Have you heard about the one electron theory? It states that theres only one electron in the universe going forwards and backwards in time. It was proposed by John Wheeler and was the initial inspiration for Feymanns diagrams
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
What do you think of that?
Epistemic NOOP because we're rendered the same either way.
It's a photon...
>It's a photon...
this
electrons have mass
its a fun idea... anything that goes the speed of light is by definition everywhere in the universe simultaneously
No, that's pretty normal in science. See: Mochizuki.
Nope, Sviaski, Ganjujan, Viessien et. al. proved otherwise to a nontrivial degree with a standard deviation of only e+/-^π
Exactly. Making the world better on accident every few decades. Worst timeline averted by comfy vibes from smart people.
>be me
>give the historical context and origin of the theory
>noooooo you cant name drop anon
This theory would require equal amount of electrons and positrons to be present in the universe
Where are all the excess positrons?
Also what happens when positron and electron annihilate?
And what about beta decay, how does that factor in?
The question you have about protons is explaine din that wikipedia link
The rest I dont know
Meamt positrons, not protons, but you get it
It's a consequence of relativity being unable to track down FTL electrons without breaking what it considers "causality", so you have to invent positrons that "look like electrons going backwards in time", pair creation and annihilation to explain the FTL portion of the travel of an electron as STL travelling backwards, and that justifies the one electron universe because if relativity gives you no tools to identify the same electron, then it also gives you no tools to discern between different electrons.
Intersting but why bring up ftl electrons, what's the evidence for that?
And there are other circumstances where the idea of positron is invoked other than ftl, less extreme rare case that seemed to inspire the belief
Antimatter is predicted by negative energy solutions of the Dirac equation as the relativistic form of the Schroedinger's equation, which emerge from the sign ambiguity of taking the square root of the relativistic energy equation E^2 = (pc)^2 - (mc^2)^2
In order to get rid of the negative sign on energy, the sign can be shuffled into time, as a particle going backwards in time, and by that for charged particles, as a particle going forwards in time but with opposite charge. This is how antimatter is derived
As a thought experiment, if matter could go faster than light, then relativity, constrained by the speed of light determining causality, would have us believe that it is travelling backwards in time, but observe it as if it were antimatter
Indeed, as the particle travels faster than its own emitted light, the light coming from later in its path would arrive to us before the light from the beginning of its path, inverting, according to the relativistic notion of "causality", the flow of time
Now forget also that we knew the particle to be superluminal: what would we infer from such a stream of photons? We would interpret it as a peculiar subluminal particle, that acts as dual of the original particle, as if moving backwards in time
Consider that we only measure particle speeds indirectly by measuring their energy, with special relativistic mathematics that presumes v < c for matter, and that antimatter is generated in high energy situations
So, because relativity is a faulty theory of causality, that confuses observation with physics, the negative sign of energy was never to be considered unphysical. Antimatter is a relativistic effect of particles having superluminal speeds
PDF related, it develops what I'm saying from the Lorentz transformation
Although he interprets the result rather mystically, as relativists do, it's not surprising at all, because reality is Euclidean and the flow of time and causality have nothing to do with the speed of light
>as a particle going backwards in time,
I will read the rest but hold the horses right there, something is automatically wrong and incorrect about this thought, so likely inaccuracies to reality follow.
In reality there is no going back in time. Time is not a Thing, to go back into. Time is not a thing. Time is a trillion invisible metronomes clicking back and forth each at a slightly slower or faster pace than their neighbor, each representing a point on the number line continumn.
There is no going backwards in time.
Things can move faster or slower, or forward or backward. Not travel to a previous state of the universes energy/material sequence of organization.
By the phrase, the forward arrow of time, means;. There is energy and matter that makes up the universe;
Energy and matter exists in various proximities across space.
Energy and matter moves, the proximities change.
The total orientation of energy and matter changes in sequential order.
The orientation of all matter and energy of the universe existed a specific way 100 years ago, right now the orientation is not equal to as it was 100 years ago. The orientation of 100 years ago does not exist.
The orientation of the universes energy and matter that existed 10 seconds ago, does not exist as it does right now.
There is no way to go to that past orientation, it is meaningless to say a particle can go to that past orientation, that past orientation does not exist.
Cntd
I'm glad that you've taken a class on relativity and I see that you're very proud of your knowledge, but it has little to do with what I said.
If your complaint is that "a particle going backwards in time" is against the consensus interpretation of antimatter, you could've finished reading the very sentence that made you go on such a tirade.
