I found this physics theory online and I am not sure if it is true Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum MechanicsAs the only paradox-free method of merging the closed timelike curves (CTCs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve allowed by the general theory of relativity with the effects of quantum mechanics without resorting to fudge factors or hacks, the many worlds interpretation (MWI) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation is the blatantly correct interpretation of quantum mechanical effects.In short, the MWI of quantum mechanics states that while an individual observer will see a statistically normative distribution of outcomes from interactions of matter and energy, that distribution is a byproduct of all possible states being resultant while the probability of an outcome maps to the percentage of connected worldlines in which that particular result occurs.Aether TheoryThe aether theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories bears special mention here due to the fact it is widely considered to be ruled out by the Michelson-Morley experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment I'm sure there will be people who take offense at this concept, but the Michelson-Morley experiment did not rule out the aether as a viable theory. Contrary to popular interpretation, the Michelson-Morley experiment only ruled out a subset of aether theories positing a static aether - which itself is a laughable concept because if there were a static aether imparting drag everywhere the universe would have ground to a halt by now. When the aether theory is mentioned within the context of this theory it is the relativistic version Morley believed in up to his death (after spending most of the remainder of his life following the famous Michelson-Morley experiment repeatedly proving the existence of a relativistic aether with numerous experiments involving induced aetheric flows.)
This document is meant to be as accessible to as wide an audience as possible while combining high level concepts from quantum mechanics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics aether theory (relativistic variation,) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether classical electrodynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism (per the original quaternion form of Maxwell's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell equations prior to Heaviside's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside refactoring into vector form,) and the general theory of relativity; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity in turn reasonable efforts will be made to explain relevant principles for those possessing a low level of or only a pop-science familiarity with them. Many are segregated into concise headings to allow more advanced readers to skip over them without missing content, as a result some elements which cross between categories may show slight repetition. Many aspects of this document are written as fact, this is just my writing style and is not meant to suggest they are indisputable. If you have a particular interest in the occult you may want to skip to the Occult section of this document and work your way backwards using the hyperlinks on this page as explanations are needed.PhysicsThe physics described in this section is relatively widely accepted or acknowledged and for this reason is separated off from the metaphysics and occult sections which follow it. If you have a deep interdisciplinary familiarity with modern physics you may be able to skip this section, though some specific notes may still be helpful to get in the right frame of mind while reading what follows.
>>16929152Observer PrincipleAn important part of quantum mechanics is the principle of superposition: that the state of a system is undefined until observed and exists instead as a probabilistic distribution from the perspective of a potential observer. This principle has, contrary to the intuition of nearly everyone, been confirmed repeatedly and gives important clues as to what is happening physically. This principle will be touched on more within this document and may be expanded at a later date.There is a great video on YouTube describing the uncertainty principle: The more general uncertainty principle, beyond quantum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnnXbOM5S4 A rough summary of this is that as the position of a particle is known absolutely the momentum will range from zero to infinity and when the momentum is known absolutely the position will range from the position of measurement to anywhere else. Another way to look at this is in the context of a wave function wherein the amplitude maps to the known location and the wavelength is the range of possible momenta, there is a good graphical demonstration of this within this YouTube video: Quantum Wave Function Visualization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKr91v7yLcM
>>16929154Rindler HorizonsAt the simplest definition a Rindler horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates#The_Rindler_horizon is the horizon around an accelerating body beyond which light will never be able to catch it. Within the context of this theory the expansion of space is treated as a constant acceleration, and in turn has an associated Rindler horizon centered at any observer within the visible universe. This horizon approximately matches the particle horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_horizon of the visible universe, or the edge of the visible universe. There is a second counter-inductive Rindler-like horizon which will be touched upon within the Infinite Universe section below.
>>16929157Origin of InertiaFor the purpose of this theory the Woodward effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect derived largely from Mach's principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle is assumed to be true. Ernst Mach put fourth this idea succinctly with:>You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. >Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?To state that the distant matter in the universe determines the inertia of matter locally. This effect can easily be explained when viewed in the context of quantum mechanics and assuming a relativistic aether or aether-like substrate: there is some degree of observation taking place beyond photons, for the purpose of this theory that observation could be via light, gravity, stress/strain relationships of aether or within the quantum foam - the precise mechanism is largely irrelevant to the content here so long as some form of observation occurs.
