Hi Everyone,

5/4/07 - Jeez life keeps us busy... Huh?

I WILL finish this... I promise. It will, in fact, answer most questions about our perceived reality. It actually ties together many ideas in physics and cosmology and other areas of science that we can only begin to understand.

Well... here's the stuff that I wrote a while ago....

The following is an excellent example of the general physics community being stuck 'Inside the Box'.......

Many average people have heard of the 'Many Worlds Interpretation,' MWI for short, of Quantum Physics and some have not. It is an interesting 'spin' on reality and is used in many science fiction stories today. For example; 'Number of the Beast' by Robert A. Heinlein in which a vehicle is able to 'flit' around and traverse these alternate worlds or universes. (One of my favorites by the way!)

For those not that familiar with 'MWI' you can see the FAQ here:
http://neon.airtime.co.uk/users/station/m-worlds.htm.
CAUTION!! This is VERY MWI-'centric'! Whoever wrote this FIRMLY believes in MWI. It is a sometimes confusing introduction but it does eventually lay out all of the 'questions' regarding MWI. But not always the right answers so don't take everything therein at face value. PLEASE use your 'outside of the box' thinking process to form your OWN opinions!

What the 'MWI' states simply is that for every event that occurs in our world in which there are two or more outcomes our universe is split completely and identically into the exact number of 'worlds' or universes as there were statistically predictable outcomes, all except for the initial small difference of the event which caused the split in the first place. A coin toss is an example which is used often to depict the MWI. When a coin is tossed it has two possible outcomes. (We'll ignore the possibility of it standing on it's side for this example!) In the MWI the coin DOES actually land with BOTH sides, heads and tails, showing... one in 'our' universe and the other in a newly created universe, IDENTICAL to each other EXCEPT for the outcome of the coin.

The reason for the MWI has to do with the interpretation of the wave function collapse and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (position spread × momentum spread = Planck's constant/2pi). What the mathematical process describes is this; when an observer makes a measurement of a quantum event the other properties become less predictable. For example; if a measuring device were to measure the momentum of a photon then as a result of the process of measurement any other property would become less measurable. In other words, if we measured the photons momentum to the 100th decimal place then we would know almost nothing about it's position at that instant, it could be almost anywhere in the universe according to the mathematics of the Uncertainty Principle.

Most people will consider this MWI as counterintuitive and 'outrageous' to our every day experience! But, believe it or not, the majority of physicists AGREE that this is an acceptable 'interpretation' of quantum theory.

It is time for us to do away with the Many Worlds Theory. -I- believe that the Uncertainty Principle is appropriate ONLY when the proper scope of the measurements are considered in total.

Many physicists use the Uncertainty Principle as the primary argument to make wild interpretations about how reality cannot be 'pinned down' and how there MUST be another reality hidden from us. The MWI is a primary example of this. This seems to be a cop out. Why is it that once the Uncertainty Principle is cited all other need for explanation is completely negated in the minds of the experts.

-I- believe this is an example of physicists doing a TERRIBLE job of trying to interpret their own results. It's also an example of how the physics community gets stuck thinking 'INSIDE THE BOX' and that's WHY they have problems interpreting their own mathematics and experiments.

Another cop out regarding the MWI is that many of the experiments which physicists say would actually prove the 'predictions' of MWI are MANY years away from even being technically possible. How convenient! This means that the MWI becomes unassailable in the minds of most 'inside the box' physicists and others who agree with well-entrenched theories. And Lord help you if you are a respected physicist and you speak heresy!

See: http://www.scienceandfaith.org/physI/summquantum7b.htm for a well thought out and a good start at questioning the status quo, but again, form your own 'objective opinions' after reading the material therein! (Just a good example... I don't necessarily agree with this either!)

And although the above reference is good it does not go far enough to allow for new insights into the 'physics' of reality. What is needed is to peel back the next layer of the 'reality' onion and reexamine what we know about our world.

