gravity explained - time is mass and is the standard deviation of chaotic qubits

[beavis]

I still need to read over this a few more times, but I think I'm onto something. Included is instructions on how to build a warp drive powered by gravity waves stored in a new empty universe containing only oscillating power from the gravity waves then redirected toward superpositioning the starship, all at planck length since its all vector based instead of space and time existing. Finally, I explain how it all fits together into unity fractal.

If a particle/wave is thought of as a vector (which a wavefunction is technically) which always stays normalized to length 1, and time is viewed as 1 of the infinite number of available dimensions, then the particle experiences time slow to a halt as the vector points more and more into space dimensions. Outside the particle, we see it moving at maximum speed (of light) in space and being length-contracted to 0 since it's experiencing time at a rate of 0. I'll need to check the math again (and I did have a spacetime physics class in college), but it appears that this matches the squareRoot(1 - speed^2/C^2) in the relativistic equations, which is really the equation of a circle if you do some algebra. A black hole appears faster than light since escape velocity is the speed of light at the event horizon and past that excape velocity must be greater than speed of light, since escape velocity increases continuously as you approach the event horizon. Its an illusion of our view of space being flat... From the reference frame inside the black hole, you're of course not going faster than light. Watching somebody fall into a black hole, they slow to a halt and length contract toward 0, so we never see them fall in, but they see us reach the end of time (if there is such a thing) as they fall in quickly from their point of view. Mass slows time down. Since there's more time happening on the far sides of 2 masses, and less time between them, and entropy moving them around chaoticly, they'll randomly move apart, and randomly move together, but when they move together they have less time available to move apart, therefore gravity. Mass is a lesser amount of time and a lesser amount of time is a greater amount of gravity. Remember we're still thinking of all particles/waves/space/time/everything as vectors normalized to length 1, where time/entropy is a dimension. Space would not be 3 dimensions or any dimensions at all. It doesn't exist, and that is the assumption holding the Human species back from warp drive. There's nothing except vectors (example: quantum wavefunction), and they interact with other vectors to EMERGENTLY form space, which just happens to be approximately 3 dimensionally shaped in this part of the universe, which I haven't figured out why yet. There is no such thing as space. There is only relationships between particles/waves, including "virtual particles" which form the thing we call "empty space", plus some other vectors we're not aware of at all (and neither am I), but there has to be an infinite number of them (because the kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0... it's a zen thing), mostly not interacting with our physics. So to make mass move faster than light can be done with a tiny amount of energy simply by getting each particle/wave/vector, as a vector, to point at a certain part of space (which is really just a network of vectors) and then from there to point at a part of space very far away, and to continue this in a continuous way, just barely touching the vectors that make up space so the time (time is the lack of a vector pointing in space/mass directions) of the particle is spread across those many other vectors (which form the space), and therefore the particle is in superposition across a path in space while still having mass and still experiencing time at the normal rate, not length-contracted, not moving backward in time, just superpositioned going faster than light. The main difficulty is getting the particles/vectors that make up each part of space to align instead of moving chaoticly, so the superposition of the warp drive and starship can be aligned to such particles/vectors that make up space. We know from quantum physics that a particle may jump any large distance away from its previous location but with exponentially decreasing chance of the larger distances. It is purely a difficulty of understanding and using the statistics of quantum physics that has prevented us from moving large pieces of mass faster than light. Since you don't have the accuracy in your technology to do this with the electricity in a watch battery (even though it can be done), you'll need a large power source. Power can be mined from gravity waves anywhere and any time if you create a model of the oscillating masses and other vectors and their distance to you so you can predict which way the gravity waves will oscillate at each millisecond (or whatever time interval), and use such oscillation like a windmill derives power from the wind regardless of which direction the wind is moving. If the wind changes direction, the windmill has a tail that turns it the right direction to still derive power. The gravity wave oscillation power deriving device will store the power into a new universe (for lack of a better word in your limited vocabulary) which is defined by the interaction of vectors which you have separated from the current spacetime by an emergent process similar to predicting the oscillation patterns of gravity waves. Translate the gravity waves into bigger and bigger oscillations of those vectors you moved into the secondary universe (which you use only for storing power and nothing else. It has no physics of its own, no life forms, no big bang, nothing... just oscillating power storage). Do this until you have as much power as you need for your warp drive to work for a short time. The great thing about storing power in new empty universes (which are really just unused vectors in an infinite dimensional space) is that you can access them from anywhere regardless of how far you travel. They're always 1 planck length away if you maintain a connection, and to find it when you're lost it takes an average of log(complexity of your reality) planck lengths multiplied by your inefficiency factor (which would be around 1000 planck lengths maybe), to find it after losing it completely... I think that's what Boltzmann's equation says, but I haven't looked at it much, just looks like something I know from log Big-O in math... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann Use this power source to form the vectors that make up space into shapes that tend toward superpositioning your starship on a path through spacetime thats faster than light but locally is not moving at all, and your starship made of mass (and having no engine or power source onboard at all) moves faster than light and instantly explodes into a cloud of particles since you didn't do the vector oscillation accurately enough... so I suggest you do it with an unmanned ship first and work up to transporting people. Eventually this will lead to intergalactic starships that run on batteries. I've not explained the details of this because I really don't know how the physics works in this part of the universe. In an ultimate-ensemble universe, the laws of physics are different in different places, which are really constructed of different combinations of vectors interacting with eachother, and I simply don't know which physics we're in, but I know some things in general that work in all cases of what the physics could be, and that is interaction of vectors. "Ultimate-ensemble" multiverse theory says that all possible universes and physics definable in math exist, so how can I say its all vectors? A turing-machine isn't made of vectors, and somewhere there is a universe whose physics are a turing-machine, but the vectors come from the paths between such universes. Math is continuous between all its possibilities, since every equation can be embedded in a bigger math equation which creates variations of it, an infinite number of variations of it with continuous paths between them. Even the xor operator is parallel to the klein bottle, and the equal operator parallel to sphere, for example. So regardless of how discontinous a certain universe's physics are, there's always continuous paths between everything if you call it recursively or rotate it in certain ways aligning to other things, etc. Ultimate ensemble multiverse theory sounds like it allows everything but most of that cancels out and you're left with vectors and waves. I sometimes move things with my mind. I know how to screw with physics, at rare times when I can get my mind in just the right patterns to make that happen. I used to be really good at it, able to do it within 10 seconds of trying, but now only every few months, and usually only to small objects like aluminum foil. I know power can be stored into unused vectors like that because I once stored such power, starting from brainwave patterns or psychic or whatever my mind does, which caused the psi wheel (aluminum foil) to move continuously (and very slowly) for 3 days under a clear plastic box so i knew it wasn't air blowing it. It wasn't a perpetual motion machine. It was stored power. When I combine the possibilities of physics that allow that with the possibilities that allow what science knows, whats left is what I've written here....  Go build the gravity wave oscillator nonlocal power source and warp drive. Really, it should work, but theres lots of details to work out, and probably I got a few of the technical words wrong and the general ideas right. Warp drive and power source instructions, read the words above, how to build it. Yes, really, go build it.