And if that is your complaint, then why do you complain to me, when the assumption is part of the premise of the thread? There is no "one electron universe" without "particles going backwards in time"
>There is no "one electron universe" without "particles going backwards in time"
And if I proved with my statements it's eternally apriori impossible for particles to go backwards in time (unless the universe is fake, in which case nearly anything physically inconsistent and illogical is possible) and a one electron universe theory depends on this idea, absolutely depends on it, my intuition in pausing to attempt to clarify an important tennet of the theory, a leg foundation it stands on is broken, the legitimacy of the theory falls and crumbles.
This is why it is important to carefully think instead of just compulsively acting. One may save themselves time by nipping in the bud any inconsistancies or impossibilities from the start, it's not like you can go backwards in time if you waste a lot of time on a false theory
You compulsively acted by responding without reading. Nothing that you added was in any way relevant to what was being said, nor you seem to understand what the "one electron universe theory" is about, nor what my stance regarding its physical significance or otherwise is.
If the one electron theory has anything to do with a particle traveling backwards in time, I laid out my argument as to why if the universe is real, that is certainly not possible:
Therefore provide a rebuttal to my proof if my statements, so I may rebuttal that;
Or improve one electron theory to not include aspects I can prove erroneous
Or tell me you are certain the universe is not real
In the two posts I made "particle going backwards in time" is a qualified statement that makes sense and I even criticized the fact that it does, blaming relativity's redefinition of time for it.
Because you don't get to redefine terms and have the gall to act as if you're still talking about the same thing. Relativistic causality is not classical causality, and "particles going backwards in time" are not particles going backwards in time, but an artifact of relativity being a faulty theory of causality.
Relativistic time is not "a trillion of invisible metronomes" near each other, it is "a trillion of invisible metronomes stacked on top of each other in the same point in space, one for each velocity, and their neighbours".
Relativistic time is not classical time, the ideal periodic motion of a pendulum outside space and time, so you cannot import classical intuitions to relativity without expecting that something would change.
If you expect that something to be called "time" should behave like classical time, as I do, then relativistic time fails at the task in the ways described. It makes sense to talk about things going "backwards" in this "time", because they neither go "backwards", nor it is "time". If we started calling temperature "time", you would try to preclude us from going "backwards in time" every winter.
Yes ok, relativity merged time measurement to distances and space and velocity, it pretty much nearly does conflatingly make the blunder I mentioned with my driving to the cafe example, but its not a blunder because it is not trying to describe a transcendent consistent vision of objective reality, it is saying that is too hard or impossible, what we can do is everyone and everything describe their subjective perspective of reality;
So it is conflating time itself as velocity itself. Because it attatches time to distance(space) and if you travel a faster velocity you cover more distsnce (there fore in this organizing schema of graphs, rulers and measurements of objects velocities in relation to one another, the object that more quickly travels more space, experiences, is it less or more time? Well let's just say, equal space in less time)
>it pretty much nearly does conflatingly make the blunder I mentioned with my driving to the cafe example
It does, full stop.
>but its not a blunder because it is not trying to describe a transcendent consistent vision of objective reality
>it is saying that is too hard or impossible, what we can do is everyone and everything describe their subjective perspective of reality;
And yet we constrain our objective descriptions of the real world to the limitations of our senses, while postulating causes we cannot sense to justify it.
And then we tell ourselves that "Nature is absurd", "Nature doesn't have to be fit our human intution", "it's just the way Nature works", when ironically it is not so, the complexity in the description emerges from our superfluous human concerns.
Moreover, relativity is not treated as a subjective description, otherwise it shouldn't have been considered as anything new. We knew the difference between absolute and relative space and time since the time of Newton.
Want to drop mathematics, as well? After all, there are no ideal circles, no ideal curves, no ideally uniform motion in the real world.
Why do we make special concessions for those concepts, but not ideal periodic motion, ideal distances, ideal stationary frames?
Time is kept by ideal clocks in ideal conditions. Light clocks of relativity are not ideal clocks, therefore relativistic time is a different concept than absolute, ideal time. Conflating the two is a fallacy of equivocation, and conflating the resulting causalities is fallacious as well. The only causality is absolute causality.
Would a humanoid bat make as idiotic of a blunder, and constrain his description of the real world to the speed of sound, the maximum speed of his fastest sense? Would a fish limit itself to the speed of sound in water? I don't think so. Why do we limit ourselves to the speed of sound in aether (or "free space", if you find the more accurate word distasteful)?
