the reason we can use the delta function here, is because for instance, we infer on the length of we must infer on the superpositioning of . Then the remaining two choices are and , and they become the Dirac Delta when required.
the reason we can use the delta function here, is because for instance, we infer on the length of we must infer on the superpositioning of . Then the remaining two choices are and , and they become the Dirac Delta when required.
My approach is similar when you count up the particles in the observable universe.
Normally, I see claims like particles for the observable universe. This is not mathematically-true since it has to attend for all the dimensions of space
of particles in the observable universe. So maybe the energy levels are the same?
If so, then in approxmately 15 billion years, our universe will quantum leap. So none of us need to worry... yet.
How can your claims be tested scientifically? If you've posted this already, please point out the post.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
I've been asked this, but I will substantiate these points again.
My theory must rely on a big bang collapse of the wave function. If pilot waves have any physical significance, this can be taken that our universe is one of a large, but still finite amount of universes governed on a path which enables excited state universes in the first place.
Also, more delicate precision techniques on the arrangement of ground state systems in an excited system globally might assure us that ground state systems in a global sense are violated. If indeed, we find that energy is being used up more frequently, which my theory must attend and conform, then we have a theory of a universe which is in an excited phase.
I was asking you different questions then the one you mentioned.
Yes, I thought that was where you were going with this: You seem to be insisting on a caused universe.I could never believe that our universe appeared sporadically without a prior cause. That just goes against the way my brain is wired - there is a cause and effect to everything, and without one before BB, to me posits a mechanical problem of the universe.
But, if the universe must be caused, then must the cause have a cause? And if not, why not? If something beyond the universe can just exist, why can't our universe just exist?
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
In my model, we call the finite amount of universes ''the sea of universes''.
It is these that don't have a cause per se. The reason why is because, none of these universes exist ''side-by-side'' like they might do in the Everett-interpretation of many universes - usually in the latter here, we deal with many universes - this is because the minima in the potential have an equally infinite amount of possible vacua. The reason specifically however, why the sea of universes do not need a deterministic creation per se for each one individually is because each universe is completely self-contained --- and if there was some fixed time which records the creation of each universe, we would find that each universe appeared at different chronological orders.
For instance, one universe appears because one and only one universe has just given up enough energy to pass onto the baby universe. This may actually be just slightly enough energy to pass into another universe. This energy will increase in time, each time a universe passes this parcel on. The reason why is because with each of these universes, more energy is produced with each universe, therefore the energy to require a quantum leap also evolves.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Since has dimensions of length equal or less to than the remaining sum of lengths in our trigonometric rules then we result in three possible equations, where any sum of any two lengths are governed by superpostioning principles
and the last inequality which is
Are my equations governing the inequality triangulation laws for space and time. The equations governing the importances of this theory when you run the hands of time backwards can be extrapolated here in this thread, which sat for weeks without anyone replying to it, apart from one good man who tied to start conversation
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....he-first-place
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
This is the hard difficult point to realize: since there is no real chronological order, you cannot infer on which universe was the Father Universe. Any universe is just as good cause for any primal experience of these theories.
One example I used, was imagine you had 10 universes. Let's say we experienced this universe and the 5th universe we came to everything rushed to the first again, like you would expect in a less-descriptive cyclic universe theory. After this fifth universe, you may talk about the 1st again... BUT... here comes the snag. You could have talked about the second universe giving birth to the first, never mind the fifth.
So in effect, we have no timelike link between the universes. The question ''where did the first universe come from'' becomes redundant. It could have literally, came from any universe. It does not matter about therefore, a true chronological order. Therefore, pre-state existences in this unique deck shuffling of universes does not require a beginning, only an end, if one exists.
But these references must have an order in energy - if they don't have an order in energy, you can't speak about an increasing energy between systems totally identifying energy states also increasing.
Time vanishes in a global sense also, so we cannot speak about it even in a multi-global sense. A wave function for instance, experiencing a derivative of time could not experience a true chronological order if a global time exists.
You can't make an assumption on the creation of any universe in the context of a sea of universes, because no universe has a true chronological order. The only kind of order that exists, is the more than or equal to energy condition required to excite a universe in existence. The best we can infer on my theory, is that these universes have always been in existence, in existence in the fact that they all purport to each other, they explain each other, and trying to explain one without the other is meaningless.
If I wanted to express this for four dimensions, it would be normal to invoke the d'Alembertain operator, but doing so would drastically change the equations I think.
Last edited by Aethelwulf; 2012-May-08 at 02:20 PM.
This actually isn't allowed, I don't think it is proper to express the Laplacian on the wave function on the right, then express a four-dimensional case on the left. That was a bit of a silly mistake.
Last edited by Aethelwulf; 2012-May-08 at 02:19 PM.
There maybe a tweek one could use in this equation, as a coefficient on the right hand side taking the form .... however, for a generalization, we may assume that a in natural units.
Mathematically, this is because of the four-gradient:
This is now not only dimensionally-consistent, but also merits the same features the wave equation should. You might even recognize similar terms in a Klein Gorden equation.
Another way to show this so that it has the term is by showing that
Last edited by Aethelwulf; 2012-May-08 at 01:48 PM.
Or the last alternative is:
the right hand side of this expression turned into an equation would be difficult to write out in the contexts above.
Last edited by Aethelwulf; 2012-May-08 at 01:48 PM.
What observations already support your speculation?
What observations would support your speculation?
What observations would falisfy your speculation?
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple
1) The accelerated expansion already supports the quantum leap hypothesis of a universe
2) An observation of Pilot Waves would be good in this theory because the theory relies on a certain type of information which predestines a universe to follow excited state forms. I can't let it all occur randomly as there would be no way to assure that a universe would like to arise in an excited state. So... a deterministic wave function would support this theory.
3) If technology gets really good to probe alternative universes, or maybe if we create the ability to have wormholes one day threaded with exotic matter which can take you into a parallel universe, then this would falsify this model. But that seems unrealistic as we'd be a long long way from that kind of technology. If someone could write some rigourous proof that the uncertainty principle could not be violated at the beginning of time then this could be considered a proof, since one of my arguements is that spacetime appeared between objects which had tunneled out of the mother universe and has squeezed into a point - this squeezing violated the uncertainty principle and drove the initial spacetim to expand. So if someone could prove that this was rubbish, my theory would be too. Even though these speculations where written about in my other thread, ''what caused spacetime to initially expand''? I made a mention of it that I had adopted it for this specific model - I don't know how damaging it would be to the entire theory if that part could never be entertained, only that I entertained it.
If this is the the correct way you'd write it in GR, which I am suspicious because I am prone to making mistakes, it does have a common feature we see quite a lot in QM.
It features in the Klein Gorden equation
Last edited by Aethelwulf; 2012-May-08 at 02:22 PM.
The reason why I am suspicious about this from of the equation is because the gravitational part using the Christoffel symbols expresses relativity for four dimensional space. So perhaps, I must alter the right hand sides Laplacian operator for the four dimensional special case of the d'Alembertian which is basically the laplacian operator for four dimensional space.
So that the state function is now being operated on by the four dimensional case. I don't know what else could be wrong with it? It could also be written as
maybe you should work it all out at home, and when you are somehow sure of your case then maybe you can present it here later.
You are tryingto develop your ideas iwth errors and all here in ATM, which is not allowed.
Thread closed.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC