The Lego Theory

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Prosoothus, Nov 13, 2002.

  1. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,973
    One of the major problems (at least for me) in quantum physics are the uncertainty principles. Most physicists believe that this uncertainty is the result of true randomness in the subatomic world. However, I believe that this uncertainty is the result of unknown factors that exist in multiple dimensions. If a subatomic particle transfers energy between multiple dimensions, the particle would appear to act randomly, or with uncertainty, by an observer in our universe.

    The foundation of my theory states that subatomic particles exist in 4 or more spatial dimensions. If particles exist in four or more spatial dimensions, why is our macro world only three dimensional? The answer is that, for some unknown reason, the subatomic particles can only stack themselves in three dimensions. Since subatomic particles stack themsleves in only three dimensions, a likely assumption would be that the total dimensions of a particle are multiples of three. So for example, if subatomic particles are six dimensional then three of their dimensions would stack in our universe, while the other three dimensions would stack in a parallel universe. For the remainder of this post, I will assume that subatomic particles consist of six spatial dimensions.

    You may ask me what I mean by "stack". To explain it in it's simplist terms assume you had a bunch of lego blocks. Assume that the lego blocks had connectors on their sides, but they did not have connectors on the top and the bottom. As a result, you can only connect the blocks on their sides. You can't stack the blocks one on top of the other. Using these blocks, you can create a two dimensional world. If this two dimensional world evolves into an intelligent life form, this life form would only see two dimensions. Since the third dimension is unstackable, the life form would only witness this third dimension as a physical constant in some of its physics formulas.

    The life form is actually two dimensional even though it is composed of three dimensional lego blocks. The two dimensional life form understands it's macro world (since it's two dimensional just like itself). However, when the lifeform starts bombarding its two dimensional world in its particle accelerator, it is confused by properties of the individual lego blocks it discovers. The lifeform is confused because it is only two dimensional while the lego blocks are three dimensional. Suddenly, the lifeform realizes that its two dimensional world (classic physics) is completely different than the three dimensional world (quantum physics) of the lego block. But the lifeform still doesn't understand that the difference between its classical physics and its quantum physics is simply one additional dimension.

    Now back to reality. Let's assume that subatomic particles in our world exist in six dimensions. You can visualize these particles as twelve-sided cubes in which six of its sides stack in our universe, while the other six sides stack in a parallel universe. In all cases (except one, which I will describe later) the matter that combines in this universe combines in the parallel universe as well. Therefore, a water molecule in our universe would have a sister water molecule in the parallel universe. The more complex the matter in our universe, the more its behavior is predictable as a result of the "averaging" of the properties of the particles in both universes. However, individual subatomic particle's behavior are the least predictable since there is almost no "averaging"; any small change in the particles behavior in the parallel unverse will influence a change in the particles behavior in our universe. This is the main reason why we still don't have a Theory of Everything.

    As I described above, in most cases a complex particle (a particle consisting of one or more fundamental particles) in our universe has a counterpart in the parallel universe. However, there are special cases in which a complex particle decays into two or more particles in our universe, but doesn't decay in the parallel universe. In this case, the decayed particles will "know what each other are doing" since they are still one particle in the parallel universe. So for example, if one of the decayed particles spin changes in our universe, this energy will be transmitted interdimensionally to the particle in the parallel universe. The energy will then be transferred from the particle in the parallel universe back to the second decay particle in our universe, forcing its spin to change. This phenomena is known as quantum entaglement.

    Well, that's all I have for now. Feel free to poke holes in my theory.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Tom
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2002
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    I dislike the common acceptance of the idea that electron positions can not accurately be predicted. Well, maybe they can't now. But in the future I'm sure we'll have it all figured out.

    Well, maybe I'm not talking about your theory, just throwing stuff out. Never mind.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,973
    James,

    Taken from another thread:

    You're right. I originally developed this theory to explain the unusual behavior and unpredictability of subatomic particles. I just recently extended it to explain quantum entanglement.

    You're guess is as good as I mine.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What I do know is that it appears that subatomic particles are far more complex than our macro world. I just assumed that the complexity is the result of additional dimensions.

    Tom
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2002
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,973
    Crisp,

    Taken from another thread:

    Well, I don't think Bell proved that nonlocal hidden variables don't exist, he just proved that local hidden variables are not responsible for certain quantum uncertainties. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    My theory gives an reasonable explanation of how nonlocal hidden variables can influence quantum phenomena through interdimensional energy transfer. I don't think that it contradicts any of Bell's findings.

    Tom
     
  8. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    This crap does not belong in the Physics & Math forum. This forum is not for the parading of one's stupid pet theories.

    - Warren
     
  9. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Hi Tom,

    "Well, I don't think Bell proved that nonlocal hidden variables don't exist, he just proved that local hidden variables are not responsible for certain quantum uncertainties. Please correct me if I'm wrong."

    Uhhhhrrrrr.... I'll have to get back to you on that one. At the moment I can't find a way to put this delicate explanation into proper words... Very briefly, it comes down to this: what Bell showed is that any nonlocal, hidden variable theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics... I'd have to look up the exact details again to relate it with the quantum uncertainties you mention, but I think the contradiction is clear: Bell states that no such theory can exist (or is tenible) as long as we have quantummechanics

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,678
    <b>chroot</b>:

    If you cannot explain why this theory is wrong, perhaps it is right; in which case, it certainly deserves a place in the physics forum.


    <b>Tom:</b>

    A theory that is untestable is unscientific. Unless your theory makes predictions which differ from what currently-accepted theories say, and we can test those predictions to distinguish the two theories, your theory is not of any use.

    The sole exception to this would be if your theory was simpler than the current theories, but had the same explanatory power. However, it seems that your theory as presented only goes part way toward explaining even the single effect which was the reason for its invention. It is nowhere near as powerful a theory as quantum mechanics is, and there appears to be no way to distinguish the results derived from each.

    On the basis of Occam's razor, we must therefore throw out your theory, unless you can provide a test or a complete framework at least as powerful as quantum mechanics (the theory you are attempting to overturn).
     
  11. lethe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,009
    You re not wrong. let me modify your statement a little:

    "Bell did not prove that nonlocal hidden variables don't exist. he proved that local hidden variables are incompatible with quantum uncertainties, which are experimentally verified, hence local hidden variables do not describe reality."
     
  12. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,973
    James,

    I'm not sure about that. The theory of curved space-time is untestable as well. There is, as far as I know, no experiment that can be done that proves that space can or does curve. For all we know, gravity can be similiar to the other long distance interaction (electromagnetic interaction).

    As far as I know, there aren't any other theories for quantum entanglement. Nor are there any mathematical models that predict the behavior of subatomic particles with certainty. Whenever physicists run into a particle that behaves unpredictably, they label its behavior as random instead of just assuming they don't have enough information. My theory not only explains quantum entanglement, but also explains quantum unpredictabilities without having to accept such "shaky" ideas as randomness or uncertainty. My theory is simple causality, with no uncertainty or randomness. You can't get any simpler than that.

    But I didn't post my theory to gain fame, I posted it to force people to open their minds to the possibility that there may be more than three dimensions in the subatomic world. I also wanted to illustrate that extra dimensions don't curl, as suggested by some theories, but that the reason they don't exist in the macro world is because they don't "stack". With regards to Occam's razor, it's far simpler to explain these extra dimensions as not stacking, instead of curling.

    Finally, let me say that if my theory inspires some people to attempt to understand how the universe works, my theory was succesfull, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

    Tom
     
  13. lethe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,009
    Incorrect. there can be, and are, experiments which verify the predicitons of curved space-time.

    if a theory does not have physical predictions, then its not worth discussing (with a few exceptions)

    let me ask you something about this nonsensical theory. does it have some mechanism for randomness? you say that when we observe a random particle, it only looks random because we don t know enough information.

    by occam s razor, which you quote below, i think that if it looks random, it is random. simplest solution, remember? but if you want to choose a more complicated solution, you may do so. but you must somehow describe to me how this deterministic system looks random when we measure it. if the information is there, why can t we measure it? if it is not random, then why does it look random?

    one of the reasons i label this theory as quackery, is this notion of stacking. i don t know what it means to "stack" dimensions together. will this explain why we only see 4 dimensions?
     
  14. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    This is incorrect.
    Explain how your theory directly calculates the mean lifetime of a free neutron as appoximately 15 minutes. Show your work.

    Perhaps you will one day realize your theory is philosophical, not scientific. It predicts nothing verifiable.

    - Warren
     
  15. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,973
    lethe,

    Curved space-time is just a model. Assume that you create a model where space does not curve, but in which every particle of space has a gravitational value. If you apply values to these particles of space, so that their values are proportional to the supposed curvature of space in the "curved-space model", you will find that the resulting model is indistingushable from the curved-space model.

    One more thing, you seem to have forgotten that the electrostatic interaction is a long distance interaction as well. And that its strength also decreases at the same rate as the gravitational force. How exactly do you prove that gravity must be the result of curved space-time, while the electrostatic interaction doesn't have to be??