But why would you think it impossible for a most subtle sensitive medium to exist that cannot be beaten in a race by any matter?
The air medium does have a limit of wave transfer speed, but the sound barrier can be broken.
You are suggesting it may be possible for the EM wave medium propagation speed barrier to be broken by matter.
It is the most subtlest and sensitive of the mediums; is this hierarchy correct?
Earth (solid)
Water (liquid)
Air (gas)
Em field (fire)
Is that in order from the slowest most incoherent transferable waves in material medium to fastest most coherent?
So to take material of the first 3, and try to accelerate it faster than the mechanics of the last one, you believe you have seen evidence for this possibility.
Likely if anything it would require extreme astronomical (term here used non figuratively) explosions to accelerate the masses;
But at that point who even knows about the structural integrity of the local field at the point if star supernovas and whatever else are the most accelerative universal events.
The sound medium can have it's mechanical components fundamentally disturbed;
The water medium too.
The Earth medium too (when this happens it can be nuclear effects)
What happens when the EM field on the most fundamental level is severely accelerated and altered?
You would likely agree that if the EM field propagation barrier was broken it would require more extreme cases, as the sound barrier being broken requires,
Though also might say in relation to such like super nova, the universe is full of very extreme material accelerating events
I explicitly stated that antimatter is a relativistic effect of superluminal matter through the lens of a faulty theory of reality.
Special relativity is analogous to a fluid dynamic transformation to approximate the effects of compressible flow to an incompressible flow. PDF related.
You seem to have a pretty confused view of physics in general. The speed of sound in air is slower than water, which is slower than most solids, which is slower than light. The speed of sound in a medium is given by the ratio between change in pressure and change in density. Fire is plasma. "EM field" is not a state of matter.
I stopped talking about antimatter to specifically hone in on your claim that matter may be able to travel faster than light.
I tried to establish an initial stage for that discussion.
I asked, do you think it could therortically be possible for a medium which transfers waves through it, to be absolutely unbeatable in a race with matter?
Do you agree it would require the most acceleratory events to have a shot of matter beating the em medium in a race?
What do you think of the possibilities of local most extreme acceleration explosion events locally altering the fundamental stability of the EM field?
Like a major explosion in air will break the local air molecules to degree right, at least create seperation in that location of air field attatchment, same in explosions in water.
Do you think extreme explosions in the EM field can alter the local fundamental existence and mechanics of the EM field?
I don't think the aether is any different than other fluids other than the fact that it's inviscid.
I'm not sure if a theoretical fluid exists for which matter in it can't go faster than sound. I guess not, since special relativity's restriction comes from an approximation, as you can see in the papers I linked.
Yes, accelerating past the speed of sound in a fluid is not easy but it's possible.
No, I don't think anything metaphysical happens when you go supersonic.
>Hmm. Slower but more coherent? Playing music in the air, as opposed to under water, as opposed to in a solid?.
There are probably many reasons why sound in other media sounds less "coherent" to human ears. The faster speed of sound spreads out the waves more, refraction, and the fact that liquids and solids are more complex media than gasses. I don't think it has anything to do with the hierarchy of speed you're trying to make, light is "coherent" to our eyes because it's built for light waves, our ears are attuned to sound as it is in air rather than water.
Do powerful explosions in air disrupt the local connection of the air field where the explosion occurs?
Could powerful explosions in the EM field locally disrupt the fundamental connectivity and array of the EM field?
You think maybe a particle can travel faster than light, at the very least if the light that would be generated forward;
Consider a boat on the water, the waves and wakes go out behind and on the sides; a particle acceleated like this it would seem it would be hard to propagate the light in the direction it's traveling, like a motorboat going 150 mph and sending ripple wake waves propagating ahead of it faster than it can go
Guys guys guys guys
Can a massively forceful acute local explosion in space novely alter the local EM fields fundamentual componenture?
Also;.
When EM radiation is propagated, let's say this way---------->
Is the EM field also disturbed in other directions ^, <, v, front, back
Yes, but you can manually block its propagation in certain directions.
What are all the possible ways EM can be propagated?
Is it only from electrons and protons?
the most effed up thing is if physicsts really believe and it's actually true, that electrons, protons, and neutrons can be absolutely dissipated and transformed purely into EM radiation.
There's no way that can be true, that's so fricked up. Can't be true.
So an amount of EM radiation exists.
An amount of EM field exists.
An amount of Electrons exist.
An amount of Protons and Neutrons exist.
Is New EM radiation made/generated/propagated,
Or was an amount of EM radiation made at the big bang, and that amount moved electrons, protons, neutrons, and when electrons protons and neutrons are moved;
And EM radiation is coming towards them, they can push back into them;
So EM radiation can move Matter
And Matter can move EM radiation.
In summery:
EM radiation can move Matter
Matter can move EM radiation.
An amount of EM radiation and an amount of Matter was created at big bang.
They move each other.
That's all there is to it.
A boat moves water, a boat is moved by water.
>EM radiation can move Matter
What is the upper bound limit as to the ways in which EM radiation can move Matter?
What is the sliding scale chart of how much EM can move how much of what types of matter?
This really gets down to the subtlty of EM radiation;
Think of all the things strong enough wind can move;
What things can strong enough EM radiation move?
It's hard to direct and focus a lot of EM radiation onto a wide surface area?
Is someone going to say the wind is partially EM radiation from the sun?
So, a rock can move the EM field much easier than the EM field can move it?
A rock moves the EM field by radiating? Is that really fair to say this is the rocks doing? The rock is not moving, the electrons of the rock are being moved by the EM field, and then when the sun sets, it radiates?
>the most effed up thing is if physicsts really believe and it's actually true, that electrons, protons, and neutrons can be absolutely dissipated and transformed purely into EM radiation.
TO WHAT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY DO PHYSICISTS BELIEVE THAT EVERY SINGLE FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLE OF MATTER CAN ABSOLUTELY HAVE ITS SUBSTANTIAL CORPUSCULAR CORPUS ABSOLUTELY VANISHED INTO PURE EM RADIATION.
ON WHAT GROUNDS HAVE THEY A MILLION OR INFINITELY PERCENT CONVINCED THEMSELVES THIS IS PERFECTLY UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE LEGITAMATE TRUTH?
Me too, someone answer
>TO WHAT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY DO PHYSICISTS BELIEVE THAT EVERY SINGLE FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLE OF MATTER CAN ABSOLUTELY HAVE ITS SUBSTANTIAL CORPUSCULAR CORPUS ABSOLUTELY VANISHED INTO PURE EM RADIATION.
>ON WHAT GROUNDS HAVE THEY A MILLION OR INFINITELY PERCENT CONVINCED THEMSELVES THIS IS PERFECTLY UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE LEGITAMATE TRUTH?
I think some of them say that is the case, or maybe many think that is the case, but I don't think that can be the case, I dont know why,how, or what it would physically mean if electrons, protons/neutrons/quarks' bodies were able to entirely dissapear into light, that really the fundamental particles are made of nothing but EM.
It's so hard or impossible to see what happens, it's so easy to lose track of electrons and quarks, I just don't know how they can say they are quite certain the electron entirely dissapears, and EM radiation remains of it.
Is this another case of the electron dissapearing from their screen, so they conclude it dissapears from existence in reality?
Come on answer thisss
What the hell, where are the people I was talking to about that , we were conversing and now they just don't respond? Ughhhhhhhhh
They vanished into EM radiation.
No for real, this is like common theory belief
One of you college physics bros answer this please
there's nothing to answer. that anon says he doesn't believe it, but he is wrong. put a lump of radioactive material on a scale in a closed transparent box and over time it loses mass in a way you can measure through it's weight. Your discomfort with the idea isn't evidence against it. Quantum mechanics is strange, very strange stuff. As is general relativity. But them not fitting comfortably into your everyday perception of normalcy is less than irrelevant.
How do you know the protons and neutrons aren't turning into their quarks and the quarks float away un detected?
All elementary particles can annihilate with their antiparticle and produce other particles, including photons (EM radiation). They can't produce just anything, they have to follow conservation of energy and momentum, as well as a slew of other rules depending on the kind of particle. The theory that tells you how particles can annihilate to produce photons (and thus, what particles can be produced from photons) is called quantum electrodynamics and it is one of the most experimentally confirmed theories out there. Same with quantum chromodynamics, which you need to describe what can come out of annihilations involving quarks, such as a proton colliding with an antiproton.
These two theories were developed decades ago and yes, every physicist really does think matter can change into other matter, including light. You can make an electric field strong enough to produce electron-positron pairs, watch them interact with their surroundings, and then see them annihilate back into the EM field. Such is the world.
You don't see them turn into EM.
You dont measure every speck of their body, and then see every speck of their body dissapear, and see every speck of their body turn exactly into EM.
