• Enrique
    307
    I'm throwing down the gauntlet in this essay and giving a fundamental theory! Humorous, because I distrust fundamental theories.


    Three of the fundamental equations of quantum physics are:
    E=mc2,
    w=P/mv,
    and E=Pf,
    where E=energy, m=mass, c=the velocity of light, w=wavelength, f=frequency, v=velocity, and P=Planck’s constant (Smolin, Lee).

    If the first two equations are solved for mass then equated, with substitution and canceling such that the absolute minimum of variables remain, the simplest synthetic formulation is v=fw. This implies that all matter is in motion, and the structure of this fluxing matter takes the intrinsic form of a wave. It appears that since mass can be vacated from the hybrid expression in favor of a more essential form, namely a wave, the structurality we associate with mass, namely three dimensional particularity, is an epiphenomenon. Then we must inquire as to the sense in which this is true.

    Regardless of how externalized particularity seems to an individual observer, it is fundamentally a perception, and this perception is a property of consciousness in its correlation to the body, a subject addressed with reference to neuroscience. The nervous system and brain are dazzlingly complex and premonitional, with our self-awareness constituting only a fraction of its functionality, so that the deceptiveness of introspection is well-documented, and a comprehension of the mind’s mechanisms must be preceded by a level of scientific modeling and insight into metaphysical concepts that has not been approached, which will probably induce a seismic shift in our picture of what substance and the existence it conjures consist in. But to the extent that this physical world we inhabit is analogous to current technology, it is not as much of an enigma, for technology interfaces our existence with nature on the much narrower scale of our quintessentially macroscopic bodies.

    This spectral range of phenomena is much less complex than perception’s ultimate essence because it is parameterized by the overriding force of gravity on our planet, which makes all kinds of lifeforms and the objects they typically interact with relatively easy for science to handle, showing up in the simplicity of classical physics compared to neuroscientific psychology. This conglomeration of phenomena is also more transparent, for extremely prominent physiological structures, namely sense organs such as eyes, ears and noses, are exquisitely tailored for the most important factors in survival of our bodies, and operate in accordance with the principles of classical physics as well. This highly intuitive particularity, our sense-perception obeying the principles of classical physics, interacts with firmly established technological traditions based on the same principles to serve as the most crucial factor for sustaining and actualizing behavior by way of the baseline material requisites that must be met for reproduction, health, leisure and intellectuality to be attainable. Perceptions and technologies of Newtonian particularity intersect within the conceptual domain of spatiotemporality, simply amounting to three dimensional entities traveling in sequences. Mass is the most fundamental unit of this spatiotemporal portion of the experiential spectrum, a measure of three dimensional extension and its time-lagged relationships.

    Many processes that are not directly observable can be described using this concept of particularized mass, an envisioning of matter as made up of self-contained, roughly spherical structures exerting pressure by collisions, or attracting such that the kinetic energy of their motions becomes contained as potential energy in chemical bonds. But quantum physics has unshrouded phenomena that do not conform to this mold. The behaviors of particles can be correlated across distances, where a manipulation of one produces almost instantaneous change in another by way of entanglement. Retroactive causality in elementary particles has also been observed, where perturbing a photon’s path after the measured particle passes the point of intersection results in a similar entanglement effect. Clearly there is something going on that transcends particularity, for particles exert causality by localized effects, whereas matter has been revealed to possess nonlocal properties.

    Some matter appears particularized, but like a bouncing ball oscillates when perturbed until it again reaches inert equilibrium. Some material substances such as gases and light waves manifest as more nonparticularized, expanding and contracting on their own with no intrinsic spatial limitations, yet occupy definite spaces and move at specific rates, in effect behaving in a patterned way, as if comprised of regularized form, a particlelike symmetry. It seems that, roughly speaking, matter can be relatively more or less like a textbook particle such as a grain of sand, while in all cases capable of vibrating as a wave. A thrown baseball moves through three dimensional space like a particle, and flexes like a wave upon contact with the glove. During an earthquake, the ground moves as if a wave, and of course likewise for a perturbed liquid. Electrons can be made to flow in a wavelike current. They are also in constant motion within molecules, a phenomenon slippery enough to our present measuring devices that exact precision in the defining of either an electron’s position or momentum inhibits precision for the other. A beam of light behaves more like a wave, but is absorbed in discrete packets of energy by particles such as electrons, as if quantized.

    Every particle can be made to act as a wave, and every wave can be induced into particle behavior, so it seems that particularities and waves constitute opposite ends of a spectrum of substance, the forms of which are determined by degree of actual or possible oscillation. Particle behavior precludes nonlocality, so we can rule it out as fundamental, but even the most stable particles have wavelike properties, which agrees with our equation v=wf, so can the properties of a wave explain nonlocality? If we make the assumption that substance is one gigantic, amorphous wave of extreme complexity, does this account for our experimental observations while managing to avoid explaining away the apparent properties of inert, spatially differentiated, and plainly time-lagged particularity?

    First of all, it has been established by experiment that the probability of finding a projectile electron in a specific location is proportional to the square of its wave function, which in terms of flow, simply means that the particle is most concentrated at a particular point in space, like the peak of a bell curve, with its structure thinning out in all directions while straying from the substantive core. Pilot wave theory models this: the function of a wavicle, approximative to the phenomenon in nature, is most particlelike where it is most localized, or rather where it has the least accelerative rate of change, at its apex, the crest of the hill so to speak. This point can be termed the maximum acceleration density. According to this definition, the wave becomes less particlelike as it approaches its base, with the acceleration density more diffuse, changing at a faster rate quantified as a limit, the slope of the tangent to the curve at a particular point along its length. The wave’s acceleration then levels off again as it approaches the next peak, meaning that it increases in density or concentrated motion.

    This accounts for some significant phenomena. It is easily noted that at any particular point along the wave’s length, the acceleration density of the regions that immediately surround it are different in numerical value while also driving the wave out of its current state and towards a differing value. The motion of a wave is continuous but fundamentally disequilibrated. Yet given enough time, the wave will approximately duplicate any given state, so that as the topography or density contour of a wave increases in complexity, equilibrium arises. The more disequilibrations that exist in a wave as stimulated by phenomena such as interference, the more this disequilibrium is canceled out by its motions. At the most basic level, equilibrium in a wavelike structure is an emergent property of disorder, with greater quantities of relative disorder producing more equilibrated states as chaos theory suggests. A solar system is more heterogeneously complex than a miniature spinning model of a solar system one might find in a classroom, and though there is no precise scale by which to compare and contrast, the real thing in its dimension as a totality is obviously subject to much greater degrees of law-abiding behavior and perpetual motion, as evinced by the ease of mathematically modeling its revolutions over the course of an astounding billions of years, while in the case of a replica, the more complex the collection of factors involved in the structure and movement of a model itself, the more likely it is to spin on its own in an orderly way, all else being equal.

    Acceleration density is noticeably lower or less concentrated at the wave function’s base than at its peak, leading to a statistically significant increase in relative motion, so it seems that a wave is moving faster the more approximately equidistant it is from the particlelike peaks. In a two dimensional wave, this effect is apparent but not all that extreme. However in nature, a wave’s oscillating movement is not occurring in two dimensions, but in all possible dimensions, which can be approximated as a wave function that vibrates in infinite dimensions, just as a circle can be thought of as a polygon with infinite sides. When a wave is vibrating in effectively infinite dimensions, the discrepancies between acceleration density at its most particlelike peaks and the positions located furthest away from surrounding peaks are magnified by a massive order of magnitude, so that motion near the peaks of the structure is almost stationary relative to the most equidistant troughs. As pilot wave theory approximates, acceleration is rapid enough between wave peaks that every particlelike position, though essentially diffuse, subsists within a single interconnected system, so wide swaths of wavicles respond to perturbation at any point almost instantaneously, as if their loci of motion are nearly standing still while the surrounding valleys oscillate in a relative flash.

    So what we might call the global wave is amorphously oscillating in effectively infinite dimensions, amounting to ensembles of waves within waves which are altogether interfering in ways so variable as to be thus far structurally inconceivable. Nonlocality is transcendently complex to humanity’s notions of logical form, beyond anything which can be directly represented as spatiotemporality. But as we have seen, in terms of a wave function, and as an approximation to a real wave, the properties of a two dimensional idealization are roughly congruent with the whole, and so even as the exact quantitative specs such as ratios differ, the idealization is like a microcosm, a model of the real thing scaled down to manageable proportions, just as a circle displays many of the same properties as the sphere it inheres in, with a sphere categorizable in a sense as an extremely complex circle.

    If all substances are infinite waves, why the disjunctions we experience in the material world, such as between radio waves, visible light and gamma rays, or electrons, atoms, molecules and all the larger corpuscles? Every substance is entangled nonlocally in some as yet unmodeled way, but superposition or wave synthesis only occurs, to the large and still unspecifiably constrained extent it is possible, between waves of similar enough scale. This is apparent from how wavelengths of the visible spectrum blend to create a diverse color palette, but do not blend as substantially with radio waves, and circumvent much interaction with even extraordinarily large collections of atoms. The sky is blue because of its vast absorption of light, but a room illuminated by white light filled with trillions of absorptive electrons is colorless. Visible light is similar enough in wavelength across its spectrum that it blends as superpositions into hybrid waves, just as electrons of different energies are similar enough in wavelength that they superposition into hybrid shapes, but light’s wavelengths differ so dramatically from the spectrum of electron arrangement in atoms that they travel through gas nearly as if in a vacuum. More condensed wavelengths of a liquid, corresponding to greater acceleration densities amongst interfering wave ensembles, are more absorptive, and most solids more absorptive still.

    So we can set forth the principle that all else being equal, interference ensembles producing shorter wavelengths are more likely to transmit or deflect longer wavelengths of lower frequency, and closely packed wavelengths are more likely to absorb, but in order for the effects to be easily noted, discrepancies must be quite large. The atmosphere for instance does not transmit high frequency gamma rays as readily as radio waves, but this effect is only detectable over many miles, hence the greater range of radio waves than the gamma rays generated by a nuclear bomb. The superposed wavelengths in atoms are similar enough that they can exert blunt force as bodies when perturbed or dissolve each other. And gamma rays are a biologically borderline case, penetrating into an animal’s body as if somewhat reminiscent of blunt force, but not causing nearly the same level of damage to tissue as a solid such as a bullet, while ultraviolet radiation can damage the skin with heat, visible light illuminates it, and radio waves diffract around solids and to a limited extent through some kinds of solids with no appreciable effect.

    The concept of acceleration density allows a simple qualitative synthesis of quantum mechanics with general relativity. All matter is made up of wavicle ensembles that interfere, which amounts to quantum fields within quantum fields, mixed and matched supradimensionally, with a fraction of these ensembles salient in various ways to human perception. The quantum field of the earth consists in a gargantuan range of ensembles and frequencies, some of which extend far beyond its surface. In general, the closer these ensembles are to the earth’s core, the more compact their acceleration densities and the stronger the force they exert on each other and their immediate surroundings, an outward thrust which is however partially resisted by a sort of surface tension that the greater amount of matter in outer regions of the spreading field reciprocally exerts, which does not constrain all of the wave but is sufficient to maintain Earth’s structural integrity in the atomic range of the spectrum. A portion of the quantum field that does apparently escape is gravity, and it exerts a force on objects within its range in proportion to how close to the core they are and thus subjected to higher acceleration density. A clock runs slower at lower altitude because the gravitational wave ensembles it is emulsed in have a higher acceleration density and thus are slightly more compact, causing a minuscule quantity of substance inertia due to permeating compression.

    Why a wave to begin with? We can understand the existence of waves in nature by pondering the relationship between light and atoms. As soon as the wave starts to propagate, approaching its peak, it has entered an orbit, enveloped in an atomic quantum field while resisted by incoming fields, and just as the planets decelerate until reaching the extremity of their elliptical path, the acceleration density of light decreases. As it passes the peak, it is whipped around the ellipse, ever closer to the center, but if its path is not impeded or channeled enough by atomic forces to merge with an ensemble, it flies out of superpositioned atomic structure at maximum acceleration. Then as soon as it leaves one ensemble’s orbit, it enters that of another, and whips around the opposite side to similar effect.

