Why the Cartesian Coordinate System

One of the main factors I believe is holding back some advances in physics is the inability of the human race to accept the possibility that space is not what it appears to be. We are all stuck on a 3D universe. When we talk about hyper dimensionality, dimensions above 3 are seen as being bound up so that we can’t see them but are still extensions of the 3D space. This belief is entrenched in the Cartesian coordinate system. What’s wrong with the Cartesian coordinate system? My feeling is that it’s unnatural and clumsy. Here’s an example.

Let’s say we want to plot a tetrahedron on a 3D plane. We need 4 points, therefore we need 12 coordinates to plot these points. These are pure independent points with no relationship to one another. In order to relate them we apply various formulas to calculate the distances between them. In certain cases the relationships are not seen as important and the points are used in isolation. The question is, does nature work things out this way? Is there a more natural way?

Consider this option. We take the four points without defining a position for them, and then apply the distance relationship directly between them. This time we achieve the same shape while retaining the relationships and without being constrained by the dimensional limits or orientation of the plane.

We would not be able to draw shapes beyond 3D but using this system I believe that it would be much simpler to represent them. Consider again the tetrahedron. What would one look like in 4 spatial dimensions? If we consider the rules for a tetrahedron we have 4 equidistant points. I’m not sure what a 4D hyper tetrahedron is but lets assume 5 points at equal distances. Much more easily represented, at least verbally, using a relational coordinate system. Relativity itself is based on these relationships. That’s where the word comes from, this thing relative to that thing.

The concept of a relational coordinate system will become relevant later on in the piece. For now I’ll let you ponder the logic of it and go onto the next section.

Another View of Entropy

Another element of the theory is a reworking of the concept of entropy. The current understanding is that the universe is progressing from a state of organisation to a more disorganised state. This theory says just the opposite. It says that all matter in the universe is working its way to a state of equilibrium which would bring all matter basically, in ideal circumstances, to cancel out all waves and bring them to a state of rest. In less ideal circumstances we have a state of perpetual motion where matter would be organised to a state from which it could go no further and, still in motion, would continue fairly unchanged on a grand scale. Perhaps we are already not far off. If this idea of entropy is correct it has interesting implications in regards to life. In systems with no life, matter would seem to obey all of physics laws. While one might say that we do the same in regards to energy conservation and the like, the reality is that we strive to not come to rest.

On Gravitation

Now here’s the fun part. How does this theory tie in with gravitation? Let’s consider again what we have previously discussed about the wave theory of distance. Take an ideal system with only a few particles. Each has an associated element of their wave function which denotes the ratio of perceived distance between each particle. Let’s say that the positional wave acts like interference on the waves of the other particles and that they are out of phase. The waves interact with each other and try to cancel each other out. As they do this the ‘value’ of the wave decreases and with it the perceived distance also decreases. If two of the particles are closer, their wave functions are already closer in phase and act constructively to create a more powerful combined wave. The single wave is pulled into phase with the combined wave. This is the basic idea anyway. I need to tighten this up considerably. There seems to me to be a problem in that it would seem that two particles would eventually come completely into phase and be occupying the same perceived position which doesn’t happen under normal conditions. The wave must behave in a more complicated fashion. The other implication of the parallel between the light and distance waves is the ability to extrapolate the idea to the graviton. If light could be perceived as displaying particle behavior in observable space then might we be able to see a graviton working. I don’t think so. I would imagine that any influence that a ‘graviton’ under this model would have would result in a change in position invisibly. Not sure if that in itself would be what you would expect from a graviton or not but that’s my feeling. The theory doesn’t really support the idea that photons and ‘gravitons’ are anything like real particles any more than we would say that light waves are like water waves. They might follow similar rules but are entirely different entities.

 Another View of Entropy

On Light

How does light fit into the picture? This is another interesting one. Relating light to waves is hardly a stretch. We all know that light has wave properties. The question is how do they propagate? Common theory says that light propagates in a vacuum. Using our everyday experience this point is hard to argue. The idea of an aether has long been made redundant (more out of a lack of necessity than anything else, Occum’s razor doing it’d work). In my theory, light propagation does neither.

