory.

My response to this is a quote:

 

... if probabilities are absolute. For that allows two events to affect each other without being able to determine which is the cause and which is the effect. The direction of the causal arrow is masked by quantum randomness. A mathematical model (like quantum field theory) that creates these predictions has to make a choice and, in making that choice, it violates relativity. Many physicists would not agree with this statement claiming only realistic models have this problem. Such arguments depend on one's philosophical view of quantum randomness. The absolute probabilities claimed for quantum mechanics have no mathematical definition and this leads to philosophical debate (see Section 8.2).

 

This has created an unfortunate situation in contemporary foundations research. The hottest research area for extending theoretical physics is combining these theories. The experimental domain in which such combinations could be tested is unreachable with existing and foreseeable technology. The situation is not unlike that in mathematics where fundamental research focuses on properties of large cardinals when no infinite sets let alone large cardinals may exist. Reconciling the two fundamental physical theories is a mathematical exercise that may be devoid of physical content.

 

The phrase, "the experimental domain in which such combinations could be tested is unreachable with existing and foreseeable technology," is paramount to your questions on my theory.

 

What precisely does it explain, and how?

It explains why the behavior of quantum particles is not random, why the universe does not simply exist in a broken expanse of chaotic randomness. As I said before, these particles are what fundamentally intertwine all things. In theory, they cannot be separated. This explains why any number of observable things in our universe cannot be disassociated from each other. Everything in our observable universe is interconnected, but how and why are mysterious that lie in the reconciliation between quantum mechanics and general relativity. The scientific community recognizes this to be true.

 

Mass is additive. That has been both demonstrated and provides a necessary cornerstone of much of modern physics.

Again, I'm digressing to the source of the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity. There are rules, and we follow them in logic. However, there is a point at which rules must be explained with further rules, and that is being done with String Theory. For god's sake, they are making up dimensions only for the sake of accommodating String Theory. I simply have a different approach. It is not so far fetched, you just have to gain perspective.

 

How does this follow?

 

What, precisely, does this mean?

 

Again, what precisely does this mean?

 

And for a third time, what does this mean?

 

What does this mean?

Just because you can't apply the implied meanings, doesn't mean my words are meaningless. Normal people understand them when I have discussions almost every week. Now, either they are telepathically understanding what I'm saying, or else my words have scientific meaning to them. There's no need to be one-dimensional.

Without space, means that the particles do not have spatial relativity. They have no mass, they do not involute space. They cannot move in a sense that implies length, width, or depth. Reflectively, they exist between time as well. Since the process they go through takes no time, and all interactions they have with themselves are timeless and simultaneous, they exist between time. To say that they exist "outside" time would be misleading, because something that exists "outside" of the dimensions of the universe, does not really exist here.

This is what is meant by without space and between time. They are interchangeable meanings. Yes, yes, this does suggest some further and--actually--prior dimensions. That is, in answer to your question quoting, "and it is in this facet of the universe that they convulse." Lastly, when I said that they convulse and build into massive particles, I was summing up the process that I have ALREADY previously explained, three times in this thread, in some detail. Consisting of their without-space/between-time properties, the way in which they build into massive particles that have energy and relative spacetime is completely alien to our understanding of particles that do have energy and or mass. This is the reason we do not observe imparticles, because they are there but always without space and between time. But the evidence of their process lies in the quantum particles we can and do see with all our technology today. Tachyons cannot be seen or measured, but many people agree that scientifically they could exist.

[uncool]

Many, many people of different angles have payed loads of attention to my theory. They've discussed it, turned it inside out and backwards, and gone through logical experiments with it on their own and with third parties. Just because my posts are getting grounded on this forum doesn't mean people do not or even should not have reason to pay attention. This forum is not the end-word on scientific theory. This forum is for discussion.

I never said that people will not pay attention to things that don't deserve attention. I said that there is no reason to pay attention to it.

My response to this is a quote:

I would advise you to add a link to the quote; it seems to be in very few places online.

