I need TP for my wormhole
once, when my maths teacher long ago tried to explain that you can do equations in N dimensions, without being able to visualise their curves, his analogy was to scale down, not up. Imagine the one dimensional universe, a line. We in the 3 dimensional universe, looking at the 2 dimensional graph paper can see the quadratic curve pass through the line at 2 distinct points. Yet it remains a curve. But to the wormlike inhabitants of the one dimensional line, they will forever see 2 distinct points.
sometimes i read science books, the one's about how the universe was formed and quantum theory and superstrings and i read about this experiment or that theory and quite often all i end up thinking is, "why are they looking for the complicated answer without considering the obvious".
like with quantum entanglement, which einstein famously described as a "spooky action"
essentially, this is when two very small pieces of matter interact for a bit then go their separate ways, but remain somehow fated together. So if you were to turn up with a paintbrush and paint one of the two red, the other one would simultaneously turn red - wherever it had got to by then in the universe.
ok, so i messed with the concept a bit there, but it is the instantaneousness of the change induced in the 2nd particle (when the first particle is changed somehow) that is the deeply strange thing. Possible consequences of this: the potential for information to be transferred faster than the speed of light (which would be contrary to the theory of relativity) and the fact that for once in the quantum world we can infer something about a particle without needing to observe it.
serious consequences, then. But why is it (seemingly) never considered that we are most likely studying a reflection, that we only have a partial view of the whole. It certainly makes more sense to me to consider ways in which these two entangled particles are nothing of the sort.. they are the same entity. A loop in a dimension we can never see. If this were true, no surprise that touching one 'particle' has consequences for the 'other'. And no need to throw away relativity, nor to break quantum theory either.
Just a new worldview to extend them into.
sometimes i read science books, the one's about how the universe was formed and quantum theory and superstrings and i read about this experiment or that theory and quite often all i end up thinking is, "why are they looking for the complicated answer without considering the obvious".
like with quantum entanglement, which einstein famously described as a "spooky action"
essentially, this is when two very small pieces of matter interact for a bit then go their separate ways, but remain somehow fated together. So if you were to turn up with a paintbrush and paint one of the two red, the other one would simultaneously turn red - wherever it had got to by then in the universe.
ok, so i messed with the concept a bit there, but it is the instantaneousness of the change induced in the 2nd particle (when the first particle is changed somehow) that is the deeply strange thing. Possible consequences of this: the potential for information to be transferred faster than the speed of light (which would be contrary to the theory of relativity) and the fact that for once in the quantum world we can infer something about a particle without needing to observe it.
serious consequences, then. But why is it (seemingly) never considered that we are most likely studying a reflection, that we only have a partial view of the whole. It certainly makes more sense to me to consider ways in which these two entangled particles are nothing of the sort.. they are the same entity. A loop in a dimension we can never see. If this were true, no surprise that touching one 'particle' has consequences for the 'other'. And no need to throw away relativity, nor to break quantum theory either.
Just a new worldview to extend them into.
lyrics by viperx143 at
00:31
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home