You are now in the 2nd one

When we sleep we wake up to another dimension hardly like this one and at that peculiar place we assume we are awake. We remember vague moments of our current actions and call them dreams. When we sleep there we wake up here only remembering the things that are common for both dimensions, but still cannot making sense of them. We assume this one is the real one and other one is dream in each separate plane.

This might look like a wild theory but think about it. Think about what an odd thing sleeping really is. To spend a portion of your day without consciousness or a definite memory. Since we are used to it it feels normal but! ( No need to focus on the little story above, just state your opinions about sleeping )

i do not believe we are transported to another dimension

Sorry, I already thought of this, completely explored all practical and ethical implications, and discarded it as a theory when I was four years old.

>>4
thank you for refreshing my disappointment in humankind

Energy is a wave, matter is made of energy.

If the matter created by the big bang is in fact the wave-crests of ripples on a pond, how many dimensions and pressures are needed to keep the ripples in space-time in the shape of matter?



I don't actually want an answer, but can you think of a better way to say what I'm describing?

>>6
I am quite hesitant when we talk about energy. It is a secondary definition, a result of other variables like pressure. you cannot directly alter pressure but you can change volume, amount of matter or temperature to affect it. I find "energy" hard to visualize and it might just be a dummy variable to keep the theories in place.

>>7
I am quite hesitant when we talk about pressure. It is a secondary definition, a result of other variables like position, energy and momentum. I find "pressure" hard to visualize and it might just be a dummy variable to keep the theories in place.

>>8
I am quite hesitant when we talk about momentum. It is a secondary definition, a result of other variables like mass and velocity. I find "momentum" hard to visualize and it might just be a dummy variable to keep the theories in place.

Pressure

To be honest, I have trouble conceptualizing a wave without something causing it to maintain it's pattern. Light acts like a particle and a wave until you observe it, then it just acts like a particle. the surface of a pond has both the air pressure above it, and the water below it maintaining it's shape. When a ripple passes, it is composed of both water and air.

I get the idea that observing the photon changes it into a particle, but what forces make it act like a wave in the first place?

If you can disrupt it into a particle's behavior half-way from the emitter to the target, then doesn't that mean that it's some relation to it's emitter that'
s causing it to behave like a wave?

>>10
the matter we speak of so consistently of is not so solid in reality. With human perception our surroundings look very stable and sound but if we could see all of the atoms individually it would be chaotic. Every single atom is emitting light at some wavelength and that is how we know they are there. The line between matter and energy is not so clear with objective perception. Also fields for bosons to move on are neither matter nor energy, what are they? How do we define position or volume if matter itself is a vague subject?

>>11

Yes, but I'm talking specifically about how a photon behaves like a wave right now. Since the photon doesn't start acting like a wave again after you observe it, it is not space that is causing it to behave like a wave. That means it is it's emitter that is causing it to act like one.  There must be a second unknown entanglement with the emitting electron that is causing the wavelike behavior. Maybe there is a way to observe the emitting electron that will have an effect on the photon after it has been emitted.

That would explain the wave-like behavior.

Since the photon doesn't start acting like a wave again after you observe it...

When you observe a photon it is destroyed. And why should the emitter have anything to do with it?

Maybe there is a way to observe the emitting electron that will have an effect on the photon after it has been emitted.

That would give us information transfer faster than light, violating causality and giving rise to numerous problems. And how does this explain wave-like behavior?

>>13
the photon is not destroyed, it is absorbed by an electron ( or with enough frequency by nucleus ) probably to be emitted again.


causality is not absolute. "faster than light" might be out there we just do not have anything to confirm it with. but there might be other ways like creating conditions so that particles traveling faster than light, namely tachyons would slow down and become interactive and observable by means of photons.

Also a question. A charged particle, lets say an electron, interacts with other charged particles. The principles how this occurs is defined by the variables of magnitude of the charge, a constant and the distance between charges. So the electron has to know how further away another electron is to repel it by adequate amount of force. This calls for another concept, like the constant downloading our modems do just to confirm we are still connected. This may be electromagnetic field but if electron is constantly constantly checking for particles to interact, isn't it also continuously losing energy? By definition you have to lose energy to apply force. This is also applicable to gravitational forces. ( May be that is why they are searching for a higgs boson)

>>7-10
Canonical momentum is actually a fairly fundamental thing; it is the generator of spatial translations, and is defined as the derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to velocities (or equivalent).  Energy is just the Hamiltonian, which is a Legendre transform of the Lagrangian.  I feel queasy about pressure, but it's just the negative derivative of the energy with respect to volume.

>>10
When a ripple passes, it is composed of both water and air
Most physicists of the late 1800s thought that was true for light as well.  Then a bunch of experiments came along (eg Michelson Morley) and demonstrated the non existence of the luminiferous ether.  Light exists independently of a medium; it is an excitation of the electromagnetic field, which is defined over all of space.

>>14
the photon is not destroyed, it is absorbed by an electron... probably to be emitted again.
There's usually a delay between absorption and emission, so in a sense, the photon is "destroyed".  Of course, with all that identical particle non sense, it's hard to say exactly what it means for something to be destroyed and remade.

There's usually a delay between absorption and emission, so in a sense, the photon is "destroyed".  Of course, with all that identical particle non sense, it's hard to say exactly what it means for something to be destroyed and remade.

Since there is a delay, just as you say, the interval between the events is timelike, and that is Lorentzinvariant. Thus the photon really is destroyed and new one created, the whole "identical particles" stuff doesn't really apply.

Oh, and the Hamiltonian is the generator of time-translations. If you look at the Poincare-group (ie. rotations and translations in spacetime), the Hamiltonian and the momentum-operators naturally emerges as the generators of spacetime translations.

I HATE women. I never had a girlfriend and never will. The only times I got laid was when I paid a woman or promised her something. I'm never going to hold hands with a chick, kiss a girl intimately because we're in love, or any of the other shit that human beings were made to do. I guess that I'm suppose to be happy masturbating every fucking night. I'm a man with sexual urges and can't get with a female. I'm suppose to be alright with that? THERE IS A FUCKING CURSE ON MY LIFE. A CURSE THAT PREVENTS ANY FEMALE FROM LIKING ME. Oh I forgot, I do get interest from fat chicks and I'm not attracted to fat chicks.
I don't give a fuck anymore. I'm going to become the biggest asshole in the world. I tried the whole being considerate thing and it got me nowhere. If people can't handle my newfound harshness, then bring it on. BECAUSE I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK.
I get happy when I hear about some college slut getting murdered or injured in a hit and run. "oh she was a beautiful and talented girl, how could this happen." I don't know but I'm glad it did.

>>16
shut up. we get it you are smart