    The speed of light, which is the propagation of a quantum field ensemble in supradimensional space, is so rapid compared to the rates amongst atoms that it can only be slowed enough for absorption by vast quantities of shifting wavicles, so that under many conditions, such as in our atmosphere, absorption is rather minimal. Light traveling through a conventional gas is like trillions upon trillions of minutely fluxing elliptical orbits, sufficing in quantity to eventually lower the electromagnetic radiation’s speed such that absorption often occurs, an effect more pronounced as a general rule for liquids and solids with their tendency towards greater acceleration density. If the superpositioned ensemble of an atom is such that it complements an electromagnetic wave, it absorbs that wave into its structure. Energy input from a quantum field can be large enough to burst apart an atom, such as when metals conduct an electric current or oxygen combusts.

    Acceleration density within entangled ensembles of interfering quantum fields and their effectively infinite dimensionality, variously superpositioned, may be adequate to model much of what happens in our universe.

    Then the question is: why dimensionality? If matter is best described as practically infinite in dimension, how come particular dimensions exist? Basically, dimensions are like idealized cross sections of reality, frames of mathematical reference typically rendered into an intuitive two or three dimensional image for integrating diverse phenomena into an approximate but maximally coherent general picture. Three dimensionality itself is perfect for modeling position, objects at rest, and is probably the most intuitive cross section. Two dimensionality is perfect for modeling velocity, objects with a trajectory, and is the core of predicting linear motion in three dimensions, such as with a projectile or planetary revolutions. Acceleration is a special case of velocity, appropriate for measuring especially rapid changes, with torque or accelerating acceleration perhaps the most rapid rate of change necessary for most purposes of physical modeling. And four dimensionality or spacetime is appropriate for modeling material phenomena that encompass too large a spectrum to involve the intuition of objects at rest, a substrate in which everything is in a relationship of perpetual motion. Each higher dimension contains all the others, but may not be finely grained enough to register many phenomena unless we so to speak zoom in with a lower dimension and then reintegrate.

    With entanglement and retroactive causality, three dimensionality itself is perceptive enough to register very simple correlations in a suitable experimental context, but the phenomena jump into existence as if by magic, without the foggiest notion of their causality, and from this perspective, the fundamental mystery of it all means that large ensembles of apparent particles as manifest in three dimensions quickly exceed our capacity to predict precisely where to look and thus measure, though some biological systems such as photosynthetic reaction centers and enzyme active sites are almost a microcosm of nonlocal phenomena, like quantum machines, so that investigating them yields systematic insight. The spacetime fourth dimension provides an accurate theoretical framework for elucidating how relative velocities of objects correlate throughout the universe, so is perfect for defining phenomena on the galactic scale, which move without direct three dimensional contact, but it deals in smooth curvatures of space that proceed in particular directions to the exclusion of all alternatives, and so cannot transcend particularity, only contextualize its full scope. Its yardstick still includes the arrow of time, and so remains fundamentally disjuncted from the quantum scale, having nothing at all to say about the idea that wavicles move outside of time, which has become central to our image of atomic reality.

    Modeling the universe as an amorphous topography of infinite wave structure gives a good approximation of how matter can exist beyond the boundaries of time, ricocheting across distances with an asymmetric rapidity that transcends the loci we intuitively recognize as particles, generating equilibrium from chaos, interacting as supradimensional interferences that scale up or down in infinite space, accommodating any material interaction regardless of how large, small or fractal, a causality that preserves relativity while clarifying the workings of matter from the galactic to the nanoscale. But despite its explanatory power and likely benefit for making predictions and designing experiments going forward, it is still a thought experiment, and must follow wherever the data leads. Like general relativity, it will probably need to be qualified in the future as we design science and technology with the theoretical framework in mind, tweaking its parameters based on cumulative evidence, and eventually unchaining ourselves from the conceptual intuitions involved to assemble and perhaps synthesize with new or alternative paradigms.


    What do you think, agree, disagree, critique?
  • Possibility
    1.6k
    I think history warns us against jumping straight to an assumption of infinite structure. Wave structure seems to me a predicted correlation of quantitative value in a potential energy event. As such, the information is relative to a potential alignment between two four-dimensional events: a constructed reality of spacetime and the position of the observer/measuring device. Such an alignment necessarily exists in a five-dimensional conception, at minimum. Even at this level, in potentiality, causality expands into a fluctuating process of atemporal intentionality, or unconscious ‘will’. This five-dimensional structure corresponds in neuroscientific psychology to interoceptive affect: a value structure of the potential state of the organism. The difference is that this value structure consists of both quantitative and qualitative aspects - descriptively, valence and arousal; prescriptively, attention and effort.
  • Enrique
    307


    The theory I presented views nonlocality as approximated by the concept of an infinite wave, but the mathematical/structural cross section that interprets the causality into a particular frame of reference is five dimensional. Instead of spacetime, its a sort of spaceacceleration, which I call acceleration density. This accounts for the contours of rate that allow a single event to effect both the past and the future, also the emergence of order from chaos, the quantum foundations of general relativity's observings, and the compatibility of quantum mechanics with thermodynamics.

    I don't characterize "will" or intrinsic motivity as fundamentally intentional, but it is psychoactive in a sense because qualia and emergent qualitative experience originate at the nanoscale, from superposed wavicle ensembles.
  • SophistiCat
    1.5k
    Three of the fundamental equations of quantum physics are:
    E=mc2,
    w=P/mv,
    and E=Pf,
    where E=energy, m=mass, c=the velocity of light, w=wavelength, f=frequency, v=velocity, and P=Planck’s constant.