>>16929158Infinite UniverseTaking into account Rindler horizons relating to observation as described above imparting inertia locally, a secondary counter-inductive Rindler horizon occurs wherein a local observer has a horizon at which they can observe a distant observer observing them.This counter-inductive Rindler horizon has an approximate distance of: Pic relatedhttps://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.htmlhttps://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.htmlhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.htmlOr just over a division by half, yielding a stronger local binding to matter than distant matter across worldlines, approximately equal to the inverse square law.Further, the alignment with the primary Rindler horizon for a local observer to the particle horizon measured at the edge of the universe is strongly indicative that the edge of the visible universe is not the true edge, and that it is in fact infinite. This raises the question of where the galaxies came from, as an infinite universe suggests no big bang or that the big bang was itself infinite. Which of these is the case does not appear to have enough supporting evidence to say definitively, as we have not yet observed matter being created in a sustainable manner. There is however some experimental evidence to suggest that virtual particles or fluctuations of the quantum foam may produce new matter, in which case the infinite time without start or end model is the likely fit. This theory will not however rely upon either conclusion to fit reality, it is an interesting concept to think about regardless (espeically when considering the additional layers of emergence both above and below us, as the infinite-universe-bound-by-visible-universe-Rindler-horizons perspective would look suspiciously like the quantum foam on a larger scale.)
>>16929159The Boltzmann UniverseThe natural consequence of an infinite universe is that all possible physical conformations of matter an energy exist, this will be referred to as the Boltzmann Universe within the context of this theory. This leads to the question of what time might be, and what reality as a whole is. It is postulated by this theory that moments are linked by conformational similarity and that this universe is itself timeless, wherein time is a byproduct of similar conformational morphology as depicted in the Origin of Worldlines section. The physical structure of this universe is further expounded upon in the Crystalline Universe section.Origin of WorldlinesThe counter-inductive Rindler horizon and harmonics thereof expounded upon in the Infinite Universe section of this document have the potential to create issues: due to variations in the relative expansion of space imparted by intermediary bodies, the momentum and position of both the local body and of the remote observer, and the existence of multiple observers occupying different harmonic shells, there will necessarily be conflicting accounts of what precisely the inertia of a local body will be. This conflict compounds over time, and helps to link worldlines across vast distances such that local divergences from observation are not entirely limited to the local space of an interaction and in turn imparts a form of temporal magnetism to differing bodies, facilitating a portion of what links moments across time.Temporal MechanicsThis section discusses the natural mechanics of time as outlined thus far in this document.The Arrow of TimeIn a Boltzmann universe there is only one conformation which is unique: that wherein all matter and energy occupied the same space. This naturally leads to an arrow of time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time and manifests what we consider to be entropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28arrow_of_time%29 as a result as a natural tendency
>>16929162DivergenceDivergence is the process by which moments of time are linked in a forward direction. Due to the initial asymmetry outlined in the Arrow of Time section of this document, the higher-dimensional structure of the multiverse naturally takes on an N-spherical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere topology wherein the radial dimension is the arrow of time. This means there are more futures than there are pasts from any given moment because as the radius (time) increased the surface area (quantifiable worldline count) does as well, and in turn there is a pressure associated with time in addition to the temporal magnetism imparted by morphological and conformational similarities and resonances.ConvergenceConvergence is the process by which moments from the past combine into future moments. Due to the greater quantity of futures than pasts relative to any moment in time convergence happens loosely from morphological effects, though may be forced through realization of epistemic moments or CTCs. In turn, care must be taken with any technology or ability utilizing travel through time in the reverse direction, as the temporal pressure of CTCs may induce secondary side effects in nearby worldlines. Each moment within this theory has multiple pasts and multiple futures, save for the first moment.
>>16929163RetrocausalityRetrocausality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality is the concept that the future can influence the past. While not strictly true, the future can influence a past similar but different from its own (and in very complex cases, can even form loops of worldlines wherein a seemingly acausal effect generated from another worldline can cause a cascade of events within a seemingly natural worldline to reinforce the loop through apparently retrocausal effects.) Simple examples of this effect such as the quantum eraser experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment as explained by this YouTube video prove this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs effect readily (though are largely useless for the purposes of time travel as they only bind connections in soft loops and don't rely upon any mechanism by which to overcome the temporal pressure required for reverse time travel - though there are potentially ways to couple them to other effects to be of more use.)
