NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: Bozonium on 01/14/2020 03:10 pm
-
Hello, Everyone.
While studying linear algebra, i kept thinking about how linear algebra is a study of space and how we can organize that space, using information. Information gives our space properties and lets us create concepts and calculate things. But then i drew the comparison to another field where information plays a big role: Chemistry.
The information behind how each atom is connected to each other and where gives rise to everything on the universe, from space dust to you and me. Of course, there are even more fundamental particles than atoms (namely the quarks) and according to the standard model, forces like gravity have their own particle. Then, it struck me. What if space itself was a collection of particles?
Now, i am far removed from a scientist. This question however did pique my interest. What if there was one fundamental particle, the particle of space? Every other particle at work then could be the information of the space particle's properties. Sort of like a screen, every pixel of that screen, every element changes in response to the information we give it and it gives back an image. A wave can happen when a force travels through a body of particles. Since every particle, by nature, is also a wave, couldn't particle-waves be the force (or information) that travels through a body of space fundamental particles?
That could also imply that energy is no more than information of how a space-particle will behave, passed from particle to particle. This monoparticle theory, as i've so lovingly named, paints a universe where information is the dominant force behind it all. Could this be an explanation for the size of the universe? It is theorized that past the edge of the visible universe, space itself ends (i don't know if this is still a dominant theory however). Could a lack of space mean a lack of space-particle?
Then again, a particle does take up space. So, a property of the space particle is that its dimensions and its volume is space.
This is by no means a scientific analysis or theory, and by no means should it be treated as such. It's more of the ravings of a college student. I know that maths and formulas verify theories, and i have done no such thing. I do not even know the kind of equations used to verify theories. However, this is still a theory and there is still a microscopic possibility that there is even a hint, a tiddlywink of truth. Or it could even inspire someone more qualified than me to search in the right direction for new discoveries. With that in mind, i wrote this small essay to convey my theory to you.
-
For a post that started by talking about linear algebra, you did not include a single matrix or equation. What you presented is not a theory at all, it would need to have more rigorous definitions to even qualify as a hypothesis. Your general ideas are simply not even remotely consistent with experimental data. For reference, the universe ending at the observable universe has never been an accepted or reasonable theory. I have only seen similar as a misunderstanding from non-experts. Also fundamental particles do not have volume as far as we know, though some have constraints on spacing for other reasons.
-
For a post that started by talking about linear algebra, you did not include a single matrix or equation. What you presented is not a theory at all, it would need to have more rigorous definitions to even qualify as a hypothesis. Your general ideas are simply not even remotely consistent with experimental data. For reference, the universe ending at the observable universe has never been an accepted or reasonable theory. I have only seen similar as a misunderstanding from non-experts. Also fundamental particles do not have volume as far as we know, though some have constraints on spacing for other reasons.
My apologies for this very unscientific post. I knew that it would have an ocean of inaccuracies (and it does), but at least i wanted to spark a conversation with this topic in mind. Please, tell me about all the ways this does not make sense :)
-
On top of that, this is basically String Theory restated as "but what if the bundled string is called a particle?".
-
Really? This is very interesting. I know that this fact will infuriate some people but my only knowledge of string theory is from youtube videos :D
I do not know what a bundled string is, but it seems my thought experiment brought me to an existing theory.
That's neat!
-
My apologies for this very unscientific post. I knew that it would have an ocean of inaccuracies (and it does), but at least i wanted to spark a conversation with this topic in mind. Please, tell me about all the ways this does not make sense :)
Literally everything. Besides what I mentioned before, your talk about waves is not quite consistent with what wave particle duality means in quantum mechanics. I am not going to try to explain quantum field theory to you, it is the kind of thing you need to take at least one whole course on quantum mechanics before you start learning about, and my understanding of QFT is not enough where I can easily teach it.
String theory as mentioned above is the closest we have to a theory of everything, but your post has no real relationship to string theory other than attempting to be a theory of everything. You do not talk about any actual fundamentals of string theory, and edzieba seems to have the misunderstanding that all strings are the same when in reality different strings correspond to different particles.
-
My apologies for this very unscientific post. I knew that it would have an ocean of inaccuracies (and it does), but at least i wanted to spark a conversation with this topic in mind. Please, tell me about all the ways this does not make sense :)
Literally everything. Besides what I mentioned before, your talk about waves is not quite consistent with what wave particle duality means in quantum mechanics. I am not going to try to explain quantum field theory to you, it is the kind of thing you need to take at least one whole course on quantum mechanics before you start learning about, and my understanding of QFT is not enough where I can easily teach it.
String theory as mentioned above is the closest we have to a theory of everything, but your post has no real relationship to string theory other than attempting to be a theory of everything. You do not talk about any actual fundamentals of string theory, and edzieba seems to have the misunderstanding that all strings are the same when in reality different strings correspond to different particles.
So, it's not string theory. Alright.
Do you believe the universe could be made out of a single particle? Which also defines the universe's spacial dimensions?
-
So, it's not string theory. Alright.
Do you believe the universe could be made out of a single particle? Which also defines the universe's spacial dimensions?
I believe my previous posts should have already answered these questions. There are multiple different fundamental particles which would not be well described by a single particle. The universe is infinite as far as we know, so "defining the universe's spatial dimensions" does not even make sense. Even less so considering that particles are point particles with no dimension based on the best experiments we have performed. (String theory predicts that they are 1 dimensional, but that that dimension goes is some weird compactified direction that has no relation to the space and time dimensions that we are used to and your question asks about.)
-
The biggest problem in the paper in general is...
Boy, did I have my threads crossed. How, I have no real explanation.
-
Can someone explain what this has to do with space flight?
If the answer is nothing, Bozonium is on the wrong site ;)
-
Can someone explain what this has to do with space flight?
I'll give it a try!
As I just mentioned a few seconds ago, I somehow misposted.
-
Can someone explain what this has to do with space flight?
I'll give it a try!
I think you have your threads mixed up. You somehow put a reply to my post in the FTL communication thread in this thread instead.
I don't actually think this thread is directly spaceflight related as it is just a (not actually useful) alternative theory of everything. A theory of everything would probably have some effect on what we could do with spaceflight, but I can't say anything specific.
The other thread on "Demonstrated FTL communication?" would be incredibly useful for spaceflight if the topic wasn't based on a misunderstanding. I think that thread has run its course and probably should be locked, but it at least was originally on topic for this site.
I'll reply to your response to me later if either thread is still open, or maybe just in PM since it has drifted away from relevance anyway.
-
I think you have your threads mixed up. You somehow put a reply to my post in the FTL communication thread in this thread instead.
Yeah. I see that now. Dunno what happened. See PM.
-
Thread locked--outside the purview of the NSF forum.