I posted this in a physics forum a long time ago and basically got handed my hat. I guess if you don’t use fancy lingo even physicists get closed minded (or they just don’t like non-physicists intruding in their forum (I was very polite btw and admitted to being a layman)). It’s pure speculation based on my laymans understanding of physics, but I think it’s a neat idea anyways. I remember reading that Richard Feynman proposed that the reason electrons are all exactly the same is that there really is only a single electron in the universe and it can travel back and forth in time and “pop ups” in our 3D world an infinite number of times (think of a linear path passing through a 3D “plane”). This gives the illusion of multiple electrons.
That got me to thinking, what if electrons, or elementary particles in general, are really rings in one higher spatial dimension? Intersecting our 3D universe would give the appearance of 2 separate particles. But if they’re rings, you’d think any action made on one of the “particles” (ie on part of the ring intersection) would have an effect on the other, thereby seeming to induce action at a distance or “entanglement” of sorts.
Sorry, I have enough trouble with quantum entanglment of a pair of items. The idea of an infinite electron just doesn’t begin to make sense to me. I’d have to see Feynmann’s quotation before I could even consider it. He may have been using that as a metaphor to point out something else, or possibly his excellent, wild sense of humor was showing up.
CuthbertJ
what if electrons, or elementary particles in general, are really rings in one higher spatial dimension?
How could we even know what went on in a higher spatial dimension? Seems to me it would have the same problem of accessibility as with any form of “beyond the event horizon”.
From Wiki,
Potentially consistent theories that allow faster-than-light particles include those that break Lorentz invariance, the symmetry underlying special relativity, so that the speed of light is not a barrier.Despite theoretical arguments against the existence of faster-than-light particles, experiments have been conducted to search for them. No compelling evidence for their existence had been found.[6]
The wonder of the problem lies in the fact that entanglement seems to happen in this spatial dimension. I believe the phenomenon has been duplicated. And if someone actually figured out how it happens, time/space travel would be posssible, ie. a twin pod entanglement/translation station in New York and a sister station in Melbourne translator station each with it’s own entangled relationships and a whole bunch of electrons (in unformed states). You step into one pod and an entangled duplicate is created, which in turn has an entangled sister in Melbourne and that translator pod recreates you instantaneously.
Lol, Einstein called it “spooky action”, and he was not often challenged on the abstract ability of his mind.
IMO, entanglement has a relationship with dual nature of the universe. Similar perhaps to a “zero or default state” condition.
Suppose that the spacetime fabric of the universe was a formula which must be preserved at all times (except perhaps the uncertainty factor). “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. If something turns clockwise, something else must turn counter-clockwise. The Universal Potential Field must be maintained.
There is only conversion. And the conversion (action/event) is inevitably entangled throughout the spacetime fabric.
But it gets too exotic for me to speculate at this level. These are just basic intuitions. I am a little sceptical about possible parallell physical dimensions, with half here and half there. Can both dimensions be measured at the same time? I doubt it.
I posted this in a physics forum a long time ago and basically got handed my hat. I guess if you don’t use fancy lingo even physicists get closed minded (or they just don’t like non-physicists intruding in their forum (I was very polite btw and admitted to being a layman)). It’s pure speculation based on my laymans understanding of physics, but I think it’s a neat idea anyways. I remember reading that Richard Feynman proposed that the reason electrons are all exactly the same is that there really is only a single electron in the universe and it can travel back and forth in time and “pop ups” in our 3D world an infinite number of times (think of a linear path passing through a 3D “plane”). This gives the illusion of multiple electrons.
That got me to thinking, what if electrons, or elementary particles in general, are really rings in one higher spatial dimension? Intersecting our 3D universe would give the appearance of 2 separate particles. But if they’re rings, you’d think any action made on one of the “particles” (ie on part of the ring intersection) would have an effect on the other, thereby seeming to induce action at a distance or “entanglement” of sorts.
Thoughts?
For the idea that every electron in the universe is really only one electron to be testable, there needs to be a way to affect every electron in the universe by affecting one electron. This does not sound like a good idea to try.
Sorry, I have enough trouble with quantum entanglment of a pair of items. The idea of an infinite electron just doesn’t begin to make sense to me. I’d have to see Feynmann’s quotation before I could even consider it. He may have been using that as a metaphor to point out something else, or possibly his excellent, wild sense of humor was showing up.
Occam
I guess my thought boils down to “there is no pair of items”. It only appears that way in our limited 3D experience. So really action at a distance might only be “at a distance” as perceived by us in our limited 3D viewpoint.
As for testing this or the one electron notion, it’d probably be along the lines of how they test for the Higgs Boson for example. They don’t look for the particle per se (or the higher dimension) but only the effects of smashing other particles into each other.
A little thought experiment would go something like this: imagine you had a twistable rubber donut. Imagine too that you could have a piece of paper or glass intersect the donut so that if you were a little Flatlander living on the glass, it’d look like two circles in your world. Now somehow you rotate one circle and ask a friend to see what happens at the other circle. If when you rotated your circle the other rotated too, you might speculate that the circles are “connected” somehow. And one way would be that they aren’t really separate circles at all, but just two representations, if you will, of a higher dimensional donut passing through your 2D world.
Is there a compelling reason why electrons in toto should be a singularity? The notion of duality is not unique or even unusual. It is present everywhere in nature as well as in Natural Laws.
The Feynman electron thing was just as an example of what got me thinking, not really important to this topic.
I was hoping there’d be someone with more physics knowledge who could chime in. Obviously my example of a ring in higher dimensions is nothing without some mathematical underpinning. And testing these ideas is even a step removed from that. BUT…pretend my idea had to do with “strings” that somehow vibrate in various dimensions, and the nodes represent particles (I think that’s the idea). Every posted in this thread would apply (no practical way of testing, daulity, etc.) EXCEPT that String Theory is in fact a recognized endeavor in physics and lots of smart people have put mathemtical meat on the bones of the basic “laymans” picture of it.
I like the string theory, it fits very well with my own ideas of the fundamental structure and properties of the universe. But ST requires a string at every singular point and in order to account for the particular (possible) vibrations (harmonics) it is now felt that there may be an infinity of universes. Something to the order of 10^500.
Just saw a tv program where this possibility is difficult for scientists to accept, but there is at least one prominent physicist who is delighted with that prospect, because only then are there no limitations of expression throughout the universe.
I guess if you don’t use fancy lingo even physicists get closed minded
That a problem not just with physicists, but with the Medical profession also. Only they are doing it to patients with serious problems who don’t speak Latin. I think I may have finnaly woke my internist up to this problem when I asked for an interperter to trnslate the explanation of my stomach problem into English.
I guess if you don’t use fancy lingo even physicists get closed minded
That a problem not just with physicists, but with the Medical profession also. Only they are doing it to patients with serious problems who don’t speak Latin. I think I may have finnaly woke my internist up to this problem when I asked for an interperter to trnslate the explanation of my stomach problem into English.
That’s what nurses are for….we ARE the translators..