 

The phrase, "the experimental domain in which such combinations could be tested is unreachable with existing and foreseeable technology," is paramount to your questions on my theory.

What that means is that people currently have no idea how to make the technology to test the ideas of string "theory". Note that string "theory" is not yet a theory, it is still at the level of hypothesis. Furthermore, it does make specific predictions as well as ways to test those predictions; the problem is that current and foreseeable technology cannot test those predictions - we need to be able to engineer more advanced technology.

It explains why the behavior of quantum particles is not random, why the universe does not simply exist in a broken expanse of chaotic randomness. As I said before, these particles are what fundamentally intertwine all things. In theory, they cannot be separated. This explains why any number of observable things in our universe cannot be disassociated from each other. Everything in our observable universe is interconnected, but how and why are mysterious that lie in the reconciliation between quantum mechanics and general relativity. The scientific community recognizes this to be true.

 

 

Again, I'm digressing to the source of the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity. There are rules, and we follow them in logic. However, there is a point at which rules must be explained with further rules, and that is being done with String Theory. For god's sake, they are making up dimensions only for the sake of accommodating String Theory. I simply have a different approach. It is not so far fetched, you just have to gain perspective.

What does this have to do with mass being additive?

 

Please note, the fact is that people do present their arguments. You were wrong in the first place when you claimed "A lot of people say, something that has no mass cannot constitute something of mass. But these people never actually argue there point, they give no reasons."

Just because you can't apply the implied meanings, doesn't mean my words are meaningless.

I'm asking you to explain the "implied meaning". Physics uses very precise terminology; the words that you are using do not correspond in any way to the standard meanings.

Normal people understand them when I have discussions almost every week. Now, either they are telepathically understanding what I'm saying, or else my words have scientific meaning to them.

Or you have already explained their meaning to them. Or they do not actually understand, but they think they do. There are many more explanations than the ones you are presenting.

There's no need to be one-dimensional.

Without space, means that the particles do not have spatial relativity.

What does it mean to "have spatial relativity"?

They have no mass, they do not involute space. They cannot move in a sense that implies length, width, or depth. Reflectively, they exist between time as well.

Again, what does it mean to "exist between time"?

Since the process they go through takes no time, and all interactions they have with themselves are timeless and simultaneous, they exist between time. To say that they exist "outside" time would be misleading, because something that exists "outside" of the dimensions of the universe, does not really exist here.

This is what is meant by without space and between time. They are interchangeable meanings. Yes, yes, this does suggest some further and--actually--prior dimensions. That is, in answer to your question quoting, "and it is in this facet of the universe that they convulse." Lastly, when I said that they convulse and build into massive particles, I was summing up the process that I have ALREADY previously explained, three times in this thread, in some detail. Consisting of their without-space/between-time properties, the way in which they build into massive particles that have energy and relative spacetime is completely alien to our understanding of particles that do have energy and or mass. This is the reason we do not observe imparticles, because they are there but always without space and between time. But the evidence of their process lies in the quantum particles we can and do see with all our technology today. Tachyons cannot be seen or measured, but many people agree that scientifically they could exist.

Can you make a quantitative prediction based on your theory?

 

Again, what differentiates your idea from a story?

=Uncool-

Edited December 2, 2011 by uncool

[Imparticle]

Please note, the fact is that people do present their arguments. You were wrong in the first place when you claimed "A lot of people say, something that has no mass cannot constitute something of mass. But these people never actually argue there point, they give no reasons."

I wasn't wrong. I meant literally, the people who I have discussed who have said that to me in scientific discussion, didn't follow up with consistent arguments. They were regurgitating common thought. Something that I frown upon. I like to encourage people to understand common though for themselves and explain it in their understanding, because it gives ideas perspective, and perspective is how we all learn. As opposed to regurgitating what we all read in books, and see on TV.

I never said that people will not pay attention to things that don't deserve attention. I said that there is no reason to pay attention to it.

