Further observations about physics – split files

(16) Some non-sequitors

Here are a few thoughts that I have been ruminating on.

• What quantum physics points to is that there are no particles, just wave-like representations of them. Everything is constructed from cyclic wave functions. So what's different about space? Just as a particle is one manifestation of wave behaviour so, perhaps, the vastness is space is similarly "constructed" by a particular manifestation of waves and, thus, it is ultimately a cyclic phenomena. To my mind, the one "place" where true annihilation of very low frequency light can interfere to result in nothing (by true out of phase cancellation – not like the frantic explosive disentanglement of light waves in an explosive matter/antimatter release) is deep intergalactic space. Here all the energy for expansion falls into true "zilch", nothing, not even emptiness.
• Entropy is often seen as synonymous with disorder. But, this is a reflection of the peculiarity of our perspective on the universe. Many of us live in a well maintained and structured house, with a structured salary/work process to support it; we live on a very structured earth and drive around on it in our very structured cars or ride our high-tech bicycles; we constantly consult our complicated smart phones and computers; we are surrounded by a very complicated and highly evolved ecosystem; there is so much initial order that we consider that all this is the expected norm. Entropy is that cruel process that leads to crumbling roofs, broken down cars, flat tyres, involuntary redundancies and the dropping of our precious mobile phones. Then there is the inevitability of organismal death (that only happens once in 70 plus years for many humans). What we fail to take into account is that this environment is incredibly, unimaginably complex and improbable as a starting point. In terms of an improbability potential, we live in an environment that is constantly adding to this volitionally-adopted complexity. Then we complain when entropy comes along, from time to time, to spoil it. Entropy only seems – to us – to be synonymous with disorder because we forget that we have packed up order to a quite ridiculous potential that is a sitting duck for collapse.
• Just to reiterate: if the conjecture that all matter has an immediate universal presence that seems to be "travelling" into the future (basically, our electron family and their atomic shells) while the nuclear bits are firmly attached to – if not entirely within – an antiverse, where time is effectively reversed, THEN, we can attribute the antiversal bits to "imaginary" numbers (that in reality have a "real" existence). As noted before, if we mix up the pythagorean sides of a triangle so that we see the adjacent side as the hypotenuse because part of the real hypotenuse is sitting – out of view – in the antiverse, then we can simply "fix" the maths by invoking i (the square root of minus one) without nailing a suitable metaphor to envisage what is happening. [See below for a more detailed elaboration.]
• This last point is clearer if I enlarge upon it.
• "Would a long hourney through the universe bring us back to the starting point?" This (copied) query raises an important point. To come back to the starting point we have to complete a time loop. To do that we would have to "travel" from our current location to the a condition typical of deep intergalactic space (with no "contamination" by nearby matter) as progressively disentangled matter (unleashed photons) at very low frequency where phase antiphase photons can annihilate then reappear (time reversed) as quantum foam leading to very occasional persistent matter (electrons first) and then gradually re-entangle (electrons/positrons to hydrogen to helium etc etc to iron etc to lead etc to uranium etc to neutron stars to black hole then out the other side as a "white hole" to complete the cycle). It's not as simple as just heading "north" then "south" then "north" again. We would have to pass through parochial conditions that it is hard to imagine that we could survive as an "intact" human being (even near the SoL our time flow may not slow enough to complete the journey before we died). Anyway, the energy expenditure needed would be prohibitive, implying mass compaction and not dispersion.
• There are a few more to come !!

Explanation of the possible origin of i

In a right angled triangle, there are three sides that can be described as the [adjacent], the [opposite] and the [hypotenuse].
Pythagorus's theorem states that:–
[adjacent]² + [opposite]² = [hypotenuse]²
Now, we know that this equation maps out a circle, for, when one end of the hypotenuse is fixed at the centre of a circle, the other end traces out the circumferance of the circle.
A sine wave is simply circular motion that oscillates around a straight line (usually depicted as moving forward in time along the x-axis of a graph).

However, for an oscillatory process that is dipping into the antiverse and back out again, it is likely that we mistake the adjacent for the hypotenuse, because the "antiversal bit" just looks like a time, not a distance (it's probably a backward in time distance). So we assume that:–
[hypotenuse]² + [opposite]² = [adjacent]²
which, if we use the example of a 3,4,5 triangle, is obviously wrong because that