    I have to totally disagree. One of the hardest things to understand is true randomness, while the simplist thing to understand is cause-and effect. By Occam's razor, it would be simpler to assume that some factors are unknown in a particles behavior, than it is to accept the principle of randomness.

    Remember when you discussed quantum entanglement in one of your previous posts?? What would happen if you were only measuring one of electrons from the pion decay, and you had no idea that the second electron even exists?? Now let's assume that the second electron passes through a field, forcing it's spin to change. Suddenly, for no reason (in your mind), the spin of the electron you are observing changes as well. Would you call this randomness?? You would if you didn't know about the second electron. If you knew about the second electron, then it would be cause-and-effect (even though you still wouldn't know how the energy was transmitted). By measuring the first electron, can you tell, ahead of time, when the second electron will go through a field? The answer is no. You will know that the spin of the second electron changed, when the spin of the electron your measuring changes, but you can't predict the exact moment it will change because you don't know the current position of the second electron. For all you know, the second electron might pass through a field in one second, one day, on year, or maybe never. You see, even things that look random may not be.

    I spent two paragraphs in my first post describing how three dimensional lego blocks can build a two dimensional world. Just extend this idea to imagine six dimensional blocks that stack in three dimensions (I'm excluding time). It's really not hard to understand it when you think about it a little.

    Tom
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2002
  16. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,973
    chroot,

    See my response on my previous post.

    My theory implies that there may be unlocal hidden variables that influence a particles behavior, and where these variables may be "hiding". Nowhere did I indicate that I knew what the values of these variables are.

    Tom
     
  17. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    This is incorrect. I've said it a million times -- please just go get yourself a real physics education before embarking on a quest to prove it all wrong. There are indeed experiments which can directly demonstrate the curvature of space, without any other explanations.
    Time does not slow down in a strong electric field. It does in a strong gravitational field.
    No. Once again, this is your intuition and culturation talking. You're clinging to the deterministic world view only because it has more aesthetic appeal to you. It looks beautiful and elegant to you. The cold hard fact is that determinism requires many more "knobs to turn" than probabilism. As such, probabilism is simpler.
    a) Nothing like this ever happens in experiment. Once you've measured the first electron, you've collapsed the wavefunction of the second. The second doesn't collapse later and upset your measurement of the first.

    b) You can always deduce the emission of an unseen particle by the tell-tale angular and linear momentum it takes away from the system. Virtually never are neutrinos actually detected in particle accelerator experiments; they are deduced by the momentum with which they sneak away.
    You have still not provided any indication that causality and randomness are incompatible, yet you continue to use it as a basis for logic. It isn't.
    Once again, this never happens. Your entire premise is flawed. The second electron's wavefunction was collapsed the instant you made a measurement of the first.
    A "dimension" is a degree of freedom of a system, usually expressed as a coordinate related to some abitrary origin. Dimensions don't stack, add, mix, or go to high school proms. Three dimensional lego blocks do not build two-dimensional worlds; they necessarily build three-dimensional ones.

    - Warren
     
  18. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    The concept of hidden variables has been as soundly beaten as was the geocentric model. It has been shown conclusively that hidden variables do not exist. Perhaps the mathematics and notation is beyond you, and as such you dismiss it. In either case, it stands -- your beloved hidden variable notion is wrong. Sorry.

    - Warren
     
  19. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,973
    chroot,

    I don't know about quantum entanglement with electrons, but many experiments have been done with the quantum entanglement of photons. In Australia, they even built a simple teleporter based on quantum entanglement.

    Whether there are collapsing wave functions or not, it has been proven that some subatomic particles can "share" properties even if they're nowhere near each other. How can you ignore this fact and assume that the unpredictability of an electron's orbit must be the result of randomness, and not of simple quantum entanglement???

    Tom
     
  20. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    Quantum entanglement with what? Do you have any idea what you're even talking about?

    - Warren
     
  21. SoLiDUS OMGWTFBBQ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,593
    In the left corner, wearing BLUE trunks, we have chroot!

    In the right corner, wearing GOLD trunks, we have Prosoothus!

    Due to popular demand, we will forego the national anthem and
    statistics review. Ladies and gentlemen, llllllllllllllllllllllllet's get ready
    to rumblllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllle!!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. allant Version 1.0 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    88
    Ok lets raise the bar a bit. Take two particles that are entangled, and let them separate. Later we measure one and find one of two states. We find that if we measure red in one we will measure blue in the other or vice versa.

    For explanations sake, lets assume the two particles think. Now before they separate they can secretly agree on what they are going to do - the hidden variable. If true then we measure red on particle A. Particle B will measure blue. No problem so far.

    Bell experiment showed that this does not work - they dont have enough info locally at the time of separation to decide and they do not have enough info at measurement time to decide either.

