36grit Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 I apolagize for my previous inability to explain my model of the universe in the past. it is very large, precise and dynamic. I've decided to focus on a single experiment that will prove or disprove my theory all together. The experment will involve a twist on a popular experment known as the double slit experment and it's most unusual and counter intuitive results. A scientist walks into his lab. He turns on the light and checks his equipment. The camera is there, but is not turned on. He does not consider that the lab, the electron canon, the double slit plate, and everything around him exists in a four dimensional space. (Length, width, depth, and time.) He fires an electron. The result, an interference pattern, proving that the electron is a wave and that it passes through both slits at the same time. He turns on the camera. According to my model, this is the point in which reality changes. Photons on the cameras three dimensional sensor, (length, width, and time,) are quamtumly entangled with the atoms that radiated them in the four dimensional room. To simplify this would be to say that; a scale model of the four dimensional room is now residing, and quantumly entangled with a three dimensional sensor. He fires the electron. The result, a "Shadow" pattern of the double slit, proving that the electron is a particle. The theory: Quantum entanglement diplaces distance creation. According my model the electron did not change it's state, but the medium that it was traveling through was altered. Before the camera was turned on quantum entaglement was a random act caused by the rules of relativity and the strings of distance being created by the atoms in the room. By turning on the camera we removed a spacial dimension through quantum entanglement. In effect we polorized the distance being created by the atoms in the room. As a result, the wave function of the electron collapsed. The Experiment: If we bend the sensor in the camera into different shapes it should alter the results into predictable lines and shapes. We might also vibrate the sensor for even more interesting results. When sombody speaks our ears pick up the sound, our mind triangulates the sound waves and realize the point of origin and person speaking. When we look at an object we see the photons in our eyes and our mind triangulates the position of the object's origin relative to our own. I now know exactly how far to reach to pick up my cup of coffee : ) Simple.
Strange Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 I apolagize for my previous inability to explain my model of the universe in the past. it is very large, precise and dynamic. What do you mean by "precise"? Do you mean you have a mathematical model that can make exact predictions of the expected results? He does not consider that the lab, the electron canon, the double slit plate, and everything around him exists in a four dimensional space. (Length, width, depth, and time.) He must be a remarkably stupid scientist then. He fires an electron. The result, an interference pattern, proving that the electron is a wave and that it passes through both slits at the same time. Are you claiming that a single electron will generate an interference pattern? He turns on the camera. What role does this camera play in the experiment? Perhaps you could be a little more "precise" about the experimental setup. Photons on the cameras three dimensional sensor, (length, width, and time,) are quamtumly entangled with the atoms that radiated them in the four dimensional room. Can photons be entangled with atoms? The theory: Quantum entanglement diplaces distance creation. What is "distance creation"? What does it mean for it to be "displaced"? And why would entanglement cause this? Before the camera was turned on quantum entaglement was a random act caused by the rules of relativity and the strings of distance being created by the atoms in the room. What does entanglement have to do with relativity? What are "strings of distance"? The Experiment: If we bend the sensor in the camera into different shapes it should alter the results into predictable lines and shapes. We might also vibrate the sensor for even more interesting results. As your theory is so "precise", perhaps you could say exactly what effect this will have. You say they lines and shapes are predictable, how about showing us your predictions. When sombody speaks our ears pick up the sound, our mind triangulates the sound waves and realize the point of origin and person speaking. How is this relevant? When we look at an object we see the photons in our eyes and our mind triangulates the position of the object's origin relative to our own. I now know exactly how far to reach to pick up my cup of coffee How is this relevant?
36grit Posted November 22, 2015 Author Posted November 22, 2015 1) What do you mean by "precise"? Do you mean you have a mathematical model that can make exact predictions of the expected results? I'm sure I could if I were a younger man with a good understanding of calculous and tiganometry and learning physics. 2) He must be a remarkably stupid scientist then. He did say, "The electron knows when we look at it." 3) Are you claiming that a single electron will generate an interference pattern? I should have used the plural of the word electron, but yes if the slits are close enough together. 4) What role does this camera play in the experiment? Perhaps you could be a little more "precise" about the experimental setup. The double slit experiment has a camera. I'm not the stupid scientist, I'm your left brain in a manner of speaking. 5) Can photons be entangled with atoms? They all are, at the very least they are entangled with an atom's electron/s. 6) What is "distance creation"? What does it mean for it to be "displaced"? And why would entanglement cause this? a) This is more complicated. It has to do with the laws of relativity and time dilation. b) Like everything else, it follows the path of least resistance. c) Random entanglement creates an algorithymic structure within the atomic community. In an expanding universe position must be constantly defined and redefined. 7) What does entanglement have to do with relativity? Everything has to do with relativity. In the vacuum of realities, we are the speed of light channel. What direction will the proton vibrate? The path of least resistance will determine it's flight. This will be determined by everything that is moving in the room, but mostly the vibrations of the other protons because they are on average the fastest moving mass in the room. Disatance will be created to keep them from moving towards each other at a velocity faster than the speed of light. 8) What are "strings of distance"? Distance created by a line of action. 9) As your theory is so "precise", perhaps you could say exactly what effect this will have. You say they lines and shapes are predictable, how about showing us your predictions. This would depend on the shape of the sensor and the objects in the room. But, if we set the sensor at a right angle to the plates and then bent the edge closest to the plates, on a smooth raduis away from the plates, and the set the camera up on the right of the plates, we should see a larger percentage of electrons going through the right slit. One might say that we are warping the warped space time. 2) How is this relevant? It simplifies the thought process for those having trouble realizing what I'm describing. How is this relevant? We naturally use quantum entanglement to judge distance.
Klaynos Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 I think among many other mistakes you're understanding of entanglement is wrong, or you're redefining it. I'd suggest doing dinner background reading, not using popsci sources.
Strange Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 1) What do you mean by "precise"? Do you mean you have a mathematical model that can make exact predictions of the expected results? I'm sure I could if I were a younger man with a good understanding of calculous and tiganometry and learning physics. So it isn't precise at all, then. It is just a vague unsupported idea. On the other hand, we already have a precise mathematical theory that predicts precisely what will happen in every possible variation of this experiment. Why do you think your vague speculation is an improvement on that? 2) He must be a remarkably stupid scientist then. He did say, "The electron knows when we look at it." But apparently he has never heard of the theory of relativity. That seems unlikely. 3) Are you claiming that a single electron will generate an interference pattern? I should have used the plural of the word electron, but yes if the slits are close enough together. Please answer the question: Are you claiming that a single electron will generate an interference pattern? Yes or no. 4) What role does this camera play in the experiment? Perhaps you could be a little more "precise" about the experimental setup. The double slit experiment has a camera. I'm not the stupid scientist, I'm your left brain in a manner of speaking. Please answer the question: What role does this camera play in your experiment? Just repeating that there is a camera does not explain the purpose of the camera. 5) Can photons be entangled with atoms? They all are, at the very least they are entangled with an atom's electron/s. OK. Please provide a reference to support your claim that photons and atoms can be entangled. 6) What is "distance creation"? What does it mean for it to be "displaced"? And why would entanglement cause this? a) This is more complicated. It has to do with the laws of relativity and time dilation. b) Like everything else, it follows the path of least resistance. c) Random entanglement creates an algorithymic structure within the atomic community. In an expanding universe position must be constantly defined and redefined. Please answer the question: What is "distance creation"?
swansont Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 ! Moderator Note "I'm sure I could if I were a younger man with a good understanding of calculous and tiganometry and learning physics."That's the problem. You can't supply the needed rigor for the discussion, so this is going to go nowhere, and it also means the approach is backwards. You need to ask questions to learn the science and math rather than pretending you have a model to explain. Until you have such a model, don't reintroduce the subject.
Recommended Posts