5 ms·
There's a series I've enjoyed recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKbZeUvPnWI&list=PLpH1IDQEoE8Q8842yVe-V8m7PN-R9rlwi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKbZ
by tmsh 6y ago
There's a series I've enjoyed recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKbZeUvPnWI&list=PLpH1IDQEoE8Q8842yVe-V8m7PN-R9rlwi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKbZeUvPnWI&list=PLpH1IDQEoE...
"How Small is it" by David Butler. Offers a nice summary of electrons and goes deeper into the Higgs field.
My two cents - after watching it - is it could all (i.e., wave/particle duality of electrons) be explained a lot more clearly if we just accept there is another dimension in space that electrons move into and out of, which we've not yet figured out how to observe.
Would explain dark matter / dark energy a lot too. The model seems so incredibly simple to me that I just don't get why more people haven't tried to build on it (am so busy with other stuff I doubt I'll have the time to figure out unexplained Cosmological or other phenomena that could be better explained by this model).
But it seems really straightforward this way. Electrons are small enough, independent enough to move out of and back into another magnitude of space that we can't measure. To us in 3-space it looks like they leave and come back (the idea of a particle being a "wave with itself" is less clear if you ask me). Everything is particles, it's just some particles have axis of motion in space that we don't know how to perceive yet.
One can think about it by analogy. Suppose we all lived in 2 space. If particles in 2 space where small enough to detach from our plane and pop up and down above and below the plane they would seem to appear and disappear.
It's the same thing with 3 -> 4 space. At some point people will realize that thinking about space as 3 space only is like thinking that the world is the center of the solar system. Our three dimensions are simply the closest / most defined / perceived ones to us. They're not even the "central" ones. They're the closest one's to our perception / how we've evolved.
If you get into the smaller spaces of things, there's less binding energy that constrains matter and more flexibility in moving between other dimensions. Likely there's a major 4th dimension that matter moves through / oscillates if you prefer since it's smaller particles that move the most (though cosmologically we see the effects in the large). And likely once you get deep in the 4th, there's a fifth, etc.
Again the analogy from "Flatland" / 2d space is you don't realize the freedom to move into 3 space until you separate yourself from the structure of what Flatland is made of at the sort of macro level. For us in 3 space the macro level is atoms. As you dive deeper inside, you're not bound by these constraints.
Gravity, everything can be modeled as particle forces if you just realize there's dimensions we don't perceive at the macro level yet (but which can be perceived indirectly by their effects on our 3 space - just as in time you can figure out what something moving in and out of a plane is sort of doing in 3 space).
- mhh__ 6y agoTalk is cheap, what can I measure from your theory.
- tmsh 6y agoI wonder the same thing too! Seems like if one could explain some of these better though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_p... with the model, then that'd be it (just like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity) - that's all physics is at the end of the day. Better models. And arguably there's value though in looking at the patterns in the history of science and being guided by them.
- aeternum 6y agoMany versions of string theory not only add a single additional dimension, but 11 dimensions. One problem is defining the shape of those dimensions. Each shape would result in a different universe and different predictions.
- tmsh 6y agoTrue yeah. Seems like the simplest to start with would be one more dimension though. I don't know enough about string theory to know why they always add so many more dimensions. Seems a bit data-fit-oriented but maybe short-sighted. I mean it's likely, like the OP article linked here sort of indicates, there's some sort of symmetrical structure. So maybe an electron moves through one or two other dimensions. But yeah, maybe string theorists know stuff I don't.
- Kednicma 6y agoHow would you reply to the Kochen-Specker Theorem [0] (or its consequence, the Free Will Theorem)? The main problem with treating subatomic particles as tiny spheres, rather than as waves, is that we immediately have problems with entanglement and Bell's inequalities. I would be interested in hearing how you're going to handle that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theorem