    A doesn't work fix suggested was to allow the particles to be aware of where they will go before they go there, but another experiment changed the path after the particles split and showed that this doesnt work either, unless the particles can see the future.

    There are some not nice loop holes.

    The two particles could communicate later but more experiments show only if they can do so faster than the speed of light. Not good - instantaneous communication leaves a bad taste.

    Nother loop hole is buried in the Quantum wave equations, in the phase angle(s). The loop hole here is that it is not a static hidden variable, it uses time/space distance/interaction to decide. This replaces the probability, with a cause and effect like prediction, of when two particles will interact and how. This can solve the entanglement problem.

    This also leaves it looking random i.e. unpredictable/hidden. The only way to measure the phase thingy is to compare with something that will have its own phase which tells you nothing. To measure more meaningfull you need a ruler i.e. more than one particle. The only way of making more that one copy is entanglement. Which means we are back where we started.

    Promising so far BUT INCOMPLETE. If you assume the later and that the particle can not be in two places at the same time (In QET this is allowed while unobserved which equals not interacting with the local environment which equals not being phase changed in the later theory), then the "one photon/electron appears to go through both or all of two or more slots problem" does not get solved. Dang!

    P.S Dont ya just love long convoluted sentences.
    P.P.S Got to cut back on the coffee.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,678
    Tom,

    <i>The theory of curved space-time is untestable as well. There is, as far as I know, no experiment that can be done that proves that space can or does curve.</i>

    No. The theory of curved spacetime makes a number of testable predictions which can be checked against observational and experimental evidence. Importantly, the predictions are not just qualitative; they are also <b>quantitative</b> - precise numbers can be calculated for various predicted quantities, and these check out when you do the experiment.

    <i>As far as I know, there aren't any other theories for quantum entanglement.</i>

    You couldn't be more wrong. Quantum entanglement wasn't just dreamed up - it is an integral part of quantum theory. It pops out of the maths. Effects of it are observed in countless experiments. Again, <b>quantitative</b> predictions are made regarding it, and they check out with the experimental data.

    <i>Whenever physicists run into a particle that behaves unpredictably, they label its behavior as random instead of just assuming they don't have enough information.</i>

    Your knowledge of how physicists do their work is sadly lacking if you believe this kind of rubbish.

    <i>My theory not only explains quantum entanglement, but also explains quantum unpredictabilities without having to accept such "shaky" ideas as randomness or uncertainty.</i>

    Ok, put your money where your mouth is.

    I have a photon polarised at 45 degrees to some axis. I fire it at a polarising beam-splitter oriented with its optic axis at 0 degrees. The photon which comes out of the beam splitter will either by polarised at 0 degrees or at 90 degrees.

    Now, what does your theory say the answer is? Will my detector detect a photon polarisation of 0 degrees or 90 degrees? Will the detected polarisation always be the same? If not, explain any possible randomness, and the expected proportions of the two possible results using your theory.

    Note: quantum mechanics deals with this problem precisely.

    <i>I also wanted to illustrate that extra dimensions don't curl, as suggested by some theories, but that the reason they don't exist in the macro world is because they don't "stack".</i>

    Can you explain what it means for a dimension to "stack", please? Wouldn't the 4-th dimension be at right angles to the first 3 dimensions? What does this "stacking" thing mean?

    <i>Curved space-time is just a model. Assume that you create a model where space does not curve, but in which every particle of space has a gravitational value. If you apply values to these particles of space, so that their values are proportional to the supposed curvature of space in the "curved-space model", you will find that the resulting model is indistingushable from the curved-space model.</i>

    Yes, curved spacetime is a model. But it is a self-consistent model which is able to make quantitative predictions, as discussed previously. Your dimensional stacking model does not appear to have that ability, at least on what we've seen so far.

    <i>How exactly do you prove that gravity must be the result of curved space-time, while the electrostatic interaction doesn't have to be??</i>

    Haven't we done this before? The acceleration of a mass in a constant gravitational field is independent of the mass. On the other hand, the acceleration of a charged particle in an electric field depends on both mass and charge. That's the fundamental problem.

    <i>...By measuring the first electron, can you tell, ahead of time, when the second electron will go through a field? The answer is no....</i>

    What's this stuff about going through a field? That has nothing to do with entanglement.

    <i>I spent two paragraphs in my first post describing how three dimensional lego blocks can build a two dimensional world.</i>

    It doesn't work. Your lego blocks are three-dimensional, even if they don't "stack" in one of those dimensions. They build a 3-dimensional world, not a 2-dimensional one, because they have height as well as length and width.
     

Share This Page