You are blind to the actual bodies and possible transformations.
The detectors are very limited and imperfect, so you for some reason are happily leap of faithing to believe the limit of your detectors is the limit of reality
How often does this happen, and under what conditions? Then anti particle exists where and how much and it presents itself how often when?
You make an electric field so strong it jostles loose some nearest to the electric field strong jostle point electrons, which when detected by detector see a reverberation,
Can some one post images of these electron creation occurances, the bubble chambers, and other methods and other imageal and graphical depictions of what exactly is causing what to happen where caused intially by what,
Prove it
Please please answer these
I will a bit later, let me just pray to the smart gods that they bless me with the ability to
>Consider a boat on the water, the waves and wakes go out behind and on the sides; a particle acceleated like this it would seem it would be hard to propagate the light in the direction it's traveling, like a motorboat going 150 mph and sending ripple wake waves propagating ahead of it faster than it can go
Interesting, so if a particle is quickly accelerated some forward direction; let's say some astronomical explosion a particle is accerated 0 to 99,999 mph in a few seconds, in some direction ---------->
Now no matter how fast this particle is accelerated, unlike the boat example; the particle will be propagating EM waves -------> in this direction much faster than it?
Is this because the only way to really accelerate a particle so quickly to such velocity is via EM radiation; so the EM radiation does travel faster than all particles and when used to accelerate a particle very fast the EM radiation is already moving at it's faster than others speed head start?
>Is this because the only way to really accelerate a particle so quickly to such velocity is via EM radiation; so the EM radiation does travel faster than all particles and when used to accelerate a particle very fast the EM radiation is already moving at it's faster than others speed head start?
Someone want to take this?
>Is this because the only way to really accelerate a particle so quickly to such velocity is via EM radiation; so the EM radiation does travel faster than all particles and when used to accelerate a particle very fast the EM radiation is already moving at it's faster than others speed head start?
This is actually quite interesting.
So when particles are extremely accelerated in astronomical events;
What ultimately is causing the acceleration, EM radiation?
I too would like to know the answer to this
When quickly particle accelerating astronomical events occur, is EM radiation generally the cause of the acceleration?
>The speed of sound in air is slower than water, which is slower than most solids,
Hmm. Slower but more coherent? Playing music in the air, as opposed to under water, as opposed to in a solid?.
Also PDF related, still on the topic of the same approximation, but about so called relativistic mass.
bats can see
Ether is certainly not a fully defined metaphysical realm, so in your terminology, no. "The universe" isn't real.
The fact you're even sentient is fricking weird.
Ermm what?
Erm, are you sapient?
Ok, ok, ok........if things are existing in a cluster of relatively common velocity, then they exist in a relative regular experience of time, and for a part of that thing to all the sudden move much faster, it would be as if that thing experiences more or different rates of orientation, time passing, than the others.
For instance if I say let's meet for coffee at the cafe at 9 am. And we each live 5 mins away traveling 40mph on a perfectly straight trafficless road, and we get off the phone at 8:55 so we must leave soon.
The difference between you leaving at 8:55 traveling 40mph and me leaving at 8:58 traveling 100 mph (The accuracy of details of the numbers are not important I'm aiming towards a conceptual point).
Something about this would consider traveling through time differently; ok but here's a further example; let's say I could travel 1000 mph down the street to the cafe, and I leave at 8:58, get there whenever it would be; but forgot my wallet, so go home, then come back,
It is likely confusing things like this that lead one/few/many to (as well as imperfect comprehension of what the word term concept time is and means, and is not and does not mean) believe that it is in any way appropriate or valid to state a particle can travel backwards in time
>as well as imperfect comprehension of what the word term concept time is and means
Time is the movement of objects through space, there's nothing undefined here
So the audacity to say: it is acceptable to say: a particle could theoretically travel backwards in time; means???
I see, yeah it makes sense when you realize how slow the light is moving.
The sun's rotation drags ether, making space "seem" relative to photonic observers. We're off by a hyperbolic margin, or a randomly distributed infinite one.
No, the sun's massive magnetic field causes the ether flow. Frick, I didn't want to deal with learning electric universe theory.
Here is a collection of some of the questions I have asked on this board the past few weeks. Apologies for the duplicate questions and typoes of general sloppiness. Maybe someday I will have the energy and effort and patience to edit it better and add more questions but it is too much for me at this time.
https://pastebin.com/myj0keQ0
damn there be some smart homies on this board
I made a crude diagram for you
Note how it matches Feynmann's own analogy of antimatter:
>It is as though a bombardier flying low over a road suddenly sees three roads and it is only when two of them come together and disappear again that he realizes that he has simply passed over a long switchback in a single road
The diagram can be more complex, with multiple "creation" and "annihilation" events (resp. going in/out of FTL), all portions can be arbitrarily long and they don't have to be neatly observed at the same point in time
Generating all possible situations is trivial
What cannot change is that there has to be an emission and absorption point, and that it has to be the same electron through the whole path
Because QFT, due to relativity, is only allowed to speak about the second diagram, as it can't recognize the causal link identifying the two electrons and the positron, there's nothing to prevent you from thinking that there is only one electron in the universe, travelling forwards and backwards in time to "be" all positrons and electrons
Hence, the one electron universe
This also implies that beta+ decay is the capture of a high speed electron interpreted as the emission of a positron, that neutron decay is caused by collision with a high speed neutrino dislodging the proton and electron that compose it, interpreted as the emission of an antineutrino, etc for all emissions of "antimatter"
Also note that pair production can only happen near atomic nuclei. That is because the electron has to interact with something in order to slow down
Photons being their own antiparticle means that we cannot tell their direction of travel, so we infer it from the relations it had between the other particles. The difference is recovered in the "antiphotons" described in the paper I linked
I repeat that this only applies to high energy experiments, where we infer the paths and speeds of the particles through indirect means of backwards theoretical calculation
Right, light is transducile to ether so you need holographic metaphysics to understand the measure limit. You need something other than electrons for a real measure of the speed of light.
Which there obviously wouldn't be, or our eyes would have evolved to sense that instead.
This is not compatible with the Pauli exclusion principle so it must be false
>another extremely far fetched unprovable hypothesis
Into the trash it goes
My guess is there's no time with it being something moving faster than a threshold or medium and interacting with itself repeatedly.
Electrons could just be very small black holes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron
that just sounds like monadology with extra steps
>joined the adult world
begin sanctimonious on IQfy and pretending youre better than those with achievements you failed to achieve.
>i never been school and that but i fink scientist dont really know what theyre talking bout cause what dey say dont make sense in my brain
still being in school as an adult is not an achievement, its a failure to mature.
Did you not go to college?
You cannot move backwards in time doe
Prepare for a midwit didn't read take, but this can't be true because what would happen if you captured the electron in a single place for an arbitrary amount of time? And how does the electron go from one side of the universe to the other? Does it have teleportation along with time travel? Wouldn't we be noticing a shit ton of electrons flying everywhere because the one particle had to travel to every place at once? Theres no way the particle is intelligent and only decides to its movement out of our observation.
An electron isnt a physical object picture it more like a state of space being altered momentarily
How do you know, what makes you so sure about that?
What happens to the singular electron when it gets squished into protons to create neutrons in neutron stars?
I think it's possible or likely that Feynman and Wheeler recanted on their reverse time physics model not because it didn't work but because the government told them they had to. The triple-C cosmic censorship conjecture is about that, really, even though they say CCC is something related to "black holes."
Describe how power lines work with one electron...
Describe how power lines work with more than one election...
>inspiration for Feymanns diagrams
News to me. Sounds like a solid quantum theory then, but I haven't checked any sources so.
It could be inspiration like; this guy is so annoying dumb and wrong I am forced to show him with imagery why he is wrong
>What do you think of that?
If you can postulate any dumb idea without providing a way to prove it, science is intellectually backrupt.
Gravity is just the ether you feel dragged behind santa's space sled.
Where is the difference to the theory in OP? None. Though my theory will not be considered just because my name bears no weight.
How can you realistically prove this theory?
Sounds moronic because there's nothing you can do experimentation-wise.
Double standard. We don't prove theories in science, we just slowly falsify the parts and see if there's anything salvageable in the wreckage.
What do you mean? That everything is a consequence of the wave equation
If so, yes it is. But some people have no idea about the order of magnitude of the number of calculations that will be needed to describe everything as a wave equation.
This is just esoterism and it is just someone claiming we can access universal knowledge with his new fancy theory.
It is just the 21st century do you realize that? Are you trying to speedrun galaxy colonization? Give us some time for God's sake so we can truly understand things instead of making far fetched unusable models.
At the end of Cosmos episode 10.
Yes this one electron flies up your mother's arsehole every night.
Its fun idea to think about, but otherwise useless.
Seems legit.