• Announcements

    • Frinkeldoodle

      Notice for Anyone Using Dolphin Browser   12/13/2016

      I've discovered there's a particular bug that occurs when using Dolphin Browser here that autofills your username and password... into a thread's title and tag fields when you create or edit one. I advise anyone using Dolphin Browser at the moment to discontinue using it here until either Dolphin fixes their autofill so it doesn't do that, or until IP.Board releases an update that reverses what causes that to happen.
    • Vairaki

      Discord Account Verifications   06/27/2017

      A reminder for those who use the discord channels that have not yet verified their member status, You have until Saturday the 1st of July to do so to avoid any interrupted service. 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest Celestia

A quick little note on a simple way alternate realities really could exist (from a thesis I wrote in college)...

8 posts in this topic

I was responding to a friend on my journal ("Twilighting the Way") and thought it might be nice to re-post the physics part here too!

In college, (now a _looooonnnnngggg_ time ago for me,) I took a class on Quantum Mechanics (quantum physics). I've been out-of-the-loop with respect to high-energy physics for a while, but the math I used to support this theory was pretty basic/core/integral to Quantum Physics... so... if things like The Wave Equation and those other core/basic/integral formulae are still in good standing... ...then as far-out as this re-telling might seem... it's got to stand as a theory until something that it's built upon is disproven.

So... as crazy as it may seem... here's a (couple) simple concepts of how alternate dimensions could exist right here alongside our own concept/measurement of "reality"....

In that Quantum Mechanics class, I wrote a thesis paper on how, (based on the concept [using The Wave Equation] of there being a "grain" to space... where there are "nodes" of high probability of measuring a particle with mass, on either side of "nodes" of extreme low probability of measuring a particle with mass,) there could mathematically exist _at_least_ one other dimension right alongside our own, where what we measure as space, is measured by that alternate existence as time, (and vice-versa,) and how particles with mass _could_ travel between these perceptual dimensions.

(Condensed to its simplest: Where "At Rest" represents a "node" of high probability of measuring a particle with mass... C [speed of light] represents a "node" of extreme low probability of measuring a particle with mass... and the "grain to space" math predicts that at 2C, there would be another "node" of high probability of measuring a particle with mass. However, another set of mathematics postulated that as one approached the speed of light, space and time warp, one becoming the other after the velocity of C.)

For what it's worth, the professor gave me an "A" on the paper.

(And for what it's worth... I think the reason I did do so well in that class, (where everypony else taking the class was there on their second time through... "for the grade,") was that I _had_ spent so much of my life in applied studies of magic and "ancient mystery schools". Studying quantum physics was like lending mathematical credence to things magical that seemed "highly improbable" at least. *giggles* there was one time where what we had been studying felt like it was opening my head and showing how something pivotal to my practicing of magic really _was_ probable... that it _wasn't_ just "airy-fairy" stuff... I felt like my whole perception of this world had just shifted.

(I sat there in the classroom for a good 20 minutes, just going over and over the theories in my head to make sure they held-up... and I actually felt giddy because they were totally viable! The professor came back into the room and saw me there and was like, "Umm... are you okay?" And I could only laugh and say, "Yes... but I just don't feel quite safe to drive yet." 3247790610.png )

(Later, I expanded on the theory, handling the "stuff" we are aligned to perceive of as reality as little more than a dataset... that when measuring the dataset as these bodies are designed to do, it appears as we know reality to be.... But swap the measurement of, say, the "Y Axis" with the vector we use to measure "Time," and while the data remains the same, it is "perceived" completely differently.... etc.)

So... ...mathematically [at least based on the math at the time] alternate dimensions are very much [probable].

Share this post


Link to post

Is there any chance of you posting the full paper here? I'm not really sure what you mean by the space-time-swap here. How do causality and entropy get translated? Do energy and momentum also get swapped?

Share this post


Link to post
Is there any chance of you posting the full paper here? I'm not really sure what you mean by the space-time-swap here. How do causality and entropy get translated? Do energy and momentum also get swapped?

 Well, considering Twilight is in China at the moment, as well as the fact that the paper was probably just that - written down on paper - and it was quite a long time ago, I find it highly unlikely that the assignment could be posted as a .pdf or something. Sorry to disappoint you. You can ask for more information on little snippets though. I'm sure that Twilight would be more than happy to give you more details (sorry if I dragged you into anything here, Twilight).