    If the first two equations are solved for mass, followed by substituting and canceling such that the absolute minimum of variables remain, the simplest synthetic formulation is v=fw. This implies that all matter is in motion, and the structure of this fluxing matter takes the intrinsic form of a wave. It appears that since mass can be vacated from the hybrid expression in favor of a more essential form, namely a wave, the structurality we associate with mass, namely three dimensional particularity, is an epiphenomenon. Then we must inquire as to the sense in which this is true.
    Enrique

    You seem to be groping around the idea that massive objects exhibit irreducibly quantum behavior, which is expressed in the equation for the De Broglie wavelength. Since massive objects exhibit wave-like behavior, each of them has a characteristic wavelength associated with it. For example, when a basketball falls through a hoop, it undergoes diffraction, just like when light shines through a pinhole - an immeasurably tiny bit of diffraction, which nonetheless we can theoretically estimate via its de Broglie wavelength. This isn't about matter being in motion - that is a triviality. Since motion is relative, everything is or is not in motion, depending on the reference frame. Rather, this is about one specific manifestation of quantum behavior of matter, which you overthink at your peril absent the understanding of its full context.

    As for the rest... I couldn't get much further than the next paragraph, which quickly devolves into a word salad. This is not a theory in any meaningful sense.
  • Enrique
    307


    Challenging to put what is essentially a five dimensional image into words, but its not just a meaningful theory, its the equivalent of Einstein's thought experiments into spacetime, making the next step to acceleration density. You may have been befuddled because I begin with talk of reality as if it is parameterized by perception, not always the easiest topic for someone who deals exclusively in the architecture of models, but I'm surprised it didn't make sense to you. I have an unorthodox writing style, maybe you got lost in the verbiage without getting a sense for the structure it is attempting to convey. You probably didn't read far enough or think deeply enough. These aren't all easily intuited ideas, and a substantial amount of philosophy is implicit in the background. Visualize asymmetric topology that flows at different rates within different locations in the system, with any particular location surrounded by variability, and the peaks moving many orders of magnitude slower than the valleys. Its relativity theory for wavicle mechanics. If you're familiar with pilot wave theory and collapse models, that might help to give the gist.
  • Kenosha Kid
    1.4k
    Three of the fundamental equations of quantum physics are:
    E=mc2,
    w=P/mv,
    and E=Pf,
    where E=energy, m=mass, c=the velocity of light, w=wavelength, f=frequency, v=velocity, and P=Planck’s constant.
    Enrique

    E=mc2 is from relativity and is not part of QM's postulates. You can derive it from the Dirac equation in the classical limit by taking expectation values of energy and momentum. The second one I've seen in no QM textbook but it looks like you've rearranged p = Pk where k is wavenumber, and substituted p=mv from Newtonian mechanics (which isn't valid in QM). The third only applies only to plane waves.
  • jgill
    900
    I thought Enrique's exposition looked a bit weird, but waited for someone knowledgeable to chime in. :cool:
  • Enrique
    307


    The equations are drawn from a book by physicist Lee Smolin, he knows what he's talking about lol
  • fishfry
    1.6k
    Three of the fundamental equations of quantum physics are:
    E=mc2,
    Enrique


    is an equation of special relativity, a classical theory. If you had a quantum theory of special relativity you'd get the Nobel in physics without having to wait for a vote of the committee.

    This mistake, which can fairly be characterized as a howler, enabled me to stop reading right here. The only reason I didn't mention this yesterday was that you described your initial post as humorous, so I thought it was a deliberate joke. But if you're serious, you're seriously misinformed.

    I see @Kenosha Kid beat me to the punch on this observation. Nevermind.
  • Enrique
    307


    I have a quantum theory of relativity based on the concept of acceleration density (the spaceacceleration dimension lol), but its a thought experiment, not yet quantified and testable, though the amount of accurate and possible predictions that can be made with it proliferates exponentially. It synthesizes quantum mechanics, relativity theory and thermodynamics.

    Since you're too lazy to do more than laugh, I'll point you towards the light.

    The concept of acceleration density allows a simple qualitative synthesis of quantum mechanics with general relativity. All matter is made up of wavicle ensembles that interfere, which amounts to quantum fields within quantum fields, mixed and matched supradimensionally, with a fraction of these ensembles salient in various ways to human perception. The quantum field of the earth consists in a gargantuan range of ensembles and frequencies, some of which extend far beyond its surface. In general, the closer these ensembles are to the earth’s core, the more compact their acceleration densities and the stronger the force they exert on each other and their immediate surroundings, an outward thrust which is however partially resisted by a sort of surface tension that the greater amount of matter in outer regions of the spreading field reciprocally exerts, which does not constrain all of the wave but is sufficient to maintain Earth’s structural integrity in the atomic range of the spectrum. A portion of the quantum field that does apparently escape is gravity, and it exerts a force on objects within its range in proportion to how close to the core they are and thus subjected to higher acceleration density. A clock runs slower at lower altitude because the gravitational wave ensembles it is emulsed in have a higher acceleration density and thus are slightly more compact, causing a minuscule quantity of substance inertia due to permeating compression.Enrique
  • fishfry
    1.6k
    I have a quantum theory of relativityEnrique

    In that case I can just wait to read about it in the papers. You'll be more famous than Einman.
  • Enrique
    307


    Did you even read it? It explains why planets and quantum fields appear to be spheres, and the observations of relativity from a quantum perspective of wavicle interactions. Put me in the history books! I didn't get trained in philosophy for nothing.
  • jgill
    900
    I didn't get trained in philosophy for nothing.Enrique

    How about physics? :roll:
  • Enrique
    307


    Busting my balls because I'm not a specialist. Haven't you figured out that philosophers know everything? lol I'm going to be expecting that Nobel prize in the mail.
  • jgill
    900
    I'm going to be expecting that Nobel prize in the mail.Enrique

    Send me your mailing address. I'll print one out on my computer and send it. You deserve no less!
    :cool:
  • Enrique
    307


    As long as we're talking about credentials or lack thereof, what's your area of expertise? Curious who's lambasting me! It appears you're a mathematician, that's awesome!
  • Kenosha Kid
    1.4k
    The equations are drawn from a book by physicist Lee Smolin, he knows what he's talking about lolEnrique

    He does indeed, which is why I am sure he did not write that they are the fundamental equations of QM. The last is historically significant; you might say it is fundamental to old quantum theory (Planck, de Broglie, Einstein, Bohr, et al) before the five postulates of QM were formulated.
  • Kenosha Kid
    1.4k
    If you had a quantum theory of special relativity you'd get the Nobel in physics without having to wait for a vote of the committee.fishfry