Noted. Thank you, I misread that.

 

What that means is that people currently have no idea how to make the technology to test the ideas of string "theory". Note that string "theory" is not yet a theory, it is still at the level of hypothesis. Furthermore, it does make specific predictions as well as ways to test those predictions; the problem is that current and foreseeable technology cannot test those predictions - we need to be able to engineer more advanced technology.

I know that's what it means. I think this applies to my "theory". I don't mean to say that my theory is proven or is currently provable, but it is "theory" in the sense that "String Theory" is theory.

Or you have already explained their meaning to them. Or they do not actually understand, but they think they do. There are many more explanations than the ones you are presenting.

They actually understood, because they contributed to the consensus understanding of it through discussion. Admittedly, my words are probably a lot less meaningful here, because over the years of delving into the entirety of this theory at more and more depth, the meanings of terms have mutated so much to make sense of things that it would be difficult to find them immediately useful in this environment. For that I'm sorry. But had you been in a room with me and or a couple of my associates, and a surface to draw on, most of these terms would present themselves elegantly. At any rate, I do apologize for that. One of the many reasons I'm taking it to this forum.

 

What does it mean to "have spatial relativity"?

Imagine yourself, as you are, existing in space. Relative to all the particles around you, you have space. You can be described spatially, with relativity to other things in space. You can move in length, width, and depth. You can mediate energy. Heat. If you explode, your particles can disperse spatially. Now, imagine an imparticle. They have no mass. If you were to "observe" an imparticle, there would be no involution of space, and no way for it to interact with you and you or anything else, spatially. They are not limited by space, because they are as built-up as particles with mass. They are more primitive that the quantum particles you observe with spatial relativity, every day. The more you break down particles, the less limited they become. That's why the most fundamental particle, the quantum of quantum, so to speak, is limitless.

 

Again, what does it mean to "exist between time"?

Time and space are interchangeable, insofar as their scientific meaning her can be applied. Recall how I describe the property of particles existing without space. This behooves the property of existing between time. They are endlessly convulsing particles, eternally wedged between any imagined points in time, by their property of existing without space. Imagine time as a circle, not a line of time, but continuity as a dimension. A point in this dimension always has a polar opposite. These two opposite points describe the polarity of time, past and future. Without this polarity, continuity wouldn't be continuity, it would be random pathways of time, and general relativity wouldn't happen. So, a circle. Now, imagine a point between these to points. This point isn't a point in time, it is a point that describes simultaneity. Similarly to imagining the imparticle without space, the imparticle as "observed" in between time isn't able to "arrive" at these points. There is no energy, or substance, in and of the imparticle that can reach into what we observe as time.

Thus, to "observe" the imparticle is to imagine a unit that is without space, and also between time.

 

What does this have to do with mass being additive?

 

"When I said that they convulse and build into massive particles, I was summing up the process that I have ALREADY previously explained, three times in this thread, in some detail. Consisting of their without-space/between-time properties, the way in which they build into massive particles that have energy and relative spacetime is completely alien to our understanding of particles that do have energy and or mass."

 

Can you make a quantitative prediction based on your theory?

Let me break it down for you. When I try to come up with quantitative predictions, I end up imagining everything that happens in the universe, between the quantum mechanics and the general relativity of anything and everything. One day, I realized this is what many scientists are working on today, in physics, quantum physics, astrophysics, mathematics, and philosophically as well. You're right. I can say or hypothesize that the reason the particles of your body are able to associate and remain in the same universe together at the same time and also to stay that way, is because the imparticles they're made up of are intrinsically intertwined and can't allow them to be separated in regards to general relativity or quantum mechanics. On the other hand, I can't measure this prediction. That's why it is hypothetical, like String Theory, but nonetheless it has theoretical meaning and is reasonable and logical.

What are your thoughts on quantitative prediction, or related methods?

[uncool]

Imparticle, what differentiates your idea from a story?

=Uncool-

[Imparticle]

Imparticle, what differentiates your idea from a story?

=Uncool-

 

From a realistic story, nothing. From fiction? Consistent logic and reasonable explanation of observations. That equals a legitimate hypothetical theory.

What differentiates String Theory from "fiction"? You know, I don't understand your angle. If you were sincerely interested in this theory, you would actually discuss it. Instead, you have my semantically break down everything little thing I say, just so you can reiterate sarcastically that it is a hypothetical theory.

When someone has something discursive to say on the meaning of this hypothetical theory, I'll be very happy to reciprocate that. Then--maybe--that would present the possibility of explaining the theory further, into its entirety.

Until then.

[Bignose]

uncool, he's already admitted it was metaphysics (post 24). I still content it really has no place on a science forum...

[uncool]

From a realistic story, nothing. From fiction? Consistent logic and reasonable explanation of observations.

What observations does it explain?

That equals a legitimate hypothetical theory.

No, it doesn't. A hypothesis also requires testability and falsifiability. How could we falsify your idea?

What differentiates String Theory from "fiction"?[/QUOTe]

Specific mathematical predictions that currently cannot be tested, but should be able to once we are able to make higher-energy accelerators.

You know, I don't understand your angle. If you were sincerely interested in this theory, you would actually discuss it. Instead, you have my semantically break down everything little thing I say, just so you can reiterate sarcastically that it is a hypothetical theory.

I'm asking you to semantically break it down so that I can see how your theory is anything more than semantics. I am asking you to specifically say precisely what your theory means in the first place, in a practical sense. So far your theory doesn't seem to actually mean anything. It seems like a nice little story, just like the story that invisible tiny leprechauns move all of the particles - apparently an explanation, but it doesn't actually explain anything.

 

So far, I don't see anything that can actually be discussed. I'm asking you to show that there is something of any import to discuss.

 

When someone has something discursive to say on the meaning of this hypothetical theory, I'll be very happy to reciprocate that. Then--maybe--that would present the possibility of explaining the theory further, into its entirety.

Until then.

I'm asking you to show that your idea actually has any meaning in the first place. So far it is just a story. If you are able to come up with any quantitative predictions - which, by the way, string theory does have - then it becomes more than a story.

 

So far, your ideas seem to be on the same level as the idea that leprechauns move particles around in certain structured ways. I am asking you to show that it is anything more. I'd be very interested if you could do so.

=Uncool-

Edited December 2, 2011 by uncool

[drewmillar]

This theory, if true, is quite a light-shedding one as it surely would help to explain the link between cause and effect. If everything is linked then you would assume there must be something through which it is linked, hence imparticles! Although i suppose would be nice if you could prove this, but then again even at a relatively simple level most theories are just models to explain observations.

 

 

[tar]

Imparticle,

 

How can something outside of time "build" anything? Building would require a process. A process would require cause and effect, and time to achieve a result. There would have to be a starting condition where the building was not yet constructed, and then a time when it was finished.

 

And how can something be "between", if not spacially or temporarily thusly positioned?

 

And I did already ask, without any answer, why one would need any more than simply one of these particles, to do everything you suspect it has the abilitly to do?

 

And you have not considered, or you have not responded to my suggestion that what you think is a representation of the thing you mean, not actually the thing. And nothing can be said about something that nothing can be said about.

 

If it has no quantity, no quality, no relation and no modality, how are we to know what you "mean" by it?

 

In my take on your theory Imparticle, it is not that the imparticle is "like an idea". It seems to me that the imparticle IS an idea. And if you think having an idea that matches reality and having reality match your idea are the same operation, I think you have another think coming.

 

Both scientist and philosophers have been careful to find the ways that thought and sense and reality are connected, and where they are different.

 

The existence of the imparticle, actually, in any place other than ones mind, would be demonstratable, if its existence were both sufficient and nescessary to explain ANY actual thing.

 

And being that you have assigned the imparticle a number of attributes that have no testable falsafiablity, AND have no known meaning, it is difficult to discuss.