>>16929164SuperpositionWhile quantum superposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition may seem at a glance to fit better within the Physics section of this document, it ties into the temporal mechanics section better. In short: repeated experiments of a very wide variety aimed at testing quantum superposition have shown that the state of a system is in a superposition of all possible states of that system until observed when quantum interactions are in play. That last point is an important one, because the overwhelming majority of quantum interactions "cancel out" in a sense through aggregate effects. While the multiverse is constantly spawning new worldlines from the perspective of an observer in any moment of time, this is an illusion because all of those state already existed. More recent experiments have shown that the famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment can be run backwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat That is to say that the cat in the box isn't the only thing in superposition, the observers outside the box are as well. This further solidifies the point that superposition is maintained so long as the aggregate effects are dominant over the observations between two or more systems, and multiple observers can disagree. The finer points of this are detailed in the Morphological Resonance section of this document. The key takeaway from this section of the document should be that so long as a thing hasn't been observed it is in a superposition and is mutable from the perspective of any observer. If an aggregate effect is in play (such as observing an observer which observed the thing, or observing multiple observers which observed the thing) then a superposition still exists, but is limited to the possible states which could induce the same aggregate observations made by the initial observer.
>>16929166"Thing" here may sound unscientific, but it really is meant to be "anything" - a particle, a wave, a macroscopic object, an entire galaxy, or even an entire (or multiple) visible universes.Meta TimeMeta time as utilized within this theory is defined as any dimensionality of time greater than 1 for any N dimensions of non-temporal space. Universes lacking meta time are incapable of internally-derived time travel, while universes containing meta-time have the necessary degrees of freedom for at least some form of time travel to be possible via physical law.
BumpI asked grok and it said no but I could not understand why and I asked grok to steel man it and i could not understand that either
>>16929159>retard cannot propagate errorskek. did not read anything you wrote, schizo
>>16929513I didn’t write thisWhat do you mean specifically by cannot propagate errors?What made you think this was not worth reading?
>>16929559You don't know? Oof. Not gonna go into details for you, AI.
>>16929152What did Stephen Hawking say about the multiverse?Together with Belgian physicist Thomas Hertog, Hawking argued that our universe is not the only one, but part of a vast multiverse born from the same cosmic event — the Big Bang.See, that's what I was saying.
>>16929479>muh AIkys
>>16931997I posted it here so humans could read it and give thoughts on it
A Static Aether is possible if at the bottom Planck layer level, the smallest foundational, fundamental, constituent building block parts of the universe are incapable of sheering off any smaller upon a track lattice, and therefore without sheering would be incapable of suffering friction, an thusly no drag slowing the universe down to a grinding halt....
>>16932351Good point
I was watching this today. I like how Brian Greene questions Sean Carroll's sanity, believing it. But it still holds truth on the quantum level. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsZ1aB5egEQ
https://www.quatism.com/theory.htm
>>16932461This is not a theory. This is an utterly retarded collection of meaningless shower thoughts, and completely no math aside from one meandering block of LaTeX.
>>16932461There are just so many things horrendously wrong with this that if I were to list them, I'd be here all day. I guarantee if you emailed this tripe to a physicist you would be blocked.
>>16932467>Reality isn't real and consciousness is all that exists.Physics/reality are an interface for consciousnesses to communicate with one another.You can see this testing conspiracy theory tech in private: it will work a bunch of the time, pretty much any time you believe it.If you get overly excited and show it to a physics PhD it will fall apart.If you show it non-physics-educated people, then stoner nerds, then nerds obsessed with physics but not formally educated, then those formally educated in physics but not working professionally in it, THEN a physics PhD, the effect will hold, but typically the physics PhD will obsess over it for a month or three then move on to something else because they never actually had a mind for physics to begin with (that's more or less what academia selects for these days.)Controlling reality in private is easy, pushing those effects to a wider audience is harder because reality is an interface to communicate, not a real thing. All parties involved need to be able to not necessarily make sense of or comprehend it, but for it to mesh with their own worldview/reality.A good example is relativity vs quantum mechanics - both are "real," both work, both have predictive capacity, and both are completely irreconcilable with one another - essentially two distinct rulesets for reality which were widely held by everyone who cared to look and accepted as truth by everyone else until they became real.Electrodynamics and aether theory imo pose the greatest potential currently to merge+expand on "physics," just keep in mind it's all a bunch of bs and try not to paint yourself (and everyone else) into a corner like they did with QM and GR by failing to understand that
>>16932564I've seen this exact diarrhea diatribe before, posted on this fucking board. It still means nothing and will be worth nothing no matter how many times you post it.
>>16932467Could you pick one or two that are wrong and explain why?What about the things it gets right? I think miracles probably exist and there’s good evidence that miracles have happened https://boards.4chan.org/x/thread/42128235#bottom https://motivacredibilitatis.substack.com/p/st-pio-of-pietrelcina I’ve experienced stuff like deja vu before.There’s evidence of the Mandela effect like a very large percentage of medical doctors in the United States being confidently wrong when asked what the universal blood type is Mandela Effect Report- 25K responses- Ruling out memory as the causehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oe65g0K8ePcStudy done by phd on Mandela effect. A large percentage of medical doctors don’t know the universal blood type
>>16932569>>16932467It correctly predicts morphic resonance (morphological resonance in the theory) from Rupert sheldrake There’s multiple multi millionaires who believe in it and stuff like it CEO, founder and multimillionaire noticed Mandela effecthttps://necs.com/blog/blog-article.php?id=48&referrer=grok.comhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XUPxDLMCUKMhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fqt8Cfd-1jchttps://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37260088/#q37265633You know, I can drop any drug on a dime but I've never been able to motivate myself to lift weights - did however LoA myself from 50k/yr to 650k/yr (aiming to break 1m/yr this year) so there's that, still aiming for the lottery. If you're curious of the method at all:>make a list of material things to acquire that you want and would purchase anyway>make the list bigger than anything you could ever afford in the remainder of your natural life if you progressed at your current rate financially, keep adding to it over time as you think of new things>use https://www.quatism.com/lottery.htm to generate quantum lottery tickets>play those tickets every drawing, if the jackpot is won restart, otherwise play them adding 1 new ticket each drawing>if you win buy everything on your acquisition listWhat this does, per the model outlined in https://www.quatism.com/theory.htm and what are now 3 other models with completely different modes of operation I've found describing the occult is:>winning numbers happen, you're unlikely to experience them>non-winning number happen, and are far more likely to experience>the acquisition list binds your winning and non-winning worldlines together, winners lose money faster and non-winners gain it through random-seeming mechanisms>net effect is you gain wealthWhereas without the quantum random lottery tickets you just have x/n percent of ever experiencing things, with a qRNG behind it it's x/n percent chance of being the version of you to experience things.
>>16932570https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/32796318/#q32804299Also, net worth is currently about 2m, still eat ramen half the days and live paycheck to paycheck in a house that's a piscean clusterfuck of half-done projects, but technically a multi-millionaire (aside from having my shit all moved into trusts such that if I die estate taxes don't eat what I've built up prior to their transfer to heirs, which would cause them to have to liquidate the assets to cover the taxes and get a one-time ~1m cash payout that would fuck them up in the long-run, so I guess you could say "I own nothing and am happy.)" I tried casting to win the lottery, multiple times, for various sums. What worked for me was https://www.quatism.com/lottery.htm along with self-improvement and focus by starting to take my assets seriously with an asset/acquisition list rather than impulse-buying, so kind-of-lottery-related-I-guess? Did 0 to 2m in about 3 years. I would caution you against the weirdness which occurs when mapping winning the lottery to quantum random numbers, but it's an experience, and very probably will be an eventful one from any experiential reference frame, just be careful to lay off it if things get too weird/fucked such that the temporal magnetism from your other selves pulls you back to the nearest self-stable-collimated-set of worldlines and you should be ok. Morphic travel is kind of like surfing or snowboarding like that, you don't control the wave/specific-probability-subset, but you can control your reaction to it.
>>16932461>>16932564>>16932467MWI already gives you an infinite Boltzmann sea of all conformations. The thread just adds the minimal sorting rules (conformational similarity + Rindler inverse-square temporal magnetism + brain-plasticity hooks) needed to make consciousness, souls, and agency non-illusory.