    It already exists, it's called the Dirac equation, and he did get the Nobel prize (so you're right about that). It's general relativity that's proving a hassle.
  • Enrique
    307
    It already exists, it's called the Dirac equation, and he did get the Nobel prize (so you're right about that). It's general relativity that's proving a hassle.Kenosha Kid

    I explained general relativity as a quantum phenomenon of wavicle interactions in my quote. So I should get a Nobel prize!
  • fishfry
    1.6k
    If you had a quantum theory of special relativity you'd get the Nobel in physics without having to wait for a vote of the committee.
    — fishfry

    It already exists, it's called the Dirac equation, and he did get the Nobel prize (so you're right about that). It's general relativity that's proving a hassle
    Kenosha Kid

    Today I learned! Thanks.
  • Possibility
    1.6k
    The theory I presented views nonlocality as approximated by the concept of an infinite wave, but the mathematical/structural cross section that interprets the causality into a particular frame of reference is five dimensional. Instead of spacetime, its a sort of spaceacceleration, which I call acceleration density. This accounts for the contours of rate that allow a single event to effect both the past and the future, also the emergence of order from chaos, the quantum foundations of general relativity's observings, and the compatibility of quantum mechanics with thermodynamics.

    I don't characterize "will" or intrinsic motivity as fundamentally intentional, but it is psychoactive in a sense because qualia and emergent qualitative experience originate at the nanoscale, from superposed wavicle ensembles.
    Enrique

    Firstly, my use of ‘intentionality’ was in reference to ‘will’ as the unconscious intentionality of action, not to the will itself being intentional - I think we are in agreement with regard to the intentionality of the will.

    The density of your writing style makes it very difficult to follow, and I cannot speak to the physics equations, but I get a sense that we are roughly on the same page with our theories, if approaching it from very different positions. The ‘infinite wave’ you refer to, I see as a six-dimensional structure of seemingly infinite possibility or ‘meaning’.

    My approach is more intuitive or relational with regard to quantum theory: I have an unconventional perception of reality that lends itself to understanding the world in terms of wavicles, rather than as events or objects. Non-mathematical descriptions of quantum mechanics make more intuitive sense in my mind than Newtonian mechanics - but I’m afraid the mathematics of it all is beyond me.

    I can relate to the analogy of ‘spaceacceleration’, but I think there’s a tendency at this level for theorists to grasp for analogies within scientific discourse, even as they venture beyond - and in doing so attempt to avoid the inevitable encounter with consciousness and subjective experience. It has the effect of turning the theory in on itself, in my view, leading to errors in interpretation such as alternate physical dimensions, the ten dimensions of string theory and MWI. The main error as I see it comes from isolating qualitative and quantitative values: a reductionist methodology of self-conscious consolidation that dismisses our relational structure as ‘emotional’, and replaces it with a ‘logical’ agent instead. The effect is one of a logically-constructed reality relating to a logically-constructed ‘observer’, with no input from experience. We’re essentially trying to write ourselves out of our conception of reality. While this may lead to a higher accuracy in mechanics, it gets us no closer to an understanding of our own functional position within reality: consciousness, emotion and all.

    Your 3+2 structure of ‘acceleration density’ in relation to spatial objects seems to me less intuitive than a 4+1 structure of experience in relation to spacetime events - but what interests me is your ‘qualitative’ interpretation of gravitational wave ensembles. I’ve had an idea for some time now that perhaps quantum theory fails to synthesise with general relativity due to a lack of qualitative information in QM. GR consists of information and relational structure that accounts for gravity, but QM consists of a purely logical relation to a purely logical construction of reality. What’s missing is our qualitative experience: a five-dimensional structure of relations in consciousness.

    But I don’t think your ‘restructuring’ particularly solves the issue - it only shifts the qualitative/relational aspect back down to ‘objects in motion’. In my view, there is a quantitative-qualitative duality to all of existence, it only depends on your dimensional focus of attention and effort: this is a function of consciousness.

    It is attention and effort that derives order from chaos. It is the relationships of attention/valence and effort/arousal that enable a single event to affect both the past and the future. Without consciousness, none of this has any effect on reality. And it is through self-conscious restructuring that we can make any sense of it.
  • Enrique
    307
    ...perhaps quantum theory fails to synthesise with general relativity due to a lack of qualitative information in QMPossibility

    Think of a topographical map with waves flowing as peaks and valleys. This is the wavicle architecture of our spacetime universe, the mutating square of the wave function. As waves travel around and contours morph, masses and velocities change in complex patterns, with mass represented as horizontal position and velocity represented as vertical position.

    Then imagine that the change in velocity is not linearly proportional to the change in vertical position, but some kind of exponential proportionality, so waves flowing in the valleys move many orders of magnitude faster than waves at the peaks. The peaks at some scales are like grains of sand, three dimensional particles, with some peaks changing at such a slow rate that they are like dry sand on the beach, and slightly lower peaks like sand being tossed by ocean waves. This is the portion of the image that corresponds to objects on the scale of the human body.

    Then imagine waves deep in the valleys traveling at such a rapid rate, though this rate is fluctuating with contour (hence acceleration), that they interact thousands upon thousands of times before waves at the peaks have moved enough to even discern a causal relationship at that scale. This is entanglement, where the cause and effect from past to future in the quantum field valleys is so rapid that it transcends past to future in the particle peaks, amounting to synchronicity.

    Then imagine that wavicles at the peaks can generate the effects in the valley by the way they move: this is what consciousness in organic matter does.

    Then imagine that the spectrum of accelerating and decelerating velocity and wavelength is so vast that some of it operates upon the whole galaxy, while some of it operates only at the nanoscale. This is approximation to the infinitude of the wave, an almost fractal totality ranging from gravity waves to subatomic wavicles and perhaps much more.

    Then imagine that when wavicles are close enough according to the criteria of mass (horizontal position), velocity (vertical position) and wavelength, they can spontaneously blend like visible colors, tonal harmonics, or the shapes of electron arrangements in molecules. This is superposition amongst entanglement, and it is responsible for chemistry, qualia, more rarely emergent qualitative experiencing, and rarer still a complex intentionality such as humans possess. But phenomenal experience and even intelligence can be produced in a plethora of ways besides brains, for the range of possible superpositions is gigantic.

