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

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

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

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.

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.

Socialism Two

About the Japan maximum wage stuff. If there is a link that would be great but I’m wondering if there was some confusion. I found this link and I’m wondering if this is where the mix up is. It’s a British parlimentary speech. Here’s a snippit

“That leave be given to bring in a Bill to fix the emoluments of chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers of private limited companies and public bodies so that their combined annual earnings do not exceed twenty times the average take-home pay of their non-managerial employees save if the said employees agree through a ballot of their non- managerial employees or through their union to permit salaries of their chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers to exceed a 20:1 ratio.”

It uses examples of many other countries where the ratio is lower. Japan for example is between 8 and 12 to 1.

About meritocracy, one problem is that you have to assume that the right person for the job is actually interested in it. When Israel asked Einstein to be their president, he wasn’t interested. What about if you wanted a fantastic medical person to head the health department. Then they couldn’t do medicine. Politics isn’t a 40 hour a week job. Even if you think most politicians are morons, you have to concede that they put in 80 or more hours a week into the job. It is a lifestyle. Politicians would also argue that they are elected because of who they are and the ideals they believe in.

No. Democracy means majority rule. “Pure” democracy would mean everyone votes for every law that is ever passed. There would be no president or legislature. It’d be a mess, but thats not anarcy. Anarchy is the complete absence of any government including all the functions of government such as passing laws.

Exactly. Functional Anarchy relies on people either doing the right thing or dealing with their oen problems. So if someone does something wrong, you, or your local group ‘deal with it’. Pure democracy relies on referendum. With technology today this could probably happen but the majority of people don’t care about, or have the time to worry about every little law.

Just for fun, here is the start of a prescription for an ideal government.

1. There is a myth that money can’t buy happiness. This is only partly true. Concerns about not being able to make ends meet causes huge problem in society. It impacts on relationships, effects health, enflames jealousy, is related to poor education etc., etc. The list goes on from there. Although money might not buy happiness, removal of the stresses caused by not having it could be eleviated so that people could work on other aspects of their lives in comfort and financial security. What does money mean though. Basically money means the ability to have housing, warmth, food, clothing, communications, transport, and a reasonable amount of what are seen a necesarry houshold goods. These days that includes TV, dvd, computer, soundsystem, microwave, furniture etc. (Using the TV as an example, the government might only produce a few sizes of plasma TV and maybe a projector, then produce a variety of covers. What would you prefer, paying hundreds of dollars for a CRT or getting say a Large and medium sized plasma screen with a choice of covers) The government of the day needs to be able to provide these things in abundance by producing them themselves. The actual cost of these things is not high and is only worth the labour invested when you exclude profit and taxes. There would also need to be scope for ‘cottage industries’ to fill gaps in service. These might be approved on submission of a business plan identifying these gaps just like if you were getting finance in the private sector. Pay structure might start out lower then as the business started succeeding, raised to tie in with the incentive scheme.

2. Wages. There needs to be a formula for wages. Possibly based on things like physical labour, expertise required, responsibility level etc. There also needs to be some incentives. What to do if someone decides to go into another line of work. Possibly a board or commitee of a ‘factory’ could vote on a financial incentive to keep someone they thought was of great value to the industry. Also providing financial incentives for quality or more efficient work. You could also give the option, where appropriate, to give the option of work sharing arrangements to reduce hours as an incentive.

3. Jobs nobody wants. Ideally you would try to create an environment where people had a choice about the work they did and the opportunity to train for other work. Where work could be replaced by machines this would be done. Where there was no choice, you would provide the incentives above.

4. Doesn’t money encourage innovation. Well….I’m not so sure. Applying the incentive scheme to innovation might encourage this without the huge payout. Looking at the Open Source phenomenon, one could also assume that, given the opportunity, people will innovate and create of their own accord. Fame or notoriety, leaving a legacy that people are aware of is also encouragement. Promotion and encouragement of these achievements by the state would be important. How many scientists would be happy jsut to spend time developing different do-dads if they didn’t have to worry about how they were going to pay their bills?

This is just a start. I have more bits but not the time at the moment to add them. Please comment on problems and additions.

Socialism Three

Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: ‘a-n&r-”ki-z&m, -”när-
Function: noun
Date: 1642
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Pronunciation: ‘a-n&r-kist, -”när-
Function: noun
Date: 1678
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

From the Anarchist FAQ page

“While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist anarchism to communist-anarchism … , there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them — opposition to government and opposition to capitalism.”

I am not totally against decentralised power, but where does anarchy that you are talking about end, and socialism start. Who is it that takes care of disputes? One might say that local groups deal with it, but if my brother lives in your group and is dealt with in a way that my group disagrees with you start to have problems. I can’t see any way around having at least some sort of concensus on basic principles. Even if this is just some sort of constitution. Also, how do you arrange public services and manufacturing. If one group starts a factory making widgits and widgits become a popular or even necessary item, how do you stop them selling them at inflated prices and turning into capitalism. What about people who don’t want to or can’t work? Who supports them? What about specialisation? One of the advantages of being able to sell your labour, which it seems Anarchy disagrees with, is that you can specialise. What about health care, public transport? There are a million different reasons why this seems impossible on the large scale.

I imagine you might end up with groups deciding to make local laws anyway and virtually split the land up into seperate ‘countries’ which might end up warring against each other over beliefs. If you want true ‘freedom’, you would have to allow this to happen in groups who agreed on it, there would also be no-one to stop them. Anarchism by your definition can work in small communities I suppose. But a commune of people who have all come together because of common interests and beliefs is not the same as society.

I’m not trying to be negative here. I suppose I personally just believe in centralised government which encourages free, non-violent expression and where all participants have safety and an equal go, no matter what part of society you come from. I just can’t see how a libertarian/anarchy model can cater for this.

Socialism Four

Firstly, Douglas Adams should be declared a prophet.

Secondly, Are you agreeing then that in large scale communities, Anarchy may not be a reasonable form of government?

Thirdly,
By your reasoning all Native Americans should have settled for being called “Indians”, Blacks should have settled for being called negroes and other derrogatory terms, etc.

Interesting point only they weren’t originally meant to be derrogatory terms. I believe that, Native Americans were called Indians because they thought they had landed in India. The term just stuck. Africans were called Negroes because that was the generic term for the African races and was later transformed into the more unpleasant version because of mispronunciation. When new, more appropriate terms were coined, Native American and African-American, they were used instead. In Australia we are still struggling and use Indigenous Australian, Aborigine and Koori although strictly speaking Kooris are from only a small part of Australia. There are so many different tribes and languages that to generalise and lump people into one group seems somehow condescending. I’m sure the same things apply to Indigenous or Native Americans.

How does this relate to the use of the word Anarchist? What is being said is that it is important that everyone is clear on a definition of the word. If Anarcho-socialist is a better discription of the way you live then that should probably be used rather than just straight Anarchist. Look at the dates on the definitions and you’ll see that they have been around for quite a while. Pre suffregette, even pre Industrial. That said, it’s interesting to note that in the original draft of the Websters (I think??) dictionary, that a whole lot of definitions were actually submitted by a guy who was locked up in an Asylum. There’s a book about it.

I’m a huge fan of the type of Communal-Anarchistic lifestyle you are talking about. I just think it ends up being a bit exclusionist. In a larger context I think it’s important to be inclusive and have a safety net for people who don’t ‘fit in’ to the bigger picture. I work in the welfare field supporting marginalised people and it’s hard enough when there are services set up. Not to have any sort of organised mechanisms for them would be a nightmare.

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.

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