Coincidence & Touch

[Horace]

Empiricaly when two photons or atoms come in contact (become coincident in space) they interact, interfering with each other or simply bumping into each other.

This is how the sense of touch works. Most likely it happens through superposition of the two motions (at least I cannot envision any other way).

One might be tempted to state that two particles do not interact until they touch, but careful consideration exposes this as not always true.

For example:

1) two atoms interact gravitationaly and possibly electricaly/magneticaly, without touching

2) two electrons interact electricaly, without touching

3) even two photons can interact without touching (entanglement)

These examples might seem as the dreaded "action at a distance"...in space, but students of RS will immediately notice that they are the result of coincidence in time or superposition in time.

This might lead to a disturbing question:

- Can there be something that does not interact ?

This might not be such a stupid question considering frame switching and the concept of "everywhen"...

Anyway, the study of something as natural as touch (spatial superposition) or its temporal analog (fields) seems to be the ideal framework for studying the nature of scalar motion

Regards,

Horace

P.S.

Is the "expanding observer phenomemon" as described by Mark McCutcheon in his book The Final Theory (only chapters 1,2,3 are worth reading BTW) a form of reference system distortion, that is the result of temporal interactions ?

[davelook]

Horace wrote:

Empiricaly when two photons or atoms come in contact (become coincident in space) they interact, interfering with each other or simply bumping into each other.

This is how the sense of touch works. Most likely it happens through superposition of the two motions (at least I cannot envision any other way).

Actually, that's what distinguishes bosons, which CAN occupy the same space without interaction (think of lasers), from fermions (electrons, protons, etc)

which can't even occupy the same energy level in an atom, (Pauli exclusion principle).

But I do agree about fields and time. More and more recent papers I read are leaning towards the idea of "time density" being the cause of "action at a distance".

[bperet]

Horace wrote:

This might lead to a disturbing question:

- Can there be something that does not interact ?

If there is, we'll never know about it because it will be progressing in both space and time and totally outside our realm of perception.

Horace wrote:

Anyway, the study of something as natural as touch (spatial superposition) or its temporal analog (fields) seems to be the ideal framework for studying the nature of scalar motion

To put it in space/time terms, when you have "motion" you have interaction. Some net motion in space passing through some net motion in time, or vice versa. "Touch" occurs when you don't have motion: space to space or time to time (which is why atoms don't pass through each other, both being temporal rotations).

You can force "touch" into "interaction" through fusion, in which case the net displacements will combine.

[bperet]

davelook wrote:

Actually, that's what distinguishes bosons, which CAN occupy the same space without interaction (think of lasers),

But each photon of light is at its own absolute location in the natural reference system, so they technically aren't occupying the same spatial position, they only appear to.

davelook wrote:

from fermions (electrons, protons, etc) which can't even occupy the same energy level in an atom, (Pauli exclusion principle).

Different reason there. Recall that particles and atoms are motion, each atomic rotation has a counterspatial field of a specific speed. When an electron gets trapped in that speed zone, the net motion becomes zero (for example 2-2=0). Hence, any other electron passing by will keep passing by, because it WILL have a net speed (0+2=+2) and keep moving. Only when the electron vacates the position in the "energy level", does the net motion become non-zero and thus allows another electron to get stuck there.

davelook wrote:

But I do agree about fields and time. More and more recent papers I read are leaning towards the idea of "time density" being the cause of "action at a distance".

They will eventually have to concede the existence of the cosmic sector and time, because there is really no other place they can go.

[Gopi]

davelook wrote:

Actually, that's what distinguishes bosons, which CAN occupy the same space without interaction (think of lasers), from fermions (electrons, protons, etc)

Bosons are at the same TIME, not the same SPACE. You will notice that the boson condensation occurs at a single point in momentum space, which is the quantum mechanical equivalent of equivalent space, or time. So it is like seeing a queue of people from the the front instead of from the side... they are all on different positions in the queue (absolute locations in the natural reference system) but if you look from the front, there is only one massive guy standing in front of you. Bosons are sitting on the 'real axis' of the Argand diagram.

As far as light interacting with light goes, that never happens, laser or otherwise, I think. Each photon is still moving away from every other photon, but our assumptions fold the map in such a way that we can manipulate them to "beam". The coherence in time, having the same frequency, is what makes it easier to beam them, so it appears they are close in space without interacting, and don't scatter much.

Fermions are sitting on the Argand Plane, and at a particular inverse speed (energy) of the atomic level, either the clockwise turn or the anticlockwise turn is open to them, to make the displacement zero. This gives the "up and down" spin states available. This is tentative, would like some feedback.

I wonder along the same lines, we have seen the "pairing up" of rotations:

1 material + 1 cosmic = photon

1 cosmic + 1 cosmic = cooper pair

1 material + 1 material = ?? (Brad Wright pair? )

If two positrons can be made to "touch" and reduce themselves to a line, would they run through insulators and give us super-resistivity?

[Horace]

What I find very interesting is that touch in space is all or nothing

...however touch in time has intermediate stages to it, or an illusion of intermediacy

I cannot fathom any other manner of interaction besides superposition, and that requires perfect coincidence, "close enough" just doesn't cut it.

This leads me to the remaining conclusion that "temporal touch" is an average of many temporal touches (superpositions)

Does this make any sense to anyone ?

[bperet]

Horace wrote:

This leads me to the remaining conclusion that "temporal touch" is an average of many temporal touches (superpositions)

Does this make any sense to anyone ?

I think you are contemplating the geometric duality... touch in space is points, touch in time are planes. Planes can rotate through each other, whereas points cannot.

[Horace]

Very good. Planes can intersect in more than binary manner.

Now, do the properties of this intersection resemble the gradients of the electric and magnetic fields?

Bruce wrote:

Planes can rotate through each other, whereas points cannot.

[bperet]

Horace wrote:

Now, do the properties of this intersection resemble the gradients of the electric and magnetic fields?

Yes, I would think so. For example, if you have planes rotating about a point, the intersections would form the radial lines of a dielectric field, which would be quantized.

Just remember that time has no direction in space, so we cannot measure the temporal collisions directly. We can only measure the effect they have on objects in space (as "forces"). What is seen as an EM gradient is that force on a measuring instrument.

[Horace]

Bruce wrote:

Just remember that time has no direction in space, so we cannot measure the temporal collisions directly

But we can infer them. Maybe we can even plot this inference for some kind of temporal observer and calculate how many temporal collisons/superpositions happen for a given E/B/G field intensity.

Conversely it should be possible to observe spatial superpositions of motions that comprise interacting cosmic matter.

Even if these collisions are widely distributed in space, they should be observable as a phenomenon like the CBR. More importantly there should be geometry to it (e.g. the spatial distribution of these collisions shoud be different for cosmic electrons repelling in coordinate time at short temporal distances vs. large distances).

I know that coordinate time is not the same as the clock time that we experience everyday, but time is time - it still is the same aspect of motion, regardless of reference system.

Temporal collison/superposition exists depite the reference system they are depicted in (regardles of clock v.s coordinate time), don't they?.

How can motion collide in coordinate time yet stay separated in clock time - shouldn't compute, should it?

This issue is extremely interesting to me. It is one of the things that cannot be seen but are of paramount importance.

Without temporal superpositions we'd have the Newton's system, so let's concentrate on this difference