God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora 4th Axis And Particle Collisions Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on April 17, 2002 05:58:21 UTC

Little time, so these ideas are just roughly presented:

Dick says: "there is a need for a 4th axis"
"that is a real axis".

In other words, networking of one xyz with another xyz.

D: "clocks measure precisely the motion along that fourth axis"

So they measure the network structure along that axis.

D: "two things interacting mean they exist at the same time"

So this indicates a network rest point on the 4th axis (or axis 'n').

D: "require every event to move at a fixed speed"

So the 4th axis describes an expanding structure. This is because a large event is added at the same rate as a small event. Gravity the fixed speed? Like c? Like h?

D:"The uncertainty principle makes the axis undetectable"

If you cannot measure position and momentum at the same time, that is cannot measure them at the same self-referent reference, that is because momentum is a fixed 4th axis structure (position) per reference position.
So cannot measure reference position (4th axis structure) per reference position of (1,2,3)-axis.
(Obviously you need 4th axis reference to measure 4th axis stuff).

Because 4th axis IS position-momentum. It IS that NETWORK. Cannot measure position and momentum: cannot double define position and momentum. So a CERTAINTY principle!

D: "clocks do not measure time"

So they do not measure growth of 4th axis structure.

D: "real clocks don't measure time anyway"

They measure distance

D: "conflict between quantum physics and relativity"

Quantum physics: dividing into bits. Relativity: networks of bits.

Understanding 4th axis idea: go down a dimension!
Make a 3rd axis on a 2-D universe (flatland).

Try a 2nd axis on a 1-D universe (dotland).

Two particles approach at right angles, collide, and depart at right angles. Easy to portray in flatland.

Picture this as a series of flat-land snapshots in a stack of such photo-planes. Have 3-D now; but either ONE of the particle tracks still occupies a plane (a tilted plane through the photos, the parallel series of planes).

Or you could regard the other track as in a plane. But BOTH tracks need not be in the same tilted plane. They are RELATIVE each other.

Go up a dimension: imagine the particles collide in 3-D space. Have a series of 3-D cubes that contain snapshots of the event at different stages, the cubes are stacked in an expansion around each previous cube (like Russian nesting dolls).

Note that one particle track can still be described in terms of a track in a simple cube (made by joining all the snapshots of it in the nested cubes). So could the other particle. But not necessarily both. So relativity of the two cubes.

Go down from a 2-D plane of particle collision to a 1-D line particle collision event. It just looks like a line with a thick portion: maximum density is where the collision is. Go up a dimension to a plane, and you can still represent one particle as a line (a linear track with an angle in it. Or you can so represent the other particle as a bent line. But not necessarily the same line. Relativity of linear tracks.

Go down to dot-world. How to represent collisions in dot-world? As the dot's frequency? The dot flashes on and off more often at the collision?
Sounds like virtual particles appearing and dissapearing. Thus QED as virtual particle exchange?

Go up a dimension to line-land. Can represent one particle's track as a region of high frequency (high probability of finding a a dot on the line there). Can do so with the other particle. But not necessarily has the same place on the line. So frequency relativity. Collision is where the two dots have maximum combined frequency. Sounds like QED again.

Had to rush this without trying to clarify the ideas better.

-dolphin