Quantum Theory concepts

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
Post Reply
MikeWirth
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:53 pm

Quantum Theory concepts

Post by MikeWirth »

Starting this thread to stay separate from String Theory topic although there may be some merging of concepts.

Many QT concepts have been used by RS2 from the several papers and the thread topics in the other subforum but the concept of "quantum foam" hasn't yet been looked at.

My idea is to modify this concept of a contant generating and growing "foam" of space-time unit "bubbles" as a workable QT model of the outward progression in our stationary spatial reference system. If applied in this specific way it may a nice approachable concept to bridge the conceptual barrier to the mainstream mind.

It also raises the question of "is it the case that space-time spherical units have some degree of intersecting/overlapping of their boundaries similar to how bubbles in a foam appear?" - even in a near vacuum region?

Since there is always the CMB then does that mean there will always be boundary overlap?

If an idealized condition ie. zero CMB, would there still be boundary overlap?

If there is no crossing or overlap occurring then ithe outward progression would appear similar to a packing of spheres (although in a dynamic expanding form) with the problem of "interstices" between them. That would lead to the need for smaller space-time spherical units to fill these interstices and so the need for other "sizes" or space and time constant values.

But since it is postulated for our physical universe that there is one unique set of constants/parameters for the space-time units then it seems that overlap is a given condition. Is this the case?

On a separate note, a question about a double slit experiment validating the quantum mechanical nature within the size parameters of space-time units.

Since the space unit is approx 455.6 microns (is this radius or diameter? not specified in books) then set up a double slit experiment where let's say 3 different apparatuses are used. The 1st apparatus uses slit width of 420 microns and slits are 420 microns apart while the 2nd apparatus uses 455.6 microns and the 3rd uses 480 microns.

Use various particles to beam through these slits ie photons, beta and alpha particles and

see how the interference patterns change based on slit width and separation. Would it be the case that the 3rd apparatus - being greater than the space unit parameter - have a drastically differerent pattern than the other two? Would the 480 micron spacing be enough to indicate non-quantum/time region behavior while the other two do?

Would this be a conclusive and valid way to prove the discrete, quantum nature of space-time? Shouldn't 455.6 microns be the limit value of the slits for observing interference? How would various wavelengths of particle beams influence this?

Gopi, Bruce or anyone with some expertise - does this approach have merit? Thanks.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Quantum Theory concepts

Post by bperet »

MikeWirth wrote:
Many QT concepts have been used by RS2 from the several papers and the thread topics in the other subforum but the concept of "quantum foam" hasn't yet been looked at.
Quantum foam has been looked at; I just haven't gotten around to putting my notes out on the forum/site. I had this idea to make a "quantum foam solar panel".

MikeWirth wrote:
My idea is to modify this concept of a contant generating and growing "foam" of space-time unit "bubbles" as a workable QT model of the outward progression in our stationary spatial reference system. If applied in this specific way it may a nice approachable concept to bridge the conceptual barrier to the mainstream mind.
You don't actually have to grow it, because it happens naturally. Picture the progression of the Natural Reference System as an expanding grid. Each time the boxes on the grid reach 2 units in size, a new set of grid lines appears, splitting the boxes so that they are 1 unit in size. Every time those new absolute locations show up, you've got a foam bubble. So we have this sea of new bubbles constantly being created by the progression.

MikeWirth wrote:
It also raises the question of "is it the case that space-time spherical units have some degree of intersecting/overlapping of their boundaries similar to how bubbles in a foam appear?" - even in a near vacuum region?
Not sure what you mean by "space-time spherical units". What we see at the atomic scale in microscopes is not the unit boundary, but the equivalent space. We can't see the unit boundary because it has a displacement of 0 -- looks like a singularity to the microscopes.

In order for atomic cohesion to occur, the bubbles must overlap; the surface of one passing thru the center of the other (where the surface is the unit speed boundary, such that anything outside progresses away, and anything inside progresses towards the center). This is the only stable configuration. If the bubbles did not overlap, the progression would just carry them further apart. If they overlap slightly, then they get pulled together, since the progression is acting inward towards the center, rather than outward towards infinity.