One of the most basic underlying reasons that the MWI (and other interpretations of reality) are wrong is that the concept of 'particles' is off-base. Current concepts used to describe the phenomenon of a 'particle' are 'stuck in the box'. No one has EVER 'seen' a particle with any physical apparatus. We have inferred that matter MUST be made of particles BECAUSE of the way they interact with other matter and energy. These interactions have shown results in specific quanta and therefore we have assumed or deduced that we are seeing discreet entities or 'particles'. The problem with this interpretation is that physicists look to explain the 'particles' with a three spatial dimensional interpretation of experimental results. By this I mean that they use the particle's wave function (ironic huh?) which is Psi(x,y,z,t). (We'll save the 't' dimension for a later discussion since we are addressing SPATIAL dimensions only and time is not a spatial dimension in it's 'natural' state of our every day perception.) MOST of our current physical evidence shows that we are, in fact, dealing with waves rather then particles (The double slit experiment is a classic example: http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html ) and there is comparatively little evidence that we are dealing with 'discreet' entities (particles). Remarkably physicists still think of our world being made of three dimensional particles and consider the wave aspects only secondarily when theorizing about matter and energy. It is impossible for them to forget what has been ingrained and what is believed to be 'proven' beyond a shadow of a doubt. (Blind faith is a dangerous thing!)

The problem simply is that Psi is not a complete description of a 'particle' or wave packet. This is why when trying to describe a specific attribute of a 'particle' we can only describe it using the probability of Psi. And this is simply because we limit ourselves to imagining a particle at any one coordinate in three spatial dimensions. The solution is to add a forth spatial dimension. When this is done it is no longer necessary to use probabilities to describe a 'particle'. It also becomes evident that we are dealing SOLEY with waves (four dimensional) and not three dimensional particles. It also explains WHY we have difficulty interpreting our 3D experimental results. Imagine what a 3D wave looks like to a two dimensional being. S/he would never be able to pin down exactly where it is in the 2D world. Nor would S/he be able to give the exact momentum of the wave because it would appear to be spread out in the 2D world just like an electron appears spread out in a atom to us. So the new wave function should look like this: psi(x,y,z,q,t) in order to give us exact information about a particle.... NO!... to be more precise - a 4d1t WAVE!

So.... getting back to the MWI. When this 4d1t Wave theory, or Quaze Theory, is understood the MWI becomes completely unnecessary! In fact, it becomes completely silly!

For clarification, once a 4th spatial dimension is added to any calculations it becomes meaningless to describe the 'wave function collapse' as anything other then the manisfestation of a 4d1t WAVE to our 3d1t perception. This is actually how all particles are explained... they are a manisfestation of a 4d1t wave to our 3d1t perceptions. And for clarification; our 3d1t perception is ANY device we might use to discern any specifics about a particle; eyes, cloud chamber, mathematics, etc. We do not have the ability YET to 'see' a 4d1t wave except in the way that it naturally manifests itself to us. But there are ways we can force that 4d1t behaviour to present itself to us. The dual slit experiment is a perfect example of not only how we can demonstrate the individuality of the 'particle' when it hits the screen but also and most importantly, how the 4d1t wave presents itself to us when the WAVE pattern shows HOW the waves are actually propogating to the screen.

There ARE pheonomenon that exist today which we have 'difficulty' understanding and explaining, for which we can explain COMPLETELY by using the 4d1t concept. Some of them are, for example; gravity, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal (and the resulting MWI), Quantum behaviour, why is there more matter than anti-matter (at least that we can see), Non-chirality of particles and molecules, why matter and energy differ in behaviour... These are but a few of the conundrums which can be understood when applying the Quaze theory to the problem.

More to follow......

- Why 3d1t BREAKS the laws of symmetry and 4d1t does NOT.

- How each spatial dimension presents itself to the next higher/lower dimension.

- Why our perception is limited to 3d1t.

- What is the Quaze theory exactly?

- What answers can it give us?

- Is it the Theory of Everything? (Maybe the start but certainly not claiming to be!)

Regards, Tony Sakovsky
Sponsored by SAKWARE