 

You will not provide scientists with something they can sink there teeth into, and you do not even entertain the "problems" with the idea, that a lay person like myself raises.

 

Interesting to me that your idea has "developed" over time. If axiomatic and basic in nature, everything else would have just "followed". All you would have had to do, was acurately described how to find this thing, and everybody could see it and start working with it, and explain everything they know about reality, with it.

 

At least string theories have math behind them that others can repeat, improve on or find flaws in, or look for places where it might not match with observations. They attempt to explain something in particular.

 

You are attempting to explain everything at once. Might as well be theorizing on the attributes and nature of God.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Or how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

 

By the way, on a humorous note. My imparticle powered wife replaced the broken lampshade on my "substantially existing, unchangingly real" lamp. It IS no longer the "same" lamp.

[Imparticle]

Imparticle,

 

How can something outside of time "build" anything? Building would require a process. A process would require cause and effect, and time to achieve a result.

 

Stop right there guy. Building does require a process. I call it convulsion. But as I clearly described, a process that involves no energy, and has no reference to any quality of MASS, cannot and does not "require time" (theoretically). How would it? Why would it? Furthermore, I've already found and explained all the dimensions that allow them to exist entirely and go through their convulsion process, which freely allows them to be built into massive particles and energy particles. Naturally, these dimensions are consecutive and they do build on each other perfectly.

[Imparticle]

This theory, if true, is quite a light-shedding one as it surely would help to explain the link between cause and effect. If everything is linked then you would assume there must be something through which it is linked, hence imparticles! Although i suppose would be nice if you could prove this, but then again even at a relatively simple level most theories are just models to explain observations.

 

 

 

That is very true. And they have no way of exactly proving String Theory is correct in several ways, and likely will not ever be able to prove most of them. They have taken the most minute and the most general of observations, and attempted to describe what is causing them without observing that thing in itself.

I'm happy you can appreciate Imparticle Theory to that extent, Millar. That is a slightly different observation than those that I and my associates have made insofar. Thank you very much. If nothing else, you'll have made this thread worth my effort.

Harley.

[tar]

Imparticle,

 

But still to explain is why we seem to be at a particular time, at a particular place, and intuit the universe from this particular here and now. All the things we consider real have these same attributes. Things either are or are not here or there, or are or are not present, formerly present, or "to be" present.

 

Even stars a hundred thousand light years from here, the images of which we will not see for a hundred thousand years, are considered to be currently existant. Even with relativity theory, and spacetime geometry considered, there is a consistency that every event/entity in the universe exhibits. Each has a unique and locatable place and a time to be (or a probability of being there). Four dimensions seem to cover the whole shabang. Where in this spacetime are we to locate an imparticle?

 

Saying it is an imparticle sets in my mind that it has a place somewhere in time and space. That it is between this or that, or causes this or that, or through its convulsions, create this or that effect. It either has a place and time to be part of the scheme, or it is not part of the scheme of time and space.

 

I am sort of voting for "nothing" breaking apart into symmetries that have not yet completed their convulsions and anihilated each other leaving nothing behind. Evidently it has taken the universe 13.7 billion years to get this convulsed, and may not for a very very long time manage to unconvulse to nothing.

 

Isn't an invisible particle with no place or time to be, sort of "uneeded" in the scheme? And where did these particles come from, and when did they arrive? And what will they do next?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And if there are "other" convulsions that these imparticles are responsible for, isn't it only THIS particular convulsion that we have any reason to be concerned with?

Edited December 4, 2011 by tar

[Imparticle]

I appreciate that you're actually discussing it now.

 

But still to explain is why we seem to be at a particular time, at a particular place, and intuit the universe from this particular here and now. All the things we consider real have these same attributes. Things either are or are not here or there, or are or are not present, formerly present, or "to be" present.

I have not, and do not deny the presence of those dimensions. Length, width, depth, and time are presentably observable to us. But my argument, and the argument of many hundreds of scientists, and philosophers, and the current String theorists, is that these dimensions do not describe the universe in its entirety.