MikeWirth wrote:
Since there is always the CMB then does that mean there will always be boundary overlap?
CMB = Cosmic Microwave Background radiation? That's just noise from cosmic stars; not understanding the correlation to quantum foam.

MikeWirth wrote:
If there is no crossing or overlap occurring then ithe outward progression would appear similar to a packing of spheres (although in a dynamic expanding form) with the problem of "interstices" between them. That would lead to the need for smaller space-time spherical units to fill these interstices and so the need for other "sizes" or space and time constant values.
David Halprin came up with this idea a few years ago, thinking that Larson's 3rd, "ethical sector" was filling the interstices.

But with RS2, the "sphere" is part of the illusion of projection. The units of space are neither cubic nor spherical; that is just how we perceive them, under a specific set of assumptions. They are locations, not objects. Remember it is a unit SPACE boundary, a transition point where speed changes from s/t to 1/t^2. That's probably the toughest hurdle in understanding the RS is thinking in terms of speeds, rather than objects. Speed (motion) has no form... what shape is 10 mph?

MikeWirth wrote:
But since it is postulated for our physical universe that there is one unique set of constants/parameters for the space-time units then it seems that overlap is a given condition. Is this the case?
Depends on your point of view... as "units" (objects), yes, they overlap. As motion (speed or energy), not, they don't since they are formless.

MikeWirth wrote:
On a separate note, a question about a double slit experiment validating the quantum mechanical nature within the size parameters of space-time units.

Since the space unit is approx 455.6 microns (is this radius or diameter? not specified in books) then set up a double slit experiment where let's say 3 different apparatuses are used. The 1st apparatus uses slit width of 420 microns and slits are 420 microns apart while the 2nd apparatus uses 455.6 microns and the 3rd uses 480 microns.
Actually the unit of space is 45.56 nanometres -- 0.04556 microns. I've always considered it a radius.

The problem then arises--if unit space is the smallest measurement of space, how can you make a slit less than the smallest possible amount?

MikeWirth wrote:
Use various particles to beam through these slits ie photons, beta and alpha particles and see how the interference patterns change based on slit width and separation. Would it be the case that the 3rd apparatus - being greater than the space unit parameter - have a drastically differerent pattern than the other two? Would the 480 micron spacing be enough to indicate non-quantum/time region behavior while the other two do?
Must also consider that time (atomic rotation) modifies space. As Larson says, an increase in time is tantamount to a decrease in space, so the effective size of atoms and particles depends upon what is inside them, which includes captured neutrinos (isotopic mass), electrons (electric ionization level), photons (thermal ionization level), etc. Here on Earth, at STP, it would be very difficult to get both the slit apparatus and particles consistent enough for good measurement, because the actual, measurable space would be different for every one. Just the thermal motion on a slit of unit-space size would be significant--your slit would be popping open and closed with the the thermal vibration.

MikeWirth wrote:
Gopi, Bruce or anyone with some expertise - does this approach have merit? Thanks.
It is an interesting idea; though I'm not sure it could actually be done due to natural limits, and the randomness of atomic structure in this environment.
Every dogma has its day...
MikeWirth
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:53 pm

Re: Quantum Theory concepts

Post by MikeWirth »

bperet wrote:
Quantum foam has been looked at; I just haven't gotten around to putting my notes out on the forum/site. I had this idea to make a "quantum foam solar panel".
Look forward to reading about this. Is the panel made of elements other than silicon? I read that there's been a shortage of silicon for making solar panels so a non-silicon panel would be ideal.

Quote:
MikeWirth wrote:
My idea is to modify this concept of a contant generating and growing "foam" of space-time unit "bubbles" as a workable QT model of the outward progression in our stationary spatial reference system. If applied in this specific way it may a nice approachable concept to bridge the conceptual barrier to the mainstream mind.
You don't actually have to grow it, because it happens naturally. Picture the progression of the Natural Reference System as an expanding grid. Each time the boxes on the grid reach 2 units in size, a new set of grid lines appears, splitting the boxes so that they are 1 unit in size. Every time those new absolute locations show up, you've got a foam bubble. So we have this sea of new bubbles constantly being created by the progression.
Growth in the sense that you stated - as constantly being created. It's probably not an accurate term but implies the organic nature of the universe.

The expanding grid model looks right except that shouldn't the grid be based on equilateral triangle/tetrahedral to separate the absolute locations? That way they are all equidistant.

Also, if I'm understanding correctly about the NRS, the foam and grid models themselves may be suspect because of this question.

Wouldn't there be an issue of modeling the motion units of the progression as an expanding grid since they are considered as 1D translations which means they can't generate a 3D volume in the same sense that an infinite sum of lines can't create a 2D plane or 3D volume? Is the NRS simply coupled to our reference system or does it play a part in creating it? Creating the volumetric character that is.

As Nehru points out 1D is created by point extension, 2D by line extension and 3D by plane extension. There is no line or plane extension created by the outward progression IF it's only 1D point extension (or translation). So how is the 3D reference system created and the continous expanding 3D grid of OP?

Quote:
MikeWirth wrote:
It also raises the question of "is it the case that space-time spherical units have some degree of intersecting/overlapping of their boundaries similar to how bubbles in a foam appear?" - even in a near vacuum region?
Not sure what you mean by "space-time spherical units". What we see at the atomic scale in microscopes is not the unit boundary, but the equivalent space. We can't see the unit boundary because it has a displacement of 0 -- looks like a singularity to the microscopes.
Maybe calling it "units with space-time spherical boundaries" is more correct? And also it is clear that we can't physically observe them but can visualize and measure their influence. Would it be accurate to say that a unit boundary can be visualized in the same way of visualizing the spherical shape of a gravitational limit boundary? Seems like it would.

bperet wrote:
In order for atomic cohesion to occur, the bubbles must overlap; the surface of one passing thru the center of the other (where the surface is the unit speed boundary, such that anything outside progresses away, and anything inside progresses towards the center). This is the only stable configuration. If the bubbles did not overlap, the progression would just carry them further apart. If they overlap slightly, then they get pulled together, since the progression is acting inward towards the center, rather than outward towards infinity.
Might there always be some minimum overlap to eliminate the interstice issue and to create a "cohesive" 3D reference system of space?

Larson used the analogy of motion units as links in a chain. Maybe there is some linkage involved which might require a slight overlap.
Quote:
MikeWirth wrote:
Since there is always the CMB then does that mean there will always be boundary overlap?
CMB = Cosmic Microwave Background radiation? That's just noise from cosmic stars; not understanding the correlation to quantum foam.
Yep, that was what I meant. Just pointing out that if there was no CMB there would be no particles to create overlap. This is an abstraction of an isolated sector where there would be ideal vacuum conditions and presumably no overlap.

Quote:
MikeWirth wrote:
If there is no crossing or overlap occurring then ithe outward progression would appear similar to a packing of spheres (although in a dynamic expanding form) with the problem of "interstices" between them. That would lead to the need for smaller space-time spherical units to fill these interstices and so the need for other "sizes" or space and time constant values.
David Halprin came up with this idea a few years ago, thinking that Larson's 3rd, "ethical sector" was filling the interstices.
It sounds like the interstice issue is wide open.

bperet wrote:
But with RS2, the "sphere" is part of the illusion of projection. The units of space are neither cubic nor spherical; that is just how we perceive them, under a specific set of assumptions. They are locations, not objects. Remember it is a unit SPACE boundary, a transition point where speed changes from s/t to 1/t^2. That's probably the toughest hurdle in understanding the RS is thinking in terms of speeds, rather than objects. Speed (motion) has no form... what shape is 10 mph?
I would think for the purpose of symmetry, isotropy and uniformity that a cubic form would never be assumed as a boundary shape. The perfect symmetry of a sphere would seem to be the natural form and the "natural" assumption.

Regarding the double slit experiment:

bperet wrote:
The problem then arises--if unit space is the smallest measurement of space, how can you make a slit less than the smallest possible amount?

It is an interesting idea; though I'm not sure it could actually be done due to natural limits, and the randomness of atomic structure in this environment.
Since I moved the decimal point 2 places the wrong way (?) I can see where now it is a problem. Is there any other experimental approach to prove the quantum parameters of space and time that would get the mainstream's attention?
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Quantum Theory concepts

Post by bperet »

MikeWirth wrote:
Wouldn't there be an issue of modeling the motion units of the progression as an expanding grid since they are considered as 1D translations which means they can't generate a 3D volume in the same sense that an infinite sum of lines can't create a 2D plane or 3D volume?
They are 1D scalar motions--not translations. Translation has direction, and there is no direction in "magnitude only." It's the expanding balloon in Larson's analogy with the balloon and spots on it. Scalar motion = change in scale = expansion (or contraction, from the inverse perspective).

