5 ms·
I have another theory. And yes, I know it’s not rigorous. Fundamentally, all that exists is oscillations (think vibrating strings). Those oscillations are not
by cluckindan 1y ago
I have another theory. And yes, I know it’s not rigorous.
Fundamentally, all that exists is oscillations (think vibrating strings).
Those oscillations are not three-dimensional, but as they oscillate, their sum goes through states which correspond with fundamental interactions, one by one, in series, giving rise to fundamental ”particles”.
As this state proceeds to evolve, consonance/dissonance between interactions gives rise to higher order oscillations, which yield even higher order configurations of oscillation.
These oscillatory configurations eventually start to resist change, yielding mass. They become logically separated from other oscillation that is not coherent with their structure, yielding multidimensional causal structures in their interactions.
We are observers inside this system, ourselves made of innumerable such fundamental structures. We cannot experience or sense the non-locality directly, for all our sensing-structures are made of higher order oscillatory structures which have mass and locality.
To us and to our instruments of perception, existence appears dimensionally separated, even though everything is dancing in a conga line to the exact same tune.
So, perhaps in a singularity, these structures become so tightly packed that the innermost one breaks down, no longer has mass or locality, and leaves an inherent ”quantum vacuum” in its place, which is then immediately filled with the next structure, which also gets broken down, etc. What remains is pieces of configuration which, no longer supporting the notions of ”mass” or ”locality”, are free of the gravitational pull of a black hole and capable of radiating out.
- kittikitti 1y agoDo people not know the standard for theories in physics? Is the brain rot this bad?
- cluckindan 1y agoHumor me, please. I was using the word ”theory” in the colloquial sense, not in the academic sense. The above is barely even a hypothesis. It does touch on string theory, pilot wave theory as well as causal set theory and would explain Hawking radiation, so the idea is clearly not entirely without merit.
- kittikitti 1y agoHow would you respond to the anti-science folks who respond "it's just a theory" at anything they can find?
- cluckindan 1y agoPlease refrain from strawmen and ad hominem arguments. I am not anti-science and what I wrote above is not something I found.
- seanhunter 1y agoWell to start with, in your theory 1) If all that exists is vibrations, what is vibrating? 2) You say the vibrations are not three-dimensional, but you don’t say what they are. What are they? 3) If it would explain Hawking radiation, how would it explain it, and why do you consider Hawking not to have explained Hawking radiation? 4) What causes the oscillation to resist change? What does that mean and why does that create mass?
- cluckindan 1y ago1: No idea, it is just a model. String theory also does not answer this question. It is a bit like asking ”which instrument does the universe play?” 2: See string theory, which kind of works similarly, assuming 1-dimensional strings. 3: Nobody has detected Hawking radiation as it is presumably very faint. It would explain the mechanics of its origin and its ability to radiate out of black holes (which no other form of radiation can do). This differs from Hawking’s explanation of spontaneous matter/antimatter pair generation at the event horizon in that here the radiation would genuinely originate from inside the event horizon. It is a more simple explanation: spontaneous pair generation is not required to explain the same phenomenon. 4: All oscillation resists change. If you place multiple metronomes on a desk, they will synchronize, but not instantly. If you play two strings on an instrument that are tuned almost the same, they both affect each other, each trying to resonate on its own frequency while resisting the resonance imparted by the other string - unless the strings are tuned in unison or in a harmonic. The two extreme examples are dissonance (resisting change) and consonance (accepting change, i.e. destructive and constructive interference. These principles are found everywhere from nature to the cosmos and to quantum mechanics. Why that would ”create mass” (as in, make it possible for a waveform to interact with itself/other waveforms in a way that looks like ”mass” to us) is a good question! As far as I understand, it has something to do with conservation of angular momentum and waveform curvature. If you have more questions, I will try to answer them!