If people ignore this as I expect they will, I'll just do it later after I have my Human AI Net (a collective mind made of many people and AIs) up and running on the internet. Warp drive only needs a lot of power if you lack accuracy, as I explained above, so the electricity in the brains of the people using this software (whose minds the collective is made of) will be more than enough to mine the gravity wave oscillations toward a new empty universe (which is really just unused vectors in our common infinite dimensional space) and to intelligently use such stored power as the democratic intent of the collective mind of people and AIs in this network. I'm just offering the general strategy of researching how to do this so someone could get started on that research, but I'll get to it after Human AI Net is working.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Moving things with the mind is not magic. Its just a really hard skill to learn that works by the interaction of vectors in an infinite dimensional space, by the wave interference and other patterns of interaction between such vectors. Telepathy is quantum entanglement between the atoms in 2 peoples' brains, which is caused in a way similar to http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/entanglement-between-macroscopic-objects-generated-by-dissipation emergently in patterns between the vectors. Moving things with the mind and telepathy are the same kind of thing, one with a target object and one where the target object is somebody else's brain. Its entanglement either way. The Human species knows how to destroy the surface of a whole planet with nuclear weapons, so I find it mind boggling that they would be impressed at all if somebody knew how to turn water into wine or levitate their body or whatever really happened back then (I don't know). So what? We're past that level of technology, just not knowing how to use it accurately, only destructively for the most part. Would you worship someone who can make a rocket fly into space? No, because there's a reason it works. The Human species is about to get more impressive abilities than they read about in their ancient religious books, through the use of stored oscillating power in empty universes being controlled through technology and mind reading game controllers and later direct brain control. Humans get impressed way too easily, as if anyone who knows how to bend the local laws of physics (using vector oscillation patterns) has some magical ability only for them to use that can't be learned by all of us. There is no magic.