It isn't a sum of lines. Areas and volumes require 2 or 3 scalar dimensions to interact. For example, when one scalar dimension (a line) interacts with a 2nd--in ANOTHER dimension--you basically have one line sweeping another, producing the "area" concept.

MikeWirth wrote:
Is the NRS simply coupled to our reference system or does it play a part in creating it? Creating the volumetric character that is.
IMHO, the coordinate reference system is a projection--a shadow--of the NRS, that is a byproduct of the assumptions created by our physical senses. I think your idea of an underlying tetrahedral geometry may lead to a definitive explanation of how other strata of geometry are created and interpreted.

MikeWirth wrote:
As Nehru points out 1D is created by point extension, 2D by line extension and 3D by plane extension. There is no line or plane extension created by the outward progression IF it's only 1D point extension (or translation). So how is the 3D reference system created and the continous expanding 3D grid of OP?
What is being created isn't a reference system, but a camera used by consciousness to interpret what is already there.

Our senses WILL ALWAYS see 3 dimensions. We cannot perceive a 1 or 2 dimensional object. The photon, for example, is a 1-dimensional object. Science calls it a "point particle" because there is nothing there to measure but a location. However, we can see the path it leaves in 3 dimensions as a waveform.

That is why ONE scalar dimension is seen as expressed by 3 coordinate dimensions--it is the assumption of our senses.

As Nehru described in his "The Inter-Regional Ratio" article, the other 2 scalar dimensions have no direct representation in the coordinate system--they can only modify that first dimension that our consciousness has defined a 3D coordinate system for. Given Larson's view of extension space, that is correct. But not a restriction of the Universe--a restriction of our physical senses. We just need a better camera to see more. Think of the old days when movies and TV were in black & white... they found a way to add that 2nd dimensional information by creating a better camera--a color camera. The objects and scenery are still the same, but now there is extra information added by color--the original B&W view has been modified.

MikeWirth wrote:
Maybe calling it "units with space-time spherical boundaries" is more correct? And also it is clear that we can't physically observe them but can visualize and measure their influence. Would it be accurate to say that a unit boundary can be visualized in the same way of visualizing the spherical shape of a gravitational limit boundary? Seems like it would.
Try thinking of it more like a contour map, where unit speed is one of the contour lines. It can take any shape, just as long as the net speed from all the involved motions is unity. If you only have one object on the map, it takes the simplest form--the sphere.

Soap bubbles sticking together is a good, 3D example. The overlap area changes the net speeds... the boundary is always where speed, energy, space or time is unity.

MikeWirth wrote:
bperet wrote:
CMB = Cosmic Microwave Background radiation? That's just noise from cosmic stars; not understanding the correlation to quantum foam.
Yep, that was what I meant. Just pointing out that if there was no CMB there would be no particles to create overlap. This is an abstraction of an isolated sector where there would be ideal vacuum conditions and presumably no overlap.
I think you've implied more than that... given that the progression is constantly creating new, absolute locations, I would say that it is more than probably that the incoming background radiation from the cosmic sector would be sucked up by those newly-formed locations. Being inverse matter, it would have to emit particles until it's net speed was under 3 (so all motion was inside the time region), leaving only photons, positrons and electrons. Congratulations... I think you just figured out where the quantum foam originates... the CMB overlaid upon new locations in the NRS.

MikeWirth wrote:
Since I moved the decimal point 2 places the wrong way (?) I can see where now it is a problem.
Probably interpreted a value specified in centimeters as meters.

MikeWirth wrote:
Is there any other experimental approach to prove the quantum parameters of space and time that would get the mainstream's attention?
Haven't thought of one yet. Might want to look up Planck's "Natural Units", which work a lot like Larsons, except based on the gravitational constant and MUCH smaller. Could give a clue to an experiment.
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply