17 Sep 2019, 10:50 am
17 Sep 2019, 1:10 pm
17 Sep 2019, 1:46 pm
It is strange how quanta work. The particle-wave duality and experimental tests of Bell's Theorem both point to how unified, and yet schizo, reality actually is. The universe has only one unified wave-function. People who enter extreme forms of altered consciousness often report experiencing the unity of everything.
Exactly. There are so many parallels one could draw, in multiple fields. One could look at how higher geometries result in greater congruence, for example - the same applies when one increases energy and density - forces, fields and particles unite. The wave-function of the universe... this leads onto the idea of fractals (addressed below), and there is something in this.
I don't know about speed either, or perhaps more aptly, velocity. A few ideas keep coming up in physics. In the math I worked out to generalize Hamiltonian Mechanics, I found it necessary to introduce two arbitrary relative velocity fields. The fields are either for matter/antimatter or tardyonic/tachyonic, I am not honestly sure.
Out of interest does your theory explain the CP asymmetry between antiparticles and particles?
You ever consider fractal ideas? Getting mystical for a moment, electrons and other subatomic particles might have a kind of broken fractal structure. The higher the energy, the more the system acts like an actual fractal. The lower the energy, the more that quanta become important than any scale-free structure. Just another idea for you to mull over.
Absolutely! We often see the same patterns re-occuring across nature, regardless of scale. Many physicists describe particles and fields as broken symmetries. For the subatomic world, as you say, this becomes clearer with higher energies. I did mention how one could regard the universe as some kind of unravelling fractal pattern, akin to the Mandelbrot Set. It's probably more complex (or simple?) than that. Another thing is how 'in anything we can extrapolate everything' - a typical fractal characteristic. Examples: a strand of DNA can be used to describe the macroscopic form of an organism; the spectroscopy of stars can reveal what they are made of, and even, with a bit more information, what type of planets are orbiting them; and no doubt you can think of a few examples in QM (if you can, please let me know because I cannot think of any to hand!).
Delving into such issues, I recognise, is not regarded as physics. It kind of skims the surface of physics, but perhaps is more apt to be regarded as metaphysics or, indeed, mysticism. Eddington's ideas around the physical Constants was regarded similarly. But sometimes, before we have a firm physical theory with experimental predictions, we need a kind of sketch of what it might be relevant to.
(Let me know when you become rich and famous and/or if outcomes come from your theory; there is a wig shop not too far from here 
)
17 Sep 2019, 3:59 pm
Out of interest does your theory explain the CP asymmetry between antiparticles and particles?
Sorry, no, it does not, but there is something in it about a possible matter/antimatter asymmetry. Let me explain that in a later paragraph. I think the part that would have to explain CP asymmetry would be in the Firewall Lagrangian. Quilibrium, like GR, is a Framework of theories. This means it does not specify completely a part of the theory. This is done so that other theorists can slot in their own ideas in the part not fully specified. In the case of Quilibrium, the Firewall Lagrangian is required to be a certain kind of 2-form,
Lagrangian (Firewall) = A(t, z, z*) dt dz + A*(t, z, z*) dt dz*.
The firewall is a closed two-dimensional surface evolved over time. That is the reason for why the equation takes the form above. It turns out this is nice because the above form can be used in superconformal string theory. The 2-brane I wrote about earlier.
On the matter/anti-matter asymmetry. Hyper-Spherical Harmonics have two main solutions. This is because if you look at surfaces of unit hyberbola, you have two main solutions,
t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2 = (+/-) 1.
The algebraic variety (solution set to polynomial equation) above leads to three disconnected topologies (components) that are well-known to classical geometry, one "Hyperboloid of One Sheet" and the two "Hyperboloid of Two Sheets". The Hyperboloid of Two Sheets are the matter/antimatter sets (known in the HEP biz as "on shell") and the Hyperboloid of One Sheet is the tachyonic set.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperboloid
Make sure and look at the beautiful pictures. 
So what I did with SO(1,3) is quantize it in the same kind of way that SO(3) was quantized when QM was first being formulated, with some adjustments and discoveries to handle hyperbolic spaces. For tardyonic (slower than light) solutions there is an asymmetry between the two.
Let
μ = 2 / (1 + c/v) Matter
_μ = 2 / (1 - c/v) Anti-matter
where v is the relative velocity. The solutions I found for the matter and anti-matter hyper-spherical harmonics can be expressed so that anti-matter (_μ) uses matter (μ) coordinate variables through a simple change of coordinates transformation. When you do that for the Matter/Anti-matter resulting solutions, you definitely get asymmetric results.
I have not the slightest idea what it means beyond that.
I have some general thoughts on CP symmetry violation to offer. CP violation and CPT are topics of definite interest. I don't understand axial guage stuff well enough to comment on that. It is just that for a relativistic minded fellow like I am, CPT is a true oddity. I really wonder if there is a consistent way to set up a math for CPT violation in curved space-time. Ponder... Ponder......
We really need some deeper understanding of the CKM stuff too. For instance, why does the Standard Model have three generations? Is it only three because we have not gotten to high enough energies, or is it because three comes from some nice Lie group? Who the hell knows.
and no doubt you can think of a few examples in QM (if you can, please let me know because I cannot think of any to hand!)
Quantum Chaos and Quantum Biology come to mind for some of the things you described. Here is an interesting article that came up with many of the same topics you find of interest.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/IJMNTA_2013032914031647.pdf
I consider my pursuit in life to be Mathematical Physics, so I like to develop Math tools that seem promising to be used toward theories with experimental results. Recently it occured to me that maybe we need a hybrid mathematical structure that incorporates both continuous and fractal at once.
The details are not completely worked out but I am thinking of the cartesian product of two math structures, one of which is continuous and the other fractal. It would be like the uncertainty principle, the more you know about the fractal, the less you know about the continuum and vice versa. Just a thought, something to do with dimension density as a function of location.... ponder....
(Let me know when you become rich and famous and/or if outcomes come from your theory; there is a wig shop not too far from here )
Absolutely. Thanks Justin101 for putting up with me. I am mostly a pushover IRL.
19 Sep 2019, 6:32 pm
20 Sep 2019, 1:06 am
No
go to Youtube and search for:
Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong
No to what? I have already seen that presentation. If you want great science presentations, check out the rest of the series of Royal Institute videos as well.
bigos, I have no idea who you are, but do you know any physics or high-level math? I actually do. I am not saying that because I do know that stuff, or because I have a Bachelor's Degree in Physics from an accredited major university, that I know all, and therefore listen to me and agree with everything I say; I am not saying that.
I do ask though bigos, why should we listen to you?
Can you give more reasoning than a link?
The theory above I described is beyond parts of known physics. I was born a savant at math who learned Calculus in 5th grade. In 6th grade I was starting to understand Relativity and QM. I have piles of books on physics and math that I read. This is not about bragging, it is just, what in the hell are you thinking? Do you honestly think you are wiser than I am? Who knows... maybe you are a HEP specialist and so on. It just feels like a smart person would know better than to write what you wrote.
Thing is, when I see two specialists in a technical field discuss their subject, I would never just go, "No, cuz of video on youtubes that reminds me of other things... like..."
So again, what are you saying no to? 
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| World's Fastest Microscope Captures Electrons in Attoseconds |
29 Aug 2024, 5:22 pm |
| ‘Real Housewives’ Tamra Judge |
20 Oct 2024, 12:02 pm |
