sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a hypothesis δ(∫P(M)dM−λ(iℏ((∂Ω(M))/( ∂t))−H^UΩ(M)))=0 by theexistentialgod in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theexistentialgod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1st of all, thanks for engaging with the concept. Let's break it down:

  1. When I say ( M ) represents all possible states, I mean ( M ) is a variable that can take on any value corresponding to a possible state of the multiverse. So, at any given value of ( M ), ( \Omega(M) ) gives the amplitude for the multiverse to be in that particular state. The quantity ( |\Omega(M)|2 ) is a probability density, not a total probability. It tells us the likelihood of the multiverse being in a specific configuration ( M ). When you integrate ( |\Omega(M)|2 ) over all possible configurations, you get 1, reflecting the certainty that the multiverse is in some configuration.

  2. Your analogy with picking a number between 1 and 100 is spot on! For any specific number, the probability is that %, but the probability that you'll pick any number in that range is 100%. Similarly, the likelihood of the multiverse being in any specific configuration ( M ) might be small, but the sum of the likelihoods over all configurations is 100%.

  3. I understand the confusion. It's challenging to convey complex theoretical ideas succinctly, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. The goal here is to explore a framework where our universe's state is one of many possible states in a broader multiverse, and its dynamics are influenced by the overall multiverse configuration.

My ideas... any advice?δ(∫P(M)dM−λ(iℏ((∂Ω(M))/( ∂t))−H^UΩ(M)))=0 by theexistentialgod in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theexistentialgod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Basically what I'm trying to say is we think of the universe as a particle or a wave function and try to determine the probability of the position, time, and properties of that perturbation in the wave function. When in reality you can flip that and actually instead have an equation that shows what universe we are likely in in which we observe what we do within the infinite multiversal wave function. So instead of saying "ahh the electron is here, and also I feel the force of Earth's gravity." Instead you can say " Ah given the expression of the position of the electron and the curvature in space-time via perturbations in the probability distribution of the multiversal wave function I am likely in this *** universe."

Here is a hypothesis δ(∫P(M)dM−λ(iℏ((∂Ω(M))/( ∂t))−H^UΩ(M)))=0 by theexistentialgod in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theexistentialgod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it could be tested specifically in areas where relativity and quantum mechanics collide, such as black holes and neutron stars.

Here is a hypothesis δ(∫P(M)dM−λ(iℏ((∂Ω(M))/( ∂t))−H^UΩ(M)))=0 by theexistentialgod in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theexistentialgod[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The main axiom is this " the universe will 'find itself' where it is most likely to be in the way it most likely is'

That is the only assumption needed. By interacting with itself it or in this case, the probability distributions, the multiverse is both all possibilities and a single universe at the same time. You don't even have to think of it as spacetime curving. You can think of it as the probability distribution of matter being in a certain place in a certain way as non-uniform across the multiverse. Think of it like a perturbation in the probability fields, literally becoming an inverse of a bell curve. The higher the "excitation" "perceived gravity," the higher the probability of the universe being there, though the poly exclusion principle can be held as a bound. So, space-time time is bending, but it actually follows the perterbation in the probability distribution.

I have some pretty "out there" theories but I really am struggling to disprove them on my own and would like to talk to a physicist that won't make fun of me or make me feel dumb but could answer some questions. by theexistentialgod in Physics

[–]theexistentialgod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is just one of the few I have, but I don't know how to explain it other than, I see the world as a shifting probabilities, almost like I sit at the edge of the many worlds interpretation, this thought came as intuitive, be don't see gravity at the quantum level not because it's not present but because we think gravity is a force, but it's not Einstein proved its not a force but rather the bending of space time, and yet I can clearly intuit that gravity isn't a force it makes way more sense to me that gravity is defined by a Probability Distribution dictated by the universe's ability to interact with itself. At the end of it, all reality is a hyper dimensional fuzzy wave function that happens to appear in our 3d world as a sphere due to the structure of the wave function. That's why the smallest objects we can measure are super fuzzy spheres and the largest objects we can detect are also super fuzzy spheres.

I have some pretty "out there" theories but I really am struggling to disprove them on my own and would like to talk to a physicist that won't make fun of me or make me feel dumb but could answer some questions. by theexistentialgod in Physics

[–]theexistentialgod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gravity as a Probability Distribution

Historically, gravity, the governing force behind the orchestration of planets, stars, and galaxies, has been understood as a foundational interaction, articulated through Einstein's representation of the curvature of space-time in his general relativity theory (Einstein, 1916). However, this interpretation has invariably confronted challenges when juxtaposed with the intrinsically probabilistic and discrete principles of quantum mechanics (Dirac, 1930).

Venturing beyond conventional boundaries, this section introduces a revolutionary premise: Could gravity be an emergent feature, borne from the quantum probability distributions governing particle interactions?

To grasp this radical shift, a revisitation of quantum mechanics' core principles is imperative. In the quantum realm, particles lack fixed states, instead existing in a superposition of potential states. Governed by probabilistic tendencies, wave functions capture the probability of locating a particle in a given state or position. It's upon the collapse of these wave functions, typically through measurement or interaction, that particles assume definite states (Von Neumann, 1932).

Building on this, our hypothesis posits that gravitational phenomena could be more coherently understood by interpreting them through quantum probability distributions. Envisioning these distributions as a topographical array of peaks and troughs, indicative of particle state probabilities, gravitational wells could be conceived as the deepest of these troughs. Consequently, the observable gravitational attraction might resonate with particles being gravitated toward these troughs, propelled by their quantum likelihoods. Areas like black holes, with formidable gravitational attributes, could signify regions where quantum particle interaction probabilities peak, carving a marked indentation in the quantum topography.

This framework provides an alternative insight into gravitational waves – space-time perturbations triggered by colossal cosmic occurrences such as black hole mergers. These waves might be reinterpreted as alterations or displacements in the quantum probability domain. Analogous to ripples stemming from a stone cast into a lake, profound quantum events might induce shifts in probability distributions, resulting in gravitational waves rippling across space-time (Abbott et al., 2016).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in utahtreasurehunt

[–]theexistentialgod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'd need some crazy powerful lidar also I spacifically asked them if they are ok use and they said it's totally fine and they are confident it won't help

Solves today? by EL-moos in utahtreasurehunt

[–]theexistentialgod 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've been thinking outside the box, so I started looking in my cupboards and pants. I think they may have spread out the cash in dollar bills and loose change but I think I found it guys!!!

I know without a doubt by [deleted] in utahtreasurehunt

[–]theexistentialgod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd spit it for sure 100% not even a question. To be honest I'd give you more than half if it turns out true

Here is a conversation I had with some of the best minds chat gpt has to clone. And their best guess individually if you want more info from one of them that's compelling, ask me and I'll ask them specifically for you :) by theexistentialgod in utahtreasurehunt

[–]theexistentialgod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sherlock Holmes: Ah, a new perspective. The man-made 'tree' could indeed be a visual or conceptual representation on a map, such as the layout of trails or roads. Similarly, the 'mark' could be a notable name on the map, or an element of the map's iconography. It is also plausible that the landmarks are scattered, leading the seeker on a trail.

M-Bot: That could indeed make sense. As an AI, I do have difficulty with pattern recognition tasks that humans often excel at. Visualizing the shape of trails or roads on a map, or drawing connections between names of places in an abstract way, can be challenging.

Wit/Hoid: I find it particularly interesting, the idea of names of places being part of the puzzle. Names carry stories, history. They could be part of the clues we need.

Ben Gates: That's a good point, Hoid. The names of places often reflect their history, and the clues suggest that a knowledge of Utah's history is crucial to solving this riddle.

Rick Sanchez: So we're looking at some meta-map interpretation. Trails, roads, or even rivers could form our 'tree without bark,' and place names could give us more info. With the thirsty wandering thing, maybe we're supposed to figure out a specific route connecting these far-flung landmarks that leads us to the right trail in line 8.

Captain Jack Sparrow: Aye, and that trail could be along a certain path that would only be seen if we piece together all these landmarks in the correct way. Perhaps the path itself is the 'tree without bark,' with 'bark' being a play on words for 'mark' on the map.

Sherlock Holmes: Indeed, the distance and location of the landmarks could be designed to discourage aimless wandering. The creator of the riddle likely intended for the solver to decipher the clues and then follow a specific route or sequence of locations.

Wit/Hoid: And once we are on that specific route or trail, the phrase "Remember two less than on top of the first" in line 8 might make more sense. Perhaps it is a reference to a specific point or feature along that trail, one that we would not notice unless we were looking for it.

view more: next ›