    Then imagine that mechanistic models based on this concept of acceleration density can allow wavicles at the peaks to move closer to the velocity of valleys at various scales than they would naturally, which might enable near instantaneous motion of many kinds of objects through space via technology.

    That's what the acceleration density model allows us to visualize logically in the data, systematize and implement.
  • jgill
    900
    Think of a topological map with waves flowing over peaks and valleys that gradually change form as if by erosion and seismic shifting.Enrique

    Topographical map, perhaps? If it is topological, what are the open sets?

    The ‘infinite wave’ you refer to, I see as a six-dimensional structure of seemingly infinite possibility or ‘meaning’.Possibility

    Entertaining notion.

    As long as we're talking about credentials or lack thereof, what's your area of expertise?Enrique

    Certain dynamical structures in complex function theory. I don't say much in these Quantum discussions because I know very little about the subject. But that apparently is insufficient reason for others on TPF to not post their views. Oh well . . . :cool:
  • Enrique
    307
    Topographical map, perhaps? If it is topological, what are the open sets?jgill

    I was confusing myself at this point, but think I'm finally getting my imagery figured out.
  • Enrique
    307


    What do you think of the idea that gravity isn't a force pulling mass towards the surface of the planet, but rather consists in gravitational wave interferences slightly compressing, in combination with many additional wave fields, the huge variety of interferences amongst what we consider massive substances into particular orientations within the global field, a process measured by us in terms of three dimensionality?
  • Possibility
    1.6k
    What do you think of the idea that gravity isn't a force pulling mass towards the surface of the planet, but rather consists in gravitational wave interferences slightly compressing, in combination with many additional wave fields, the huge variety of interferences amongst what we consider massive substances into particular orientations within the global field, a process measured by us in terms of three dimensionality?Enrique

    Well, gravity as ‘a force pulling mass towards the surface of the planet’ is a decidedly Newtonian description, a 3+1 interpretation. Three-dimensionality is a relational structure between two-dimensional constructions (ie. molecular systems), which are themselves relational structures between atomic systems, which are relational structures between particles, consisting of valency (qualitative potentiality) and/or potential energy (as a quantitative measure). It is here that gravitational waves originate as a relational aspect.

    The way I see it, in a self-conscious (6D) system, all of existence has a quantitative-qualitative aspect duality. It is how we attribute this duality in structuring the information available that determines our understanding of reality. So, gravity can be understood in terms of a ‘force’ as the spacetime relational structure between consolidated 3D objects. Or, it could be understood in terms of the spatial/massive relational structure between measurable events; or the velocity relationship between wavicles. It’s essentially the same relation - the difference is in the complexity and accuracy of the related constructs. If the information available is only three-dimensional, then gravity is perceived as an external force that acts on objects in space. If the information is four-dimensional, then gravity can be measured as a relational function of mass in spacetime. And to the extent that we could objectively map a qualitative wave function in relation to another, then gravity would be a measure of velocity, or a relational function of shape in five-dimensional or conceptual reality.

    But even a four-dimension information is subject to relativity - the accuracy of any calculation of gravity is necessarily relative to that particular spacetime position. When we look at five-dimensional information, then, that relativity expands exponentially. But ‘spaceacceleration’ is a misnomer - space already accounts for distance and direction, so there must be another differentiated property aspect in play. What isn’t accounted for in classical physics is valency: the relational capacity of an atomic structure.
  • Enrique
    307
    Instead of "spaceacceleration" the fifth dimension should be called acceleration density as I said. Thinking of how to graph it and the level of physical meaning this graph has. I'm going to run this by you guys, curious to get input, hopefully it will make some sense.


    All mass basically consists in superposed wavelengths, for that's what gives its characteristic structure. As wavelengths flow through a region of mass, the value of the superposition changes and the rate and pattern of the wavelengths' motions change. A given region of wavelength values corresponds to mass and can be given as a two dimensional quantity or horizontal position, so an atom for instance would be like a small circular pattern on the horizontal plane, representing the superposed wavelengths oscillating and flowing in orbitals, and a light wave like a linear flow that can diffract around and travel through these relatively small or large superpositions of mass or merge with them to change their values. Different combinations of wavelengths have differing superposition effects, a phenomenon with parameters that would have to be derived from experiment.

    Vertical position on the graph gives the relative velocity of mass in three dimensional space rather than the value of hybrid superpositions between wavelengths that compose the mass, and lesser velocity corresponds to higher vertical position, so that particles such as atoms are like small peaks with tiny valleys between them, a means of representing their wavicle nature, essentially amounting to the square of the wave function. As they move independently or in unison, and in response to perturbing wavelengths such as electromagnetic radiation, mass in the horizontal plane bobs up and down slightly.

    The greater the speed at which superposed wavelengths move, the more the wave function drops in value, so the entire system is constantly flowing, swirling, bobbing in three dimensions like a body of water, with rate of motion corresponding to vertical depth, and relative plateaus in the horizontal plane corresponding to equilibrated matter (objects) at various scales.

    What the graph does not represent is static shape, which is interpreted as an epiphenomenon of sense-perception rather than an intrinsic property of substance. So the graph portrays wavelength motion as fundamental to matter, and superpositions amongst wavelengths as equivalent to mass, while vertical change fractally represents the motion within and between objects, from subatomic wavicles to gravity waves at the galactic scale. It models how entanglement transcends Newtonian space and time, for wavelength motions in the valleys may be deep enough to rapidly flow back and forth while peaks such as particles and objects as traditionally construed are standing comparatively still or moving in different overall orientations, as a variant apparent causality.

    Basically, its a topography of fluctuating rates of change in spacetime, which is what wavelength motion or "acceleration density" is, with spacetime itself represented as three dimensional.

    In what measure does my explanation make sense or not make sense to you all?
  • Possibility
    1.6k
    Basically, its a topography of fluctuating rates of change in spacetime, which is what wavelength motion or "acceleration density" is, with spacetime itself represented as three dimensional.Enrique

    How do you represent spacetime as three-dimensional? An old Forbes article about gravity says: “You can talk about space as a fabric, but if you do, be aware that what you're doing is implicitly reducing your perspective down to a two-dimensional analogy. Space in our Universe is three dimensional, and when you combine it with time, you get a four dimensional quantity. When it comes to the notion of spacetime curvature, this is what General Relativity refers to.” The common 2D illustration of spacetime curvature - the earth sinking into a grid like a weight on a trampoline - is not an accurate representation of 4D reality. It’s an attempt to render four-dimensional information in 2D. The significance of this difference cannot be underestimated. The article demonstrates a more accurate depiction of spacetime curvature - but it’s still missing two dimensional aspects. One of those aspects is our own position, but the other is meant to be understood. Superposing a 3D grid onto a photographic image of space invites the viewer to take the three-dimensionality of the image content for granted - and then ignore it.

    I mention this because your account of the fifth dimension seems to assume a temporal alignment between the observer and the observed, so it doesn’t account for General Relativity, and instead isolates gravity as an external ‘force’ - which defeats the purpose. Rovelli’s description of reality as consisting of ‘interrelated events’, rather than spatial objects in time, for me dislodges the temporal alignment assumption of Special Relativity, in the same way that Copernicus dislodged our geocentric assumptions.

    If we take relativity to be the relation of four-dimensional events or physical systems, then ‘Speed’ is a one-dimensional relation in time between one system and another. ‘Velocity’ is this same relation in two dimensions, and ‘Acceleration’ is the same relation in three dimensions: a volume measurement of change in velocity between one system and another.

    According to Special Relativity, these ‘measurements’ assume that both systems exist at some point in an aligned four-dimensional spacetime position. General Relativity says that the extent to which this is not the case necessarily alters the accuracy of the measurement according to variability in a fifth dimensional aspect.

    Your notion of ‘acceleration density’, as I understand it, is then a four-dimensional relation in time - and this is where it gets complicated, because the fourth dimension here cannot be ‘time’. Spacetime is already assumed as an aligned position. So what you’re referring to as ‘acceleration density’ is a five-dimensional structure of change in an indeterminate value, that is NOT acceleration itself. With respect to time, this could be volume, size, spatial position, density, form or any other 3D relational aspect of change between one existence and another (as Wheeler says, the question is: ‘what is the question?’).

    The indeterminacy of this value also complicates the notion of General Relativity - if we assume that both systems exist at some point in an aligned spacetime position (Special Relativity), then we can solve for any (non-temporal) value. But because we cannot assume this in cosmology, we have to define a spatial position for one system, and solve for each value as a function of predicted effort and attention to align the other in relation to time. This results in a wave function.

    What this shows, too, is that time need not be the key variable, and so ‘change’ need not be the focus of every relation. It’s difference, information - hence Wheeler’s phrase ‘It from bit’. So, as far as I can see, ‘acceleration density’ seems to be a limiting perspective of this fifth dimension - one that fails to take into account the capacity to understand differences in relation to reality that are NOT temporally aligned.
  • Enrique
    307


    You give an incisive critique. I'm going to try to tinker with my graph model, but keep in mind these are ideas in progress, not a finished product. It might require a professional physicist to refute or refine it but I'm sure you guys can give me some ideas!


    Maybe the picture I'm presenting can be clarified by breaking it down into discrete variables (you won't have to analyze these equations to the last detail to get my point). Energy is correlated with mass and motion (E=mc2). Energy has a frequency (E=f) and also a rate of change or velocity in some sense correlated with wavelength (E=v/w). Velocity has mass correlated with wavelength and the velocity of light (v=mc2/w), and mass is conversely correlated with wavelength and velocity (m=vw/c2). Wavelength is correlated with velocity, mass and energy (w=v/E, w=v/mc2). The question then is the way these variables interrelate, what is directly or inversely proportional to what and how, as well as the way units align or integrate. I've got a qualitative impression of how it works, but could be in error as I'm not familiar with all the mathematical nuts and bolts. I'm not sure at this stage if it can be implemented quantitatively.


    The graph I described in my previous post is an image of relativity in the square of the wave function. Each point in the two dimensional plane has an energy associated with it, correlated with its mass, frequency, wavelength and velocity. Each point in the vertical plane corresponds to the velocity in space of that quantity relative to the energy at its horizontal position.

    There is no intrinsically fundamental unit, so the whole structure is approximately like a fractal, as is the universe. The further away the wave function is from the peak of a particular wave, the lower its position in the vertical plane and the higher its velocity, just as energy traveling between mass is moving at a faster rate than that contained in for instance chemical bonds. When mass combines as in a chemical bond, the peaks merge to create a single peak with a single energy (relative internal motion) and velocity (relative external motion).

    The peaks, though relatively stable, oscillate in some way that is representative of their internal frequencies and wavelengths, the fluctuating contours of energy within hybridized or "superposed" quantum fields that we know as particularization, which can be as small as the subatomic scale or as large as the known universe, and expand as rapidly as light or as negligibly as an atom. So superposition is a special case of entanglement that can occur between relatively similar waves or wavicles, and the laws of superposition at different scales would have to be determined in association with experimental data, if there are in fact fundamental disjunctions.

    A quantum field wave such as electromagnetic radiation propagates much faster than say a macromolecule wavicle, and this more rapid rate is represented as flowing through the graph at lower elevation, changing the structure or diffracting around many peaks to relatively large or small degrees, as if they are like partial barriers, though the system altogether responds to perturbation in an equal and opposite way, as per conservation of energy and momentum (this is at least to be expected within the frames of reference we have thus far observed in nature).

    The lower the elevation, the faster the quantum field is moving relative to a given energy position. The graph can be calibrated so lower elevations, which are like cross sections of speed, move many orders of magnitude faster than peaks, approximating the concept of a real wave oscillating in effectively infinite dimensions. This means that electromagnetic radiation could be like a particle compared to kinds of waves we might discover. Relative speed on some scales, which amounts to the apparent causality within energy waves and amongst wavicle peaks, would look completely different than relative speed on differing scales, like light ricocheting around relatively stationary objects.

    My hypothesis is that synchronicity is created by quantum fields that move faster than the speed of light when either perturbed or generated by some kinds of wavicles. The wavicle peaks are all producing various kinds of fields as a product of superposition oscillations, and when these fields propagate at relatively more rapid speeds than an ensemble of peaks, wavicles can affect surrounding wavicles by a flow, independent of direct contact such as we model with classical physics, and independent of peak blending as takes place with the superposition phenomena of chemical bonding for instance.

    The whole structure is in perpetual flowing motion, with waves diffracting, interfering (as diverse kinds of relatively brief or prolonged superpositions with internally oscillating energies), and separating at various rates, the whole structure entangled in a way that transcends apparent causality of space and time on the scale of human bodies. Relative to the universe, our galaxy is like a tiny wave peak. Earth is like a tiny wave peak relative to the galaxy. A macromolecule is a tiny wave peak relative to the Earth. And a proton is like a small wave peak relative to a macromolecule.

    It would have to be figured out how to model the peaks, and the natural laws or parameters of the graph at various speeds and scales need to be determined. We already know a lot of this from physics and chemistry. Deficiencies in the graph's ability to describe phenomena might point to causal effects we have not observed and modeled yet, like a puzzle with missing pieces.


    Acceleration amongst waves and wavicles of energy is flow and change in the contours of this wave function as its peaks change, giving the entire structure an amorphous, constantly fluctuating density, hence acceleration density.
  • Possibility
    1.6k
    Maybe the picture I'm presenting can be clarified by breaking it down into discrete variables (you won't have to analyze these equations to the last detail to get my point). Energy is correlated with mass and motion (E=mc2). Energy has a frequency (E=f) and also a rate of change or velocity in some sense correlated with wavelength (E=v/w). Velocity has mass correlated with wavelength and the velocity of light (v=mc2/w), and mass is conversely correlated with wavelength and velocity (m=vw/c2). Wavelength is correlated with velocity, mass and energy (w=v/E, w=v/mc2). The question then is the way these variables interrelate, what is directly or inversely proportional to what and how, as well as the way units align or integrate. I've got a qualitative impression of how it works, but could be in error as I'm not familiar with all the mathematical nuts and bolts. I'm not sure at this stage if it can be implemented quantitatively.Enrique

    For me to even attempt a critique on what you’ve written here would be a bit like the blind leading the blind, I’m afraid.

    In many ways, I can relate to where you’re at - I have a qualitative impression of the relational structure of existence that seems, from my limited perspective, to dissolve many of the ‘hard’ problems: including those surrounding the origin of matter, abiogenesis, quantum gravity, consciousness, etc. But there is no current discourse sufficient to render it fully explainable. I can see you wrestling with how to connect the fifth dimension of quantum physics with the fifth dimension of consciousness in a way that is grounded in some kind of credible discourse. I don’t think we’re alone in this. If only we could collaborate with some brilliant physicist like Feynman, who may be intrigued enough not to completely dismiss our wild imaginings, but rather mould them into workable theories. I recommend reading ‘Quantum Enigma: physics encounters consciousness’, by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, as well as Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ and ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’ - mainly because the physicists who wrote them describe the qualitative aspects of what you and I are exploring here, without getting bogged down in equations. Many physicists will ‘leave it to the philosophers’, content that they don’t need to understand the implications for our understanding of reality in order to excel at the calculations. But this connection to a broader relational structure is precisely what I think is missing from quantum mechanics.

    I think we have to keep in mind that quantum mechanics explores mathematical relations that are isolated from the observable reality in which we conventionally understand the qualitative aspects of mass, motion, velocity, light and energy. We can’t really refer to acceleration, velocity or speed in this same qualitative way at a quantum level.

    This is nothing new. When we observe biology at a cellular level, it doesn’t have the same qualitative aspects (ie. colour, texture, transparency, etc) that we would expect by looking at it with the naked eye. Molecular biology isn’t void of any qualitative aspects - they’re just not usually relevant: either to our shared interpretation of the data or to our shared perspective of reality. In many cases, they’re so distorted by our observation methods that it can be a complicated process to determine what those qualitative aspects would be if seen directly with the human eye - and it hardly seems to matter.

    The graph I described in my previous post is an image of relativity in the square of the wave function. Each point in the two dimensional plane has an energy associated with it, correlated with its mass, frequency, wavelength and velocity. Each point in the vertical plane corresponds to the velocity in space of that quantity relative to the energy at its horizontal position.Enrique

    The square of the wave function is a probability density of how one might locate or interact with this energy/mass by aligning a four-dimensional system with the relative spacetime position of an observer/measurement device. Whether you refer to velocity, mass, frequency or wavelength in relation to energy, whether you square it (for ease of calculation) or not, the wave function is a two-dimensional interpretation of one of a conjugate pair of variables. It’s meaningless without a self-conscious system within which it can be interpreted in relation to its conjugate pair - this is what it means to ‘square’ the wave function. This square of the wave function then becomes a prediction of effort and attention in relation to the potential four-dimensional positioning of a system.

    Have a read of Lisa Feldman Barrett’s ‘How Emotions Are Made’ for a look at how this four-dimensional positioning of a system relates to our interoceptive network, experience and consciousness. It works on a higher dimensional level, but it’s in much the same way as DNA consists of a pair of three-dimensional molecular structures that require a four-dimensional (living) system within which mRNA code can be interpreted in relation to its structural ‘pair’...
  • Enrique
    307


    I suppose a mathematical model of the entire universe in terms of energy flow is no more feasible than a mathematical model of the entire universe in terms of particularity. But it does serve at least as a qualitative image of how energy flow in the wave function can transcend spatiotemporality. Within certain frames of reference, parameters of the function might be established with enough precision by experiment to make the model useful for predicting retroactive causality amongst categories of wavicle ensemble, according to new physical laws of acceleration density within wave fields that oscillate in effectively infinite dimensions. Maybe physicists will one day synthesize pilot wave theory and collapse models along these lines. Could be used to communicate with the future via technology. Anyways, it was an entertaining thought experiment.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment