flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Quantum Mechanics & Relativity

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I think I've got a theory which will work with relativity predictions from a Quantum Mechanics perspective. It is also very simple, elegant and requires absolutely no "special cases" or "special agents" like Dark Matter or other things. (no it doesn't explain the expanding of the Universe by itself, it just is an extended quantum mechanics theory that works with relativity things (see below)).

I won't post it though, not sure if it's going to be plagiarized and all that. (it would be like me making a free program and then someone stealing it and claiming it as their own, which is bad If they decide to then put it with a price or something). Anyone got any advice on this? Confused

Anyway here are few assumptions of the Universe with this theory:

  • The Universe is discrete, not continuous.
  • There is no such thing as 'time' as a fourth dimension. Just movement.
  • The Universe movements "update" in "world ticks" (virtual world programmers, like game programmers, will most certainly like and understand this idea Razz)
  • There is no such thing as spacetime


This is what it predicts:
  • Nothing can "travel" faster than light (TELEPORTATION IS NOT TRAVEL; that's out of the scope of this theory)
  • An object travelling with the speed of light doesn't "update" -- i.e time stays still for it (as relativity predicts)
  • An object travelling at 1/2 the speed of light will "update" twice as slow -- i.e time will go on with half speed for it (as relativity predicts it, again)
  • Black Holes work as expected (i.e light doesn't escape), and even explains perfectly why.
  • Gravity, as just about any other movement, affects 'time' (or "updates", as I've put it), just like relativity predicts. This actually applies to any movement.



No I've not done any math, it's just pure intuitive feeling. By the way, should this theory be successful, I would be ABSOLUTELY positive that we are living in a 'massive computer' world with a creator/programmer, not necessarily any religious God, but most CERTAINLY a creator. (no, it's not proof, just very simple suspiciousness on the simplicity and elegance of the algorithms involved in the Universe Wink as a once-game programmer myself, I am simply astonished if this would be true).

Is there anything I've missed in the relativity thing?

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 May 2009, 17:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
Borsuc wrote:
I won't post it though, not sure if it's going to be plagiarized and all that. (it would be like me making a free program and then someone stealing it and claiming it as their own, which is bad If they decide to then put it with a price or something). Anyone got any advice on this? Confused
I think that if you really have your theory well worked out in all details then it would be good to write an article in PDF format and post it simultaneously to maximal count of philosophical periodicals and forums. Smile
Borsuc wrote:
(...) I would be ABSOLUTELY positive that we are living in a 'massive computer' world with a creator/programmer, not necessarily any religious God, but most CERTAINLY a creator.
I only hope that this is a professional programmer and world's algorithms are 'written' with FASM... in the opposite case we would be in a big trouble. Wink
Post 11 May 2009, 18:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
MHajduk wrote:
I think that if you really have your theory well worked out in all details then it would be good to write an article in PDF format and post it simultaneously to maximal count of philosophical periodicals and forums. Smile
hmm that may be a good idea (however I'm really newbie when it comes to such things).

If I post it somewhere only in a single location is there a way to prove I posted it at a date (and thus before some stealer)? Internet archive and all that, but I'm not exactly sure how international law works.

Anyway, it's not ready yet so even if I could post it, I wouldn't have, cause I'm trying to refine it first.

What I really like about it is its simplicity Cool

MHajduk wrote:
I only hope that this is a professional programmer and world's algorithms are 'written' with FASM... in the opposite case we would be in a big trouble. Wink
Haha Laughing
Of course i meant it in a metaphorical sense, obviously this 'programmer', ignoring "belief", will probably not even be a "person", could just as well be like the Matrix or something, or just an "entity".

The reason I said that is because all the movement in the Universe, at particle level, is very simple with my theory and follows a simple pattern like you find in game mechanics lol (probabilistic as we, humans, are aware -- but probably well-defined as the "entity" is concerned). And yet it is based on Quantum mechanics and predicts relativistic speeds Wink


Is there anything I missed about it? (I mean about the predictions) I would like to refine it, if possible. Or at least let me see if in the current stage it can predict other stuff, which I probably forgot. Or is that all there is to relativity?

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 May 2009, 18:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2141
Location: Estonia
Madis731
If your theory has a probability to work, then it can be written as a formal language (Touring?) or more of a virtual-world-like-program.

If that program can simulate your theory accurately then it can also calculate some defined cases in real life and therefore prove your theoretical world.
Post 11 May 2009, 19:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
It is difficult to "prove" it correct, because this would imply experiments that haven't even been done for relativity.

What I gather however, is that this theory works just like quantum mechanics, but also works correctly with current data gathered from relativity. Obviously I haven't made any experiments myself (it's not like I have funding or am a researcher by profession lol), just looking at current ones and see if it can predict them (and it can).

The basic idea is very simple and explains why objects in motion go "slower" in time, and why nothing can travel faster than light, on a quantum level!

If you have anything else to add to the "relativity challenges" please list them so I can see if my theory can handle them. Otherwise what's the point of continuing with a bad one (I am most certain it is not bad, but one never knows... better to be safe Wink)
Post 11 May 2009, 21:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
I won't post it though, not sure if it's going to be plagiarized and all that.
I don't understand the problem here. There is no money in QM theorems, or any theorems for that matter. Nobody is going to steal it. Besides it is an easy matter to show from the date stamps on this board the original submission. Although, I strongly doubt it would come to that sort of thing.

If your theorem is truly good then everyone will want to know the originator, any imposter would soon get found out and just end up making you look better.
Post 11 May 2009, 22:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
If you have anything else to add to the "relativity challenges"
I have a QM challenge if you will allow. Can your theory explain wave/particle duality?
Post 11 May 2009, 23:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I never said anything about money or fame or whatever, truthfully I really don't care what people say about me on this matter. What I don't want is them then to impose restrictions or get something from it.

For example, if I release free software, it's never about money. But what I don't want is someone to steal it and then let's say, put a price on it. It's not that I don't get money or fame or whatever other crap, it's to prevent THEM from doing that.

Ok I may be really wrong because I'm basing this more on software perspective I'm not familiar with theorems and how it works under that "copyright" sense Confused

Thanks for encouragement, I'll refine it a bit further first though.

I have to mention though that, depending on some experiments which haven't been done, this theory can be split in 2 subtheories, depending on outcome of experiment. The experiment involves huge forces that cancel each other acting on an atom clock, which all of this is obviously outside my reach. Sad

revolution wrote:
I have a QM challenge if you will allow. Can your theory explain wave/particle duality?
Well my theory is supposed to be an extension to QM, actually, so I'm not even looking at QM, it can easily (I hope) be thrown at that. This is because QM already has a 'quantized' space of states so it would be no problem, I hope, with the discrete idea of the Universe.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 May 2009, 23:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
I have to mention though that, depending on some experiments which haven't been done, this theory can be split in 2 subtheories, depending on outcome of experiment. The experiment involves huge forces that cancel each other acting on an atom clock, which all of this is obviously outside my reach. Sad
Then that is exactly why one shouldn't keep theorems secret. If one's theory is good then others in control of things like LHC will want to do such tests. But they won't know what tests to do if one keeps it all to oneself.
Post 11 May 2009, 23:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
jack2



Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Posts: 31
jack2
here's something you may find interesting http://glafreniere.com/matter.htm
Post 12 May 2009, 00:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Cool actually I kinda believe in an aether myself (even though not exactly for this theory) because it solves the true E^2=m^2*c^4 equation with "negative sea of energy" (Dirac Sea for instance). Thanks Smile

I really shouldn't care about plagiarizing should I? But sometimes licenses/copyright is necessary, like the GNU things or else it wouldn't exist. Anyway how to apply something like the GNU to this theory? Or is that assumed by default?

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 12 May 2009, 01:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
Cool actually I kinda believe in an aether myself
Are you aware of the Michelson–Morley experiment?
Post 12 May 2009, 01:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
I really shouldn't care about plagiarizing should I?
No.
Borsuc wrote:
But sometimes licenses/copyright is necessary, like the GNU things or else it wouldn't exist. Anyway how to apply something like the GNU to this theory? Or is that assumed by default?
You can't copyright an idea, only the expression of an idea (i.e. the actual words of text). You can't apply a "usage license" to an idea. An idea is not a product or device so you can't patent it either.
Post 12 May 2009, 01:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
What? Negative energy?
Dark matter is already a weird and unnecessarily complicated aether. Negative energy aether would simply be the second solution to the equation (negative).

It has nothing to do with light propagation.

I hate patents, I believe in free ideas. That's the reason I want to do this, to protect it from that -- but since you said you can't patent an idea, I'll take your word for it (still trying to figure out how to word it properly though and refine it a bit).

cheers Smile

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 12 May 2009, 01:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SFeLi



Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 140
Location: Severodvinsk, Russia
SFeLi
Does our universe have an integer overflow bug?
Post 12 May 2009, 05:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
SFeLi wrote:
Does our universe have an integer overflow bug?
Only if it is signed. Unsigned will last twice as long.


Last edited by revolution on 12 May 2009, 08:04; edited 1 time in total
Post 12 May 2009, 05:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2141
Location: Estonia
Madis731
Seems that this guy held *progress* back for about 4 years...
"Mr. Philippe Delmotte invented his amazing wave algorithm in June 2005. He finally released this first English version in May 2009"
Post 12 May 2009, 07:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
SFeLi wrote:
Does our universe have an integer overflow bug?
Only if it is signed. Unsigned will last twice as long.
No idea. I don't even know how quantized (precise) stuff is, it's just "as a whole". Laughing

But with my theory (assuming it's correct), and if we can find out how 'quantized' the Universe is, I can calculate the clock speed of the CPU that runs it Razz

Still refining it for better explaining it to you guys (it's so easier in my head than writing it lol Razz), anyway I set up a question in the other thread about time, to pick one of two results. Smile

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 12 May 2009, 19:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.