>>16932461>>16932569>>16932467This theory does not suffer from the hard problem of consciousness because it already accepts souls and its idealistic and allows for the existence of God
From a different author with a potentially slightly different theory Quantum Physics of Time TravelLast year (2005) an interesting paper appeared that investigated the paradoxes of time travel in context of quantum physics. Usually time travel is approached from the Relativity angle, involving black holes or faster than light travel, whose requirements for application are too immense to be practical. Fortunately, it turns out that the quantum interpretation opens the door to understanding some basic fourth density (beyond linear time) principles. What follows is a summary and discussion of the paper by Daniel Greenberger and Karl Svozil titled Quantum Theory Looks at Time Travel. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027From the abstract:>We introduce a quantum mechanical model of time travel which includes two figurative beam splitters in order to induce feedback to earlier times. This leads to a unique solution to the paradox where one could kill one’s grandfather in that once the future has unfolded, it cannot change the past, and so the past becomes deterministic. On the other hand, looking forwards towards the future is completely probabilistic. This resolves the classical paradox in a philosophically satisfying manner.From the conclusion:>According to our model, if you travel into the past quantum mechanically, you would only see those alternatives consistent with the world you left behind you. In other words, while you are aware of the past, you cannot change it. No matter how unlikely the events are that could have led to your present circumstances, once they have actually occurred, they cannot be changed. Your trip would set up resonances that are consistent with the future that has already unfolded.
You are literally spamming walls of unjustified nonsense, blatant lies, pseudo-spiritual diarrhea (but no actual science!) and subjective opinions. I am not going to engage with this.Show me an equation, dumbass.
>>16932577>This also has enormous consequences on the paradoxes of free will. It shows that it is perfectly logical to assume that one has many choices and that one is free to take any one of them. Until a choice is taken, the future is not determined. However, once a choice is taken, and it leads to a particular future, it was inevitable. It could not have been otherwise. The boundary conditions that the future events happen as they already have, guarantees that they must have been prepared for in the past. So, looking backwards, the world is deterministic. >However, looking forwards, the future is probabilistic. This completely explains the classical paradox. In fact, it serves as a kind of indirect evidence that such feedback must actually take place in nature, in the sense that without it, a paradox exists, while with it, the paradox is resolved. (Of course, there is an equally likely explanation, namely that going backward in time is impossible. >This also solves the paradox by avoiding it.)>The model also has consequences concerning the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory. The world may appear to keep splitting so far as the future is concerned. However, once a measurement is made, only those histories consistent with that measurement are possible. In other words, with time travel, other alternative worlds do not exist, as once a measurement has been made confirming the world we live in, the other worlds would be impossible to reach from the original one.
>>16932578Infinite UniverseTaking into account Rindler horizons relating to observation as described above imparting inertia locally, a secondary counter-inductive Rindler horizon occurs wherein a local observer has a horizon at which they can observe a distant observer observing them.This counter-inductive Rindler horizon has an approximate distance of: Pic related here >>16929159https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.htmlhttps://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.htmlhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.htmlOr just over a division by half, yielding a stronger local binding to matter than distant matter across worldlines, approximately equal to the inverse square law.Further, the alignment with the primary Rindler horizon for a local observer to the particle horizon measured at the edge of the universe is strongly indicative that the edge of the visible universe is not the true edge, and that it is in fact infinite. This raises the question of where the galaxies came from, as an infinite universe suggests no big bang or that the big bang was itself infinite. Which of these is the case does not appear to have enough supporting evidence to say definitively, as we have not yet observed matter being created in a sustainable manner. There is however some experimental evidence to suggest that virtual particles or fluctuations of the quantum foam may produce new matter, in which case the infinite time without start or end model is the likely fit. This theory will not however rely upon either conclusion to fit reality, it is an interesting concept to think about regardless (espeically when considering the additional layers of emergence both above and below us, as the infinite-universe-bound-by-visible-universe-Rindler-horizons perspective would look suspiciously like the quantum foam on a larger scale.)
None of this is remotely close to a theory.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
>>16932581Inverse square law http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html >>16932582But macro evolution is?
>>16932583Oh my fuck, the babbling schizo is a creationist nigger. Who would've known.
>>16932587
>>16932590
>>16932593
Bump
Bump !
NOT YET DEBUNKED
Bomp
burp
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.08820