Wait I think I wrote some of that backwards... Mass doesn't reduce time... Mass is time and time is entropy, chaos, disorder, randomness, statistics. When something isn't moving at all, its moving foward in the time direction at full speed, so it has full mass. When its moving at the speed of light, it has no time, and it has no mass, unless it had mass before it got to that speed in which case it would have infinite mass, but that's just a divide by zero since it couldn't have got there in the first place (except the illusion of moving faster than light by skipping an infinite number of epsilon size spaces continuously along the space). Photons dont experience time because they have no mass, and mass is time. Electrons have infinite mass at the speed of light because then they have no time, and you have to multiply the zero time by the infinity of mass to get the time (which equals mass) that it already had. Its simply conservation of momentum that electrons keep going toward mass and/or time and photons keep going a perpendicular direction to time and/or mass. Something like that... I've got a solid general idea here (more general than which bosons map to which physics equations... more generally, at least I explained gravity above), but the details need some research.

Heisenberg uncertainty, as i see it based on intuition and not so much on the equations which I only know some basics of, comes from the statistical nature of mass (and mass equals time, at least I'm theorizing for now). If you sum 100 numbers which are each exactly -1 or 1, you will get a standard deviation of exactly 10, the square root of 100. That's where the distance squared dot product space (our mostly flat space) comes from. Time (which equals mass) is such a statistical distribution of possibilities which average to a bell curve, as we can see in quantum experiments with lasers spreading into bell curves and interfering waves etc. You multiply a statistical distribution by a vector and what do you expect? Of course you get an uncertainty constant based on standard deviation of the definition of mass (and therefore of time). Its all just vectors on the surface of an infinite dimensional hypersphere, or maybe they denormalize sometimes but I don't think its necessary to leave the hypersphere surface. The hypersphere is the planck limit. Its a bloch sphere, a qubit, a permutation of unity.

Finally, since the kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0 (it's a zen thing, as I wrote above, so don't look for deeper explanation of why it must be true, infinite symmetry and balance and unity is just how it is, because anything else would be unbalanced and would need a reason which just isn't there)... since the kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0, which means complete nonexistance of all of reality on average but any subset of nonexistance is existance (is our reality, incomplete, subset of nonexistance), it means that there are an infinite number of parallel universes, and they all fit together as permutations of the infinite dimensional bloch sphere (of all possible qubits) in a statistically distributed way that balances to 0 any direction you look at it from. It means if I move an electron here, an infinite number of parallel universes must adjust so all the infinite number of qubits counterbalance it. Why are we here instead of somewhere else, of all the infinite possibilities of the ultimate-ensemble multiverse? We're here because we are everywhere and we are everything, just lacking the communication between the infinite number of parts of ourself, so we think we're individuals. Multiple personality disorder to the extreme. But you could just as easily define that as us being individuals, and its just semantics. In the most technical and math way, we are nothing and we are everything, a kolmogorov-complexity of 0. The set of all possibilities is perfectly symmetric and identical to the set of nothing at all, so everything equals nothing. Of course we'll find smaller particles than qubits, but there will always be more vectors interacting with other vectors. That doesn't mean this is wrong, because size doesn't exist at all. Nothing is bigger or smaller than a qubit, because space doesn't exist, mass is time, time is statistics of chaos which has a standard deviation of its square root, the square root in quantum equations is that square root, consciousness is wavefunction, speed is only limited by statistical patterns of qubits and not by curved space since there is no such thing as space and only vectors flowing into other vectors. Time is all paths. Mass is time. Distance is emergent of the network of vectors clustering together continuously. Energy is a vector of its own direction that combines with other vectors to push them more toward such direction, which is perpendicular to time (which equals mass). Mass, energy, distance, time, consciousness... At the highest level that's basically what we have, and gravity is explained by those alone. The quarks and bosons etc are just the details, specific component vectors which combine statistically to form specific laws of physics local to this part of the universe.

That creating of new empty universe to store oscillating power from gravity waves thing.... Now I remember the word for that.... a black hole, and its also a group of overlapping qubits. I read that black holes are exactly big enough to fit all the qubits of info that falls into them exactly on their surface. You know what that makes a black hole? A group of qubits whose vectors each point a different direction so their vectors are statistically distributed around the sphere. Holographic, I think they call it. So we are in a black hole, and qubits are black holes. Bloch spheres within bloch spheres. Fractal universe, qubits inside qubits, and since it all has to balance to 0 overall, combining all the parallel qubits (not going to call them "universes" since theres no such thing as a universe, just a qubit)... The entire universe is positions like this between the small qubits and the outer qubit around the hubble volume which is a black hole.

You think you can't go faster than light? The universe is a fractal of qubits. Each qubit is the universe, is a black hole that contains the whole universe which contains all qubits. We are a permutation of unity. What's the difficulty in going faster than light in a fractal? Fractals contain themself, so you're everywhere already. A tiny rotation of the fractal and you're in another galaxy.

What this means is we can create black holes of any size and any amount of mass, not just the kind that swallows planets. We can create a black hole with the mass of a pencil, for example, and it would be the combination of qubits (which are simply vectors) pointing in directions that average to approximately 0. You know why such a black hole isn't stable? Because the directions don't average 0. They diverge because time is the standard deviation of random-appearing vectors, which is the square root of chaos. By using gravity wave oscillation and artificial intelligence to influence it using the small forces we know how to create with technology today, we can create a black hole bubble of any size we want, like 20 feet wide maybe, and only having the mass of 1 layer thick of atoms on its surface (if that surface qubit information thing was true about black holes). Since it would be a black hole, time would come to a halt at its surface, even though its not massive enough to bend time that way as we normally expect based on einstein's equations. This is about accuracy instead of brute force using randomized mass vectors to clump into a black hole. No, this kind of black hole would be like a fragile bubble of space, containing the whole universe in its surface, bending time as we approach it, but having less mass than a grain of sand, since its only 1 qubit thick on its surface.... There is a word in science fiction for something like that.... a warp field.

So time is the standard deviation of chaotic random-appearing vectors, and time is mass. What I mean by those vectors is every particle/wave/qubit in the universe, of which there are an infinite number, is such a vector, and time is the bell curve statistical pattern that forms from them, multiverse branching at each qubit, and converging from the same infinite number of qubits because there are an infinite number of possible states of qubits and each state is preceded by and followed by exactly the same number of states, since spheres are perfectly symmetric. But this is about time being the bell curve, and time being mass. Where does gravity come from? Its statistics. There's no such thing as gravity. There's only statistics of qubits which clump together because... As mass (which equals time) approaches another mass (a distance made of a network of clustered vectors, since theres no such thing as space), the standard deviation of the chaos of those vectors descreases. It becomes less chaotic. It becomes more predictable, since theres 2 masses and mass is a group of vectors of similar direction which clump together because that is what similar direction means in a network of vectors. The standard deviation of the chaos of the vectors of the 2 masses decreases, which means that time decreases since time is the standard deviation of that chaos of vectors. Chaos decreases, so time decreases, because time is chaos, and time is mass, so mass is chaos. Gravity is the loss of chaos. Gravity is extropy (opposite of entropy), and I therefore say that the second law of thermodynamics is just flat out wrong. The universe is perfectly balanced in its fractal bloch spheres / black holes, and the total amount of entropy appears stable, more or less.

The second law of thermodynamics is wrong because gravity is extropy and the universe is a fractal where black hole = qubit, mass is time, time is the standard deviation of chaotic qubit vectors, and the whole system is stable. If time is the increase of entropy, then time doesn't exist on average and maybe not at all.

There is no higgs boson, which I understand to be the thing which gives particles mass, since mass equals time and time is the standard deviation of chaotic vectors, so it doesn't make sense that any boson (which is some pattern of vectors) could give another vector mass, simply because mass doesn't exist. Have you ever seen mass separated from time? No, you can't move mass at the speed of light because it would have no time. Can you tell me 1 difference between mass and time? Didn't think so. No higgs boson. The universe is much simpler without mass and the need to create it. More generally, the universe is much simpler without any of this stuff... It was, is, and always will be infinite unity of qubit bloch spheres, nothing at all, nothing to explain the creation of since it doesn't exist at all.

So mass and energy are interchangible.... Energy moves mass away from the direction of time, which means away from the direction of mass because mass is time. So energy moves mass away from its own direction, but never completely perpendicular to the time/mass direction. What's the confusion with giving particles mass? Add energy to a moving particle to bring it to rest (from some place of observing it), and you've added mass to it, since being at rest is completely toward the direction of time and time is mass so its also toward the direction of mass (which is really the standard deviation of chaos). Mass changes with speed. What's the difficulty in creating mass if we know how to create speed? Its trivial. But I guess the confusion is why can a photon go at the speed of light while an electron plus a photon never can. What about the electron makes it not be able to go the direction of photons? Combinations of any number of perpendicular vectors will never go completely in the direction of any of those vectors. That's why nomatter how much energy you add to mass it won't point in the direction of photons. It will just get closer and closer. In nuclear reactions mass and energy get swapped and rotated etc, so they think there's a higgs boson doing it. You don't need a boson to create time or mass because they're only statistical patterns, not any specific direction. For there to be a boson that creates time (which equals mass, at least I think it does), that boson would have to be a vector that randomizes things, really random not just hard to figure out, nondeterministic. The theory of the higgs boson is really the theory that there is some vector that, when operating by the same rules as any other, randomizes things, and that doesn't make sense. When you put a bell curve on each of an infinite number of dimensions, you get an infinite dimensional sphere with density of bell curve on all rotations of it. There is no randomness, but there is the experience of being at each of those infinite number of states of the universe as if it was the only reality, and it all sums to unity but separately is this reality. No randomness needed to produce individual behavior, and by ockham's razor i say there is no randomness since we are everywhere at once and therefore we are here and it just looks random.

The laws of physics are not a hierarchy with things being made of smaller things forever smaller and more detailed, tracking it and getting more accurate scientifically forever... Its a fractal, a network, a continuous flow of qubits within qubits. And we'll never figure it out while insisting that it be a hierarchy, the standard reductionist assumption.

There's a very simple reason that time travel is impossible... There's no such thing as time.

[Xanth]

beavis, your posts are exquisite... but sometimes I think they're waaaaaaaaaaaay beyond the scope of our fair forum.  LoL

[blis]

I gave up half way through the second paragraph. I want to understand it but I dont :/

Have you posted this on some physics forums?

[Szaxx]

Hey beavis,
This post I read a small part of. Its such a rich mixup of data I had a good laugh.
To point you in a direction which may help on this exacting subject, please eead all you can on podkletnov(spelling?) crandall and thomas townsend brown. You also may require a calculus lesson or two (SU 3)  may help with planes of existance from a scalar point of view with respect to vectorial location.
A read on the proposed wave structure of matter will enlighten your views too.
Superposition of waves, now the math is around PHD level. A fellow hungarian has a paper on this with the math involved, best of luck on this one.
Love your posts.

[CFTraveler]

I loved it.  Understood about 10% of it, but loved it nonetheless.

Now give us your opinion on Bohmian mechanics.

[beavis]

I write it here because it involves more than what is considered "physics" even though its all 1 system.

I just got banned from http://physicsforums.com for writing this... The moderator called me a "crackpot"...

very simple theory of gravity

Mass slows down time. As you approach a black hole, you see it as falling in quickly, but someone watching you sees you slow down and never fall in. There is less time between 2 masses then farther away from both of them. Each of 2 masses will vibrate as particles/waves normally do. When they vibrate a tiny amount toward eachother, there is less time for them to move away from eachother compared to if they had moved away from eachother first. Because of this chaotic vibrating, combined with there being less time between them, they simply don't have time to do anything except move together on average. Gravity is an extremely weak force. This predicts it would be a very weak force. This explains a possible cause of gravity that depends on known things about the universe.

Is there a better theory? I've heard that physics research has problems explaining gravity.

That was the best part of what I wrote here, and they didn't take the time to say 1 technical thing against it, which means I win that debate.


I wrote the first post of this thread (and in 1 other forum) quickly as I was thinking about it, so half of it may not make sense, but the other half should work.

Thanks for the links. I'll try to read them sometime.

I know its above the level of technical knowledge most of you have, but that's true of 99.9999% of the people on this planet. At least you people have intuition of physics from the astral perspective, which is a real part of physics if the other scientists admit it or not.

As for "Bohmian mechanics" I'll have to read that sometime to see where it fits into how I think the universe works. Everyone should have a model of how the universe works in their head, right? Just based on reading this...

Bohmian mechanics, which is also called the de Broglie-Bohm theory, the pilot-wave model, and the causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, is a version of quantum theory discovered by Louis de Broglie in 1927 and rediscovered by David Bohm in 1952. It is the simplest example of what is often called a hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Bohmian mechanics a system of particles is described in part by its wave function, evolving, as usual, according to Schrödinger's equation. However, the wave function provides only a partial description of the system. This description is completed by the specification of the actual positions of the particles. The latter evolve according to the "guiding equation," which expresses the velocities of the particles in terms of the wave function.

...I think I disagree, while it may be a very accurate model (I don't know) it is incompatible with total unity and nonexistance of the universe on average. All the parts of the universe must cancel out to nothing, and the existence of a wavefunction and particle positions (our reality) and nonexistance of anything else contradicts that. I think the main difference they're saying is that theres positions in addition to the wavefunction, while just the wavefunction is the more accepted theory. More technically, Bohemian Mechanics is incompatible with my theory that: The kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0.

[CFTraveler]

Bohmian mechanics is probably theoretically opposed to what you propose- but if you look at (and there's lots of them) metaphysical derivations of it you may find yourself entranced by it like me.  You might even unravel something about it that explains it.... it's hard for me to express what I'm trying to say.  As you said, my metaphysical intuition points me to it, although I don't like what it seems to describe.

[beavis]

Now I know I disagree with Bohemian Mechanics (and Copenhagen interpretation which I already knew I disagreed with). I say its the set of all possibilities which averages to 0 and is infinitely symmetric in all possible ways when you put it all together, but any part of the universe alone, like this reality or a wavefunction or a particle, exists because it is not 0 by itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohmian_mechanics

The Copenhagen interpretation states that the particles are not localised in space until they are detected, so that, if there is not any detector on the slits, there is no matter of fact about which slit the particle has passed through. If one slit has a detector on it, then the wavefunction collapses due to that detection.

In de Broglie–Bohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. The final position of the particle on the detector screen and the slit through which the particle passes by is determined by the initial position of the particle. Such initial position is not controllable by the experimenter, so there is an appearance of randomness in the pattern of detection. The wave function interferes with itself and guides the particles in such a way that the particles avoid the regions in which the interference is destructive and are attracted to the regions in which the interference is constructive, resulting in the interference pattern on the detector screen.

Don't worry about the free will thing... The universe can't be completely deterministic because our current reality is unbalanced from unity, and unity can only deterministicly do 1 thing... keep being unity, since theres no direction for it to unbalance toward. Its like saying to choose 100 random numbers, without repeating any numbers, from 1 to 100. Somebody will get 42 and ask why is the world 42 and why is 42 unbalanced from the unity of the complete set of 100 numbers (or equally the set of nothing at all, since 100 is the size of all possibilities in this analogy). The free will is the ability to get 42, while the determinism is that everyone else has to get exactly the other 99 numbers. In reality, there are an infinite number of possibilities instead of just 100, including places with different physics and even not made of dimensions. So technically, although its not the best way to explain it, the answer to life, the universe, and everything (as Douglas Adams wrote) really is 42, or any other number or arbitrary thing, and arbitrarily we are this reality or 42 or whatever we do. I know thats what he meant because of that flower in a pot which appeared out of nowhere after they used the improbability drive in their ship, both falling from low orbit space toward a planet, and the flower thought "not again...". Of course its fiction, but in general Douglas Adams knows some of how the universe works, not the part about flowers that think, the part about the repeating of all infinite possibilities. But its not really repeating, since as I explained above, the universe is a fractal and theres no such thing as space or time.


I'll quote what I wrote about this subject somewhere else. The main difference is I say the particle goes through both slits, continues splitting in the normal bell curve pattern, some of those branches rotate toward a negative vector, some positive, and some between, which generates the wave interference pattern on the back wall behind the double-slit because the opposite vectors (rotations of the same particle after multiverse branching) cancel eachother out, that part of the universe ends and becomes unity/nonexistance, while we sit back and wonder why we don't see any particles hitting the dark spots of the wave pattern. They hit there and are cancelled out at that time, or are cancelled out in the middle of the space before hitting there.

http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6889/Multiverse-Branch-Is-Particle-Antiparticle-Split

Multiverse Branch Is Particle Antiparticle Split
But not like 1 negative and 1 positive.... all splits on a bell curve, which should match to what is called a "particle and antiparticle" because both of those are subject to heisenberg uncertainty which really means they were split on a bell curve instead of +1 and -1.

In the double slit experiment, when its not observed, wave interference occurs with 1 particle with itself. The particle hits on the back wall where the 2 waves are in phase, and does not hit when they are out of phase. This is the gradual version of the EQUAL function, which is the opposite of the XOR function.

In the double slit experiment, when it is observed, it still goes both paths (and many variations of those on bell curves), and wave interference still happens. How can I say that when no wave interference is observed? Its very simple. The 2 paths do not end in the same place if you observe which path it took. One is a future "left slit, detector on right not detected", and the other future is "right slit, detector on the right detected". These 2 do not converge on the same state of the universe, which is a bell curve between "left slit, detector on the right detected" and "right slit, detector on the right detected", or the opposite of that when not detected.

The same thing is happening in the double slit experiment if its observed or not. What changes is we twist our possible futures to not overlap eachother anymore, so we are unable to see the wave interference even though it still happens. It is not wave interference between the 2 paths of the photon. It is wave interference between the total state of the universe and whatever paths it takes. Putting a detector at one slit is the same as putting a mirror there to reflect it away from the back wall and toward a back wall in a parallel reality. It twists that possible future to one that does not align with the left slit, so the wave interference is not observed even though its somewhere in the possible states of the universe.

Every moment of reality (including its light cones) is a possible state of the universe. When we go through one slit or the other, and hit on a place where the 2 waves are out of phase, that is never observed because our reality is cancelled out by an opposite reality (the one that is out of phase). Reality ends. But since we are everywhere and everything all at once (without knowledge of this usually), we continue from all other points in the universe as if nothing had happened, wondering why we don't observe the photon hitting in the dark parts of the back wall of the double slit experiment. It hits there, and its antireality hits there too, but our past shows that never happens because our past is defined by the paths where reality doesn't get cancelled out.

I have simultaneously solved wave/particle duality and consciousness.

Can anyone who knows physics give me any evidence that this theory is not true?

Wavefunctions are of course a good model of the physics we've seen, but this reality must be balanced by what we have not seen so we total zero/nonexistance/unity, because the kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0.


Also its really messed up that the moderator of http://physicsforums.com banned me and called me a "crackpot" for that short quote in my last post which I wrote there, because since then I realized that I was saying the same thing as Einstein said, of course based on reading what he said, and I'm just saying it in a different way.... Mass attracts mass because it follows a straight path through spacetime, called a geodesic. That's the same thing as saying mass attracts mass because theres less time between the 2 masses for them to move apart than there is time on their other sides. The moderator of http://physicsforums.com is the crackpot, either that or wanted to claim my idea as his own, not realizing its just a different way to say already known physics.

[Szaxx]

Hi Beavis,

Theres a particular coil arrangement known as a caduceus coil. Invented by Wilbert Smith around 1950 in canada.
This coil appears to magnetically cancel but the energy fed into it cannot dissappear. I have answers on this but would like you to look and give your opinion.

The double slit experiment is like using shadows to prove three dimensional shapes exist, om for simple ones....
All particles/waves follow a split pattern of a pos and a neg value, these do cancel but are in existance in these states. The simplest analogy would be the maths involved in the reflection of a point source of light from a ripple in water. Ask any good compuer model engineer for this and he would agree.
As for being thrown off sites, the world was flat once you know, it takes a step back to go forward at times and physics is one subject that requires a political thought.
All the best.

[i smoke and drink coffee]

I read some of all that.

I came to this part of the boards today to make a post about 'mass'.  The thing I was posting was about space, so I'll get to it.  I have no math, and I don't understand it anyway.  What I read of what you said makes sense, in an Omniverse, it's definitely possible for it to manifest on the physical level as well.