As you have read, the fundamental core of the theory is that perceived distance between matter is an element of its wave function and that there is in reality no separation. A true vacuum in this model is purely a perceived distance between matter created by the wave function with literally ‘nothing’ in between. Therefore light does not travel through a vacuum as the vacuum does not actually exist. Light is another wave function and its transfer to other ‘connected’ particles is conditional on the function of the receiving wave. These conditions result in the effect, that light appears to move from emitter to receive at a speed in direct correlation with perceived distance, regardless of the frame of reference. In a ‘vacuum’, the wave travels from matter on one side directly to matter on the other. Should we place a detector in between, the same rules apply from emitter to detector. You may need to be reminded that this ‘distance’ is not real it is a perception of distance in ‘our’ space.

Here’s a model. Imagine three standing waves (these are the ‘particles’), overlapping at slightly different frequencies. The frequencies denote the distances from each other in ’space’. A harmonic sub wave starts on one of the waves (for simplicity, we won’t at present ask how it started). It might bounce back and forth from end to end not interacting with the other waves. As ‘time’ passes the sub wave changes. So that we are not losing anything, let’s say it is losing amplitude and gaining frequency. At some point it reaches the same frequency, or some harmonic, of one of the other waves and passes some of it on to the other wave. A bit later the wave has died down again and reaches the frequency of the third wave, passing on to it. The amplitude passed to the one ‘further’ away is less than the amplitude passed to the first tying in with the inverse square law. This is a very basic analogy and probably doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Other elements of the wave form will have to be employed.

On Gravitation

Colocation of ‘Matter’

This is really the next hinge point of my theory. The idea that matter waves are not actually separated but that the relative location of matter in ‘observable space’ is a result of an element of their wave functions. Ok, now here comes the first analogy. To set things up, try to forget dimensions for a moment rather, thinking about the concept as a whole, independent of dimensionality. Here we go.

Think of all of the radio stations that you can pick up in your local area. Here I have a hundred or so. If you want, include TV and private transmitters too and you’ll start to get into the thousands. Now think of your receiver. You can tune into any of these frequencies by turning the dial. Even though there are all of these frequencies occupying the same space, they are still entirely independent of each other. They are separated by frequency and amplitude.

This is the basic concept of matter collocation. I will say at this point that collocation might not be an ideal word to use. Perhaps ‘underlying connection’ would be more accurate but hopefully you get the gist. Basically, matter overlaps all other matter and the perception of distance is created by differences in an element of it’s wave function. Other sub waves can also influence the ‘positional wave’

 On Light

Matter as Waves

This is the first step in understanding the concepts that I believe underpin reality. The idea that matter or ‘particles’ have associated waves is not a new one. Quantum physics relies on wave/particle duality. When it was found that at certain frequencies, light ‘waves’ behaved like particles it didn’t take long for waves to be associated with other ‘true’ particles. I believe that our physical experience and scientific history has led us to the conclusion that traditional particles, however wavelike, are particles none the less. I think this is the flaw. It is my proposition that, fundamentally, ‘particles’ have wave properties that manifest in our universe as particles with a matter-like physical presence. These waves carry sub waves that manifest as light and other energy but fundamentally, the main wave carries information about the ‘particles’ location relative to other ‘particles’. Some of the sub waves interact and can also affect the main carrier, the ‘particle’ itself.

 Colocation of Matter

Noah Theorem

Introduction

I’m taking the time now to try to put down some of the ideas I have been thinking about for some time into some sort of order. The reality is that these ideas might, or to be more accurate, probably won’t amount to anything but, in the happy event that they do mean something I want to have some sort of record.

The following is a Manifesto of sorts. It describes my personal beliefs and gut feelings about the way the universe works. I must also say that as far as mathematics and the deeper intricacies of physics go, I’m a bit lacking. I love both but just haven’t had the education in either. I try to pick up what I can here and there but, although I would like to, I don’t have the time required to learn what I need. Maybe the years to come will offer me more. Because of this, I work with analogies which give a vague idea of the concepts without providing mathematical proofs. Where I can I’ll try to identify elements that I feel need to be included or might be connected from my fairly basic understanding. When it comes down to it though, I don’t pretend I have the slightest idea of what I’m talking about. This is all a bit of fun. A geeky game of fantasy. At the absolute worst, they may be some interesting sci-fi concepts. At best they might trigger an idea in the mind of someone who does have a clue. This is what I think reality is.

I originally started thinking about this stuff inspired by a dream. I had been trying to teach myself chemistry at the time and was just starting to get a grip on it. After the dream I started reading about cosmology which lead me onto theoretical physics. Because I had no mathematics background I started with Cosmos by Carl Sagan and got some other books that were expressed in lay term. I think Dancing Wu Li Masters was my greatest inspiration. It described all sorts of amazing things it terms I could sort of understand. One of the things that came up was an experiment, the results of which were described as ’spooky action at a distance’. From memory, the experiment basically resulted in two remote particles reacting instantaneously with each other. I finished the book and started to think about the different things that had come up. One of the first things I thought about was this spooky action. Another thing that had come up was anther experiment where a particle seemed to split into two identical particles. Something coming from nothing. My first conclusion, from these two experiments was that perhaps they were the same particle and that some force for an instant had made it appear in two places at once.

As time went on I started to learn bit by bit, more about the current ideas about particle wave duality and other elements of physics. My ignorance was matched by my enthusiasm if not by my ability to fully understand what all these things meant.

Just yesterday I started reading a book called Genius. It is a biography of Richard Feynman’s life and discoveries. I was all fairly standard stuff until, about 100 or so pages in I read something that nearly made me fall off of my chair. Some of the stuff I had come up with had already been considered by Feynman himself. Some was different but other bits were so similar it was, well…spooky. I had been searching for anything similar to my ideas for what was coming up to years. This was almost the same amount of time that I had had the book in my house. I have a two year old son and with work and him I had not had the time to read it thinking it was a pure life biography. It talked about things that he had considered but discarded so there was possibly no way that I would have ever found it had I not read this particular book. The weird thing is that I had just started to add some changes to my concepts that seemed to tighten them further but had some, well lots of gaps to fill. I think I now might be able to move things forward. I’m going to try to hunt down what I can and get some physics geeks through a friend to apply what seem to be some novel additions to the equations.

Here’s the story so far.

Matter as Waves

Socialism Eight

We also sacrifice some of our humanity, if not on a social level, on a more personal one. Thus, we become what we hate the most.

I agree. The reality is that as we get older we do become more conservative and more resigned to the ways of the world. Our ideas change and sometimes I think we start to see some sense in things we once thought were stupid. I’m trying not to do that too much but I must admit it is happening to me. ‘Compromise’ is often used in a context which insinuates a negative eg to compromise your beliefs, but compromise is about accepting that everything that we believe personally is not necesarrily the only or correct way. I had a look at the Tao Te Ching translation I have at home (penguin classics, I believe it is one of the best translations available. Not so poetic but a more direct and significant translation than others) and the last chapter, 81, that I mentioned (I think??) starts,

Truthful words are not beautiful,
Beautiful words are not the truth.
Persuasive words are not enlightened,
Enlightened words are not persuasive.
etc.

I haven’t got it with me, so I can’t remember the rest, but one way of interpreting it is that Lao Tse is saying, don’t listen to me, just do the best you can for others and the rest will fall into place. As far as politics goes, I suppose that I think that it relates to the element of reasonable compromise for the greater good.

The quote that you mentioned also has heaps more text which makes it clearer and more complicated at the same time

Socialism Six

Mmmmmm. OK. No further discussion needed then?? …Don’t think so. This is a summary of what I think is needed.

Find out what the people need
Find out what the people want
Figure out how to supply it
Figure out how to administer it

Socialism Five

I must admit that it’s only going on anacdotal evidence but I can see how living in America could make any normal person take the Anarchist (by your definition) line. It would seem to be a case of Capitalism gone crazy.

In Australia, although ‘economic rationalism’ has dented it a bit, social services here are not bad. Rents have doubled over the last 5 or so years and social services benefits have not increased accordingly, but most people who have a social network can make ends meet. We also have a fairly good public health system and services, like the one I work in, funded by the government. I work with homeless young people with a variety of different issues and I’m not sure how those people would be serviced in an anarchist society.

The original question was

Question: Is there a better way we have not yet used? Another form of government that we have not come up with.

I’m not sure if there are any truly ‘new’ ones, but I think th point of the question was to try to come up with something that ‘works’ better on a large scale.

I don’t have the solutions but maybe all of us, working together could put something together. You don’t necesarrily have to believe fully in every aspect but I think the key is being willing to compromise for the greater good. I’d be very interested in trying a project like this.