Share this post


Link to post
Is there any chance of you posting the full paper here? I'm not really sure what you mean by the space-time-swap here. How do causality and entropy get translated? Do energy and momentum also get swapped?

I may still have the floppy disc on which I wrote the paper... if they are still readable, I'd need first to find a 3 1/4" floppy drive with which to read it!

(And Lunaclipse is right... I'm working in China until 2014.)

Regarding "causality and entropy," to quote your question, (and bear in mind it's been ~20 years since I've done more than recreationally study high-energy physics,) "causality" being the tracable path of an event leading to a result, and "entropy" being the perfect distribution of all matter throughout a system such that one has essentially the "heat-death of the Universe," I don't see how causality relates with entropy as implied by your question.

With respect to kinetic energy and momentum, (if you're asking about the 0, C, 2C postulate,) on the other side of C, (where space was time and time was space,) one would still be working with p, t, and E(sub)k, so there would be no change to the math required to work with an item existing solely within that system.

Now, how would "Space become time and time become space"?  The formulas that we used to describe that phenomenon were right t the edge of my level of understanding then -- I'd have to re-study the equations to wrap my brain around them now to be able to understand it enough to discuss them now.  (Though I do seem to remember we had to use the "Momentum Operator" rather than momentum in the equations, in order for the calculations to be possible.)

I've done an ultra-quick websearch on ""space becomes time" "time becomes space"" and found BBC and RedOrbit articles (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12434007, http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1995954/twisted_light_observed_in_black_holes/ )  from a group of scientists in 2011 that are gathering data to prove this phenomenon surrounding spinning black-holes.

...And here's a little blurb from "Astronomy Cafe" that discusses the phenomenon, (very similarly to how I remember us doing in class during the section regarding relativistic physics near and within the Event Horizons of black holes,) but without the formulas:

In general relativity, time and space are a set of variables that can be used to keep track of the geometry of space-time. But they are not the only kinds of variables that form a set of four coordinates that 'span' the dimensionality of space-time. They are just the ones we intuitively find the most convenient. Physicists have discovered other sets of coordinates that are even better. For example, the event horizon appears in the mathematics as a 'coordinate singularity' if you use Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z,t), but if you use something called the 'Kruskal-Szekeres' coordinates, it vanishes completely. There is only one true singularity in a black hole that isn't spinning and that is the one at a radial coordinate value of r=0. At the event horizon, the curvature of space is non-infinite so that what you may think is happening incomplete and misleading. In the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinate system, which is actually the one you would be living in if you were falling into the black hole, as you pass inside the black hole event horizon, nothing unusual happens, but in the conventional Cartesian (x,y,z,t) system, you see that the space and time parts reverse themselves. This means that just inside the horizon, space becomes time-like and time becomes space-like. The particular mathematical variable we call time changes to something with the mathematical properties we have normally associated with space. It is possible that time changes, somehow, inside a black hole, but that is an experiment we will never be able to test because we can never receive information from inside a black hole. Because (x,y,z,t) is a 'bad' coordinate system in the first place for describing black hole geometry, I do not feel compelled to ask it to make too many predictions.

But then... finding out the information oneself is most of the joy of learning!  So, I leave you with these "idea seeds" and hope you have a wonderful time (space? 3247790610.png) to, (as Kipling's "Rikki Tikki" would say,) "Run and find-out!" 1179911372.png

-Twilight 641293646.png

Share this post


Link to post

I had a giant post here that I thought was excessive. Here's the short version:

I think you misunderstood what I meant when I asked about causality and entropy, but you answered my question anyway. With the energy (total energy, not just kinetic) and momentum question, I was wondering what happened with the uncertainty principle during the time-space swap, but I realized by looking at a Minkowski graph that they could be nicely swapped as well, and that the laws of relativity and quantum mechanics would be no different under the translation, and I can explain the process pretty simply.