 

Even stars a hundred thousand light years from here, the images of which we will not see for a hundred thousand years, are considered to be currently existant. Even with relativity theory, and spacetime geometry considered, there is a consistency that every event/entity in the universe exhibits. Each has a unique and locatable place and a time to be (or a probability of being there). Four dimensions seem to cover the whole shabang.

At this point, you are disagreeing with all of those scientists and theorists. I am simply agreeing with them. Not because I'm following them, but because I started from scratch and arrived in the same place of my own accord. I'm just pointing it out, what you're arguing argues against them as well, and what they think is taught in our universities and published as scientific in our magazines and TV channels, and right now they're building particle colliders in Sweden to prove it within ten years.

 

Where in this spacetime are we to locate an imparticle?

They way I have figured it, with my colleagues alongside me, is that there are nine dimensions. The String theorists haven't come to a consensus on how many dimensions or what they think they are, but the most popular hypothesis suggests 10 dimensions. I completely disagree with them, but I'm just making a note of this.

 

Saying it is an imparticle sets in my mind that it has a place somewhere in time and space. That it is between this or that, or causes this or that, or through its convulsions, create this or that effect. It either has a place and time to be part of the scheme, or it is not part of the scheme of time and space.

It is part of the scheme of space in time, but to view it in space and time, four dimensions, is to see only a part of it, only to see a part of anything. If you imagine in within all the nine dimensions, you can observe the world and see exactly how reasonably it fits into everything. Just like the String theorists purport. You, me, and any given lamp all have these dimensions, and to say how imparticles represent themselves in space and time is to say how quantum particles emerge. Scientists say that these quantum particles actually appear to be in numerous places at once... String theory hypothetically explains this. I haven't hypothesized yet on the mechanics of the imparticles convulsing into quantum particles, but it may mechanically resemble oscillating strings of energy. At any rate, whatever the mechanics are, regardless if they're superstrings or not, these mechanics are not self-explained and imparticles are the very thing which explain them ultimately.

[tar]

Imparticle,

 

I do not know anything about string theory, except maybe a quick reading of a Wiki article or a random peice in a magizine.

 

But it seems to me that the "extra" dimensions in string theory do not describe places and times "other than" here/there and now/then, but instead describe "other" degrees of freedom that an actual here and now or there and then peice of reality seems to have.

 

In other words, not magic or imagination, or "idea" like, but actually true, along with the hereness and nowness exhibited.

 

To me, the fact that I am "connected" to a star 100 light years from here includes the fact that I see its photons now, saw them yesterday, and will see them tomorrow. AND it is currently shining in and of itself VERY far away from here, and what it is doing NOW, will not reach me for 100 years. It exists in the "current" universe, even though only in a "god's" eye view I can consider it so.

 

My theory, or worldview, would say that the "real" part of that star is the photons currently arriving here and now, and its existance in the "current universe" state is not the crucial part of its "connectedness" to me. More important is what photons have already arrived, and what are currently arriving. These are the ones that have affected my reality, and are currently present.

 

One of the reasons I am having trouble with your theory, is I don't know in what sense you mean "already has taken on or created all possible patterns".

 

We sense reality from here and now. We know there are "other" heres and nows.

 

But explain to me why you are always in my now, and I am always in your now...even though time is passing.

 

Why are we in sync? Why do we just experience THIS reality? And it is not only us. Rocks, fish, clouds, planets, all "currently" exist and are locatable somewhere in our frame of reference...and are there NOW.

 

What about the imparticle causes this?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S.

 

"I appreciate that you're actually discussing it now."

When was I not?

Edited December 5, 2011 by tar

[Imparticle]

One of the reasons I am having trouble with your theory, is I don't know in what sense you mean "already has taken on or created all possible patterns".

It's because of the word "already" in the sentence. They build (create) all possible patterns simultaneously and instantaneously, but there is more to the picture than those two facets. There is also space, there is also "time". There is relativity. And because of this relativity, we observe things, and what we observe is the relativity itself. We see things in different spaces and times, because they are really in different spaces and times. But, in regards to the entire picture, they are also in other facets that make them completely existent as finite beings.

We sense reality from here and now. We know there are "other" heres and nows.

Because of relativity, because of those 4 dimensions.

 

But explain to me why you are always in my now, and I am always in your now...even though time is passing.

Simultaneity, in part--the sixth dimension. That describes how our singular now are instantly singular. But the dimension describing how yours and mine now are singular is Singularity, which Simultaneity is built onto. Perhaps that doesn't fully answer your question...

 

Harley.

 

[From my blog]

The 9 Dimensions of Hyperspace.

 

 

A dimension is a facet of being. Dimension describes one imaginary line among numerous imaginary lines that, in tandem, provide the building of reality in which any given "being" may exist in the universe. Within reason, these dimensions must exist. I find that logically, dimensions are built upon each other; that is to say, dimensions aren't randomly meshed together, they are perfectly built so that each point in each dimension can be congruent, and allow the being represented by said point to be a conclusively congruent being. For example, if there was even one dimension that was not built upon the others, a being's point in that dimension would cause the being in its entirety to be out-phased from the universe. It would be stuck in a crack of hypothesis, between the void of chaotic randomness and the dimensions of the universe. So, each of the real dimensions are built on each other. For common thinkers, this is obvious. Length, width, and depth are plainly built on each other, and if you attempted to build one separately, or to separate one from the others, you would find yourself wedged into something hypothetical--you'd land into the Flatland universe.

 

Moving on, I find that logically one dimension is built upon the previous one. That is to say, a point in one dimension, is a line in the next. For example, a given point in Length, is interchangeably a line in Width. A further point in Width, is a line in Depth. Furthermore, the point in Depth describes a line in Continuity (or, the dimension of time). The issue here is, if dimensions are built this way, then logically they build from innumerable dimensions into further innumerable dimensions. However, we observe that the universe seems to have a beginning and end, in terms of "beings". An apple does begin and end in the universe, we do not observe an apple infinitely unfolding itself into hypothetical dimensions. Again, logically, if anything were to have "innumerable dimensions", it would not be contained within a universe, and would only exist in its own universe of exponential tangents. But since we exist in the universe and can observe beings which do not consist in their own universe of exponential tangents, we must apply this to our dimensional logic. The result: The dimensions do in fact have beginning and ending points.

So, logically, the first dimension would have to be self-containing, that is to say, a line in the first dimension must also represent the first dimensional point. Conversely, the final dimension would have to be self-terminating, a point in this dimension must also represent a line in this dimension. In short, a line in the final dimension represents the end of the point in the first dimension. A point in the first dimension expands into further points in lines that are unfolded from those, until the point only further expands into itself, and any line unfolded from this point would lie on the same line. That is the final dimension. This can be demonstrated by unfolding a piece of paper. Once it is completely unfolded, any further attempts to unfold it result in tearing it. At best, you can only succeed at folding the paper back on itself, showing that further folds simply demonstrate how the final dimension only folds into itself. This must logically be the end point.

 

So, we begin with the first dimension, the self-containing one. In this dimension, a point is also a line. That means, mathematically, a line in this dimension always begins and ends at this same point. This is an "abstract" line, it is not a concrete dimension. This dimension is called Singularity. Without this dimension, there would be no singularity to any given being, and the universe would not be able to remain a singular collective. All beings would be out-phased into the void of chaotic randomness. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in the same unified, instantiate universe, and allows any and all relativity and interaction.

The second dimensional point lies on a line, that is unfolded from a point in the first dimension. So, a point in Singularity is a line in Length. We all know what Length is. It is the first spatial dimension. If you try to first unfold the Width or Depth of a being in space, logically you will actually unfold its Length. Again, imagine unfolding a piece of paper. You cannot unfold the third or fourth fold without first unfolding it a second time, no matter how hard you try. Width and Depth unfold from this point and so forth.

