Just an idea

Post Reply New Topic

Hi, I have something I'd like to share.


I've been trying to combine the seeming impossibility of Quantum Mechanics with Relativity (that is both forms of relativity) for a long time.


I've found this very difficult but through perserverance I've sound a solution that in the end is so simple, I can't believe someone hasn't mentioned it already..


In relation to relativity theory, a well accepted notion in science.

I'll try explain it swiftly. Those that know it well bear with me. Many of us know what Einstein said:

The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion..

This seemingly simple sentence, affected science in many ways, and also brought about the concept of TIME as a malleable factor, instead of the explanation of "ether" as the way light travels through the universe, Einstead postulated the notion of space-time.

I don't really want to explain the results of this, as I hope you already know, but if you don't read up on relativity and uncover it for yourself.

Quantum Mechanics, the science that left Einstein seeming he'd gone senile and wouldn't accept it, states the probability of particles, at the sub-atomic level, meaning things can't be measured in DETERMINISTIC terms. (read up on quantum mechanics)

What I postulate is that if time itself moves deterministically at this level (as a factor not a constant as we see when we view it), in the microscopic level time is 0, or near 0, and therefore every possibility, is effectively reached at once. This means its not "chaos" or "possibles" as quantum mechanics term it (using time as a constant), its simply time is so acute, or small, that the speed at which we see it timewise, is infinitely small, thus making it seem like things work chaotically, but in reality they are at every single possibility, at the same time..

I know this sounds simple.. but what I realised, is it solves one of the largest problems in science, combining quantum mechanics, and relativity, into one theory:

With time as a dynamic factor, rather a constant linear progression. Within atoms time itself is 0 or close to zero, making it seem like random motion, but really it is every possibility evident in one moment. The opposite side of this equation, at the speed of light, the fastest speed in the universe, time itself in this situation being inifinite (close to infinite?) and therefore light can reach us from billions of light years away.

Have a think about this before you dismiss it, I feel it is a key worth noting (a possibility instead of things like string theory, which tries to explain this seeming contradiction between them in 11 dimensions). I feel it takes a different viewpoint, we should be using a constant between all levels, so far quantum mechanics measures time as a constant, and in relation to everything above the sub-atomic level, time has the possibility to change. This grave error is why quantum mechanics don't seem to fit with the rest of the laws of physics.

I apologise to those offended if I've missed key notions at all, I know its a touchy subject sometimes and I know I haven't used maths to explain my theory, but I'd like someone with that sort of mind to think about it. I hope I've explained what I think is correct in an understandable way.


Thanks for reading. (edited for mistakes)

Last edited by Scintillate on 03 Nov 2006, 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thanks for sharing, but I'll have to read up on relativity.

I'm not an expert on this either, but it's indeed very fascinating. There's another theory, stating that quantum mechanics have no effect below the so called Planck lenght, i.e., a theory where space is the factor that time is in your theory: http://mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html

Yeh I've been reading up on this one, the only reason I changed the focus to time is because in relation to larger size objects (above sub-atomic) we use light as the constant and space and time as malleable..

Yet in measuring smaller than this we've gone a step back it seems, because string theory can't be reduced in the same way... I thought this way it might work..

I'm gonna try spread it round, but need someone with a more mechanical approach on the subject to tackle the maths side of it.

Problem is, if your theory's right, some professor might steal it and claim it was his from first on...

Hmm how many dimenision in your theory? The reason I ask is pre string theory it seemed the universe will end. The 11 dimenision of string theory gives hope that in fact it will start over (an infinite number of times).

For all what I can understand, his theory will need no more dimensions than the three spatial and time.

Oh no that means in 15 billion years or so its over. That means as TheMachine counts
down its computer simulation it knows there is no tommorrow. That has to be depressing
for TheMachine no wonder the world is so f*** up the central computer running it is on
death row.

So we're at the edge of a paradigm shift..

We shaped our environment, then we relied on technology, now we communicate around the world and share ideas like never before, many of us work in ways in which we simply guide technology.

Is the next step technology becoming part of ourselves biologically?

Some super AI wiping us out?

Cataclysmic event ie: sun exploding, over-population, etc.?

Even without string theory (4 dimensions) its possible to conceive of an infinite reality, the universe seems it will end because of the expansion and entropy, but as we can't see an edge or an end to where its expanding to, we can't know such things.

I prefer to see it this way, existence exists, and therefore it could never have not existed, we all know nothing comes out of nowhere. Either you believe this means a god created it, or existence has always been in one form or another, both in the end don't really apply to our understanding of how, simply the why.

15 billion years, I read about that, if we can't survive it would be natural selection, if we can create the technology to survive, we would provide a good point to evolution. Many people state technology as separate from evolution, which it is, I'm simply saying natural selection led to a technological dependant species, which in turn may lead to a technological species itself.

We just know that universe is about 15 billion years old. We dont know if it will retract in 15 billion years as much as it has expanded in 15 billion years. It can also just go on expanding for ever, becoming infinitely thinner.

I think at some point way before infinite time all remaining matter explodes into energy
and that even level of energy across the universe is the end.

I think we allready mentioned on other threads space is not infinite. That the universe
is shaped in away that if you travel to the very limits you simple come out on the other side. Time is the same way. Its not infinite. (in a 4-d world)

Right on, which ultimately could lead to a compression that starts it all again... Then again it could not..

The question ultimately is understanding how our physical reality works in the now, completely.. If we have a definite from here we could expand it either way.

I don't mind if someone steals my theory Though of course we'd all love our name remembered.

I just want to spread it, been looking for some science forums in which to test it out but haven't found many good ones yet.

No, space isn't infinite, but it's expanding, and will remain so as long the universe expands. Universe expanding and space expanding are fundamentally the same thing.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php? ... eplication

thats my theory.

this topic is very cool! however i think the universe its existance, our evolution are just some dice game. it's all luck in my opinion.

I found some aspects of your theory very interesting..

Personally I want to have a constant theory uniting everything we KNOW, then stretch ourselves into what we don't know. Which is why I (think) I'm onto the solution in having a constant set of values in measurements between the micro and macro realms. It seems preposterous to me that in measurements at the sub-atomic level time isn't taken into consideration. Its the opposite of extremely large distances.

No ego intended..

I agree with the need for more powerful microscopes, that can either eliminate or support string theory. However I believe they won't find anything smaller, I believe that at 0 or close to 0 time it seems like things work probabilistically but ultimately it is simply all positions at once.

I personally dislike the idea of alternate dimensions because there is no evidence to support this. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence to support the speed of light, and plenty of evidence to support the notion of space-time.

I believe four dimensions are enough, ultimately though I'd like to get it down to one. Though this seems preposterous.