Think of a Minkowski spacetime graph where a particle is moving in the postive-time direction. Increasing velocity here means rotating the direction of movement towards an edge of the light cone, into some direction of space. Now imagine that the particle is just some wave in spacetime. The frequency in the time direction represents energy, and the frequency in the spatial directions represents momentum (this is mathematically equivalent to the de Broglie hypothesis, I believe). As the velocity increases, the particle fluctuates more in the space dimensions and less in the time dimension. At C, the particle is moving in equal parts space and time ("slope of 1", 45 degrees). Because of this, it's also fluctuating in equal parts space and time, meaning momentum is equal to energy. At C, since the particle is moving in equal parts space and time, there are two possible labelings of the axes since space and ONE of the spatial dimensions are interchangeable. Beyond C, the particle is fluctuating more in a "space" direction, and so energy of the particle actually decreases as velocity increases (and this goes up to 2C, where the line describing the particle is aligned with one of the spatial axes).  Between C and 2C, you can pretend the axes have all been rotated 90 degrees so that time moves to one of the spatial dimensions (the one 90 degrees towards the C particle's velocity), that same spatial dimension moves to the time dimension, and the two other spatial dimensions... I don't know what happens to them because I can't do a 4d rotation in my head. Anyway, with this, energy and momentum are just swapped along with time and space, and the rest of physics remains the same... just rotated 90 degrees and mirrored.

There were some weird consequences, but nothing that could break this theory. I'm going to think more on this, but regardless of what I conclude, I'm thoroughly impressed that you did this as an undergrad during the floppy disk era.

Share this post


Link to post

Aww... I liked the detail you went into in your first post! 641293646.png (Though I only briefed through it this morning -- hectic weekend.)

You condensed your post wonderfully though! And even though it's been years since I've "rolled-up-my-sleeves" and had fun with hard-core physics like this, I followed your explanation really well!

I can't tell you how exciting it felt to be looking at things like this again, (as well as working through your posts! 641293646.png )

I miss exploring things like this so much -- though I had to make a conscious choice as to what direction I wanted my career to go in... and I dove into animation and filmmaking with all four hooves and didn't have time (or colleagues) to pour over things like this.

Thank you for this! 641293646.png

And oh... um... thank you! I really didn't think it out of the ordinary at the time.

I think the "leg up" I had was in so much of my earlier life studying, (and living, where applicable,) "metaphysics." I just looked at some of the things we were exploring in class and just had "flashes" of, "Oh! That's a mathematical explanation of how _____________ phenomenon _might_ be possible!".

It was just my kind of fun! 1179911372.png

(Later, when reading "The Dancing Wu-Li Masters" and "The Tao of Physics," I was like... "heeeee... others have thought along these lines too! 641293646.png )

Thank you again. It was really wonderful tromping over those fun puzzle-grounds again! <3

(And I'm really thrilled that you found that that old postulate still holds up! 641293646.png )

(P.S. You know... you might enjoy "Interference" by Richard Merrick, (he's got the whole theory as a free PDF now). There are some assumptions integral to his work, I'm not certain of... but the core essence behind it is really intriguing! 641293646.png )

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, I'm really glad you liked that. I actually deleted the first post because I completely lost confidence in it, and a few hours later decided that I would just post it and give it a chance at life.

I also wish I had more time for physics, but I've put myself in computer security, and I'm not yet regretting it. I really love how beautifully quantum mechanics is, and questions like the ones raised here make me realize just how pleasantly simple it can be. Computer security must be the antithesis to that, given that there is no known foundation (and consequently, it's hideous and complicated, ie. beautiful in its own way 641293646.png), but that's also why I like it so  much.

I read the first two paragraphs of Interference, and it caught my interest pretty quickly.  Thanks for the reference!

Share this post


Link to post
Wow, I'm really glad you liked that. I actually deleted the first post because I completely lost confidence in it, and a few hours later decided that I would just post it and give it a chance at life.

I also wish I had more time for physics, but I've put myself in computer security, and I'm not yet regretting it. I really love how beautifully quantum mechanics is, and questions like the ones raised here make me realize just how pleasantly simple it can be. Computer security must be the antithesis to that, given that there is no known foundation (and consequently, it's hideous and complicated, ie. beautiful in its own way 641293646.png), but that's also why I like it so  much.

I read the first two paragraphs of Interference, and it caught my interest pretty quickly.  Thanks for the reference!

I'm so glad you did re-post your thoughts! They are great! 1179911372.png

Wow, computer security... what an ever-evolving field that must be!

I'm sorry you also miss being able to research things like Quantum Physics and the like as well... (There are times I do still wonder what it would have been like to pursue a career in academics... *heh* I imagine I'd be a lot like Jodi Foster's character in "Contact". 3247790610.png )

Glad ya liked what you've read of "Interference"! 1179911372.png It gets better as he gets into the actual theory itself. 641293646.png

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.