A point in Depth, is a line in Continuity. It is the dimension of time. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in the universe as it is changed, as it reproduces. It is a reproductive point, on a circular line, figuratively. A point in the fifth dimension is actually represented by two interchangeable points. On a circular line, any given point has a polar opposite. This opposite point describes the polarity of time--past and future. This is the figurative representation of the fifth dimension.

If we imagine all the dimensions figuratively unified, it would look like this: Singularity would be a point in the center. Length width and depth are represented by lines expanded into a cube. If you imagine any given point in time, you see an infinite number of circles around the other dimensions, forming a sphere. This sphere is the fifth dimension, and the volume of the sphere represents space, in its three dimensions. Mass is also described in this figure, where it is visualized displacing the volume of the sphere, hence the involution of space and relativity of time.

That said, there are still further dimensions yet to unfold. Logically, the fifth dimension does not terminate itself, because a point in Continuity unfolds into a line that does not lie in Continuity--in the fifth dimension. This line is the sixth dimension, Simultaneity. Figuratively, this line lies between the two interchangeable points in the fifth dimension. It is the line between time. Without this dimension, beings would continue through time in their own mutually exclusive passages. To put it simply, in order for you to continue to be reproduced within the universe, there must be a facet of you that is built from Continuity onto Singularity. Figuratively, this line contacts the central point that visualizes the first dimension. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in the universe as it is reproducing and changing in unification, in an interrelated web of cause and effect.

A point in the sixth dimension is a line in the seventh. But what could this line unfold as, and where could this line be? It unfolds from the point of Simultaneity, and builds from the point of Singularity. Figuratively, is lies between the first point and the sixth line, thus, it cannot be seen as it is an abstract line. The abstract dimensions are all unable to be represented 3-dimensionally, naturally because they do not pertain to those 3-dimensions. We have no method of drawing them as lines relative to 3-dimensional lines, except as abstract points. The seventh dimension is Infinitude. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in our self-congruency. That is to say, any given object is self-congruent, it is infinitely identical to itself. Without the dimension of Infinitude, any given being would not be self-congruent and would be out-phased due to a lack of agreeing with its own reality. Logically, this means that each being is infinite in its own congruency.

The eighth dimensional line is a seventh dimension point. This line unfolds from the seventh dimension, and builds on the fifth. This dimension between Infinitude and Continuity is called Potentiality. Figuratively, if we were to bisect the six-dimensional sphere, so that we could see the seventh dimension as a line between the two halves, the eighth dimension would appear as two interchangeable lines stemming from the seventh line to the two interchangeable points on the circumference of the semi-sphere. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in a mathematically feasible universe.

Boggling, the further dimension is abstracted from the initial abstraction. This dimension is highly abstract. It is a line between the two interchangeable points in Potentiality. A point in Potentiality is a line in the ninth dimension, which is built on the interchangeability of that point. The ninth dimension is Possibility. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in a universe of infinitely conclusive feasibility. Figuratively, this line is visualized between the two points of the eighth dimension, intersecting the dimensional line of seventh dimension. In a 3-dimensional representation, the ninth dimension is a disc with the geometric "cone" of the eighth dimension. Now, what happens if we try to unfold a line from this ninth dimensional point? Any line drawn out of Possibility cannot build onto anything else. Beyond the infinitely conclusive feasibility of the universe, logically there can be nothing, no further point of dimension. Any line unfolded from a point in Possibility lies on the same line of said point. Alas, we have come to the end of the universe.

 

If the six-dimensional sphere is bisected, and the first point and sixth point are represented as interchangeable, then the complete figure looks like a sphere and two opposite cones with the circumference of the sphere as their bases, and meeting at the point of Infinitude. This forms a sort of conical "infinity" symbol.

 

Edited December 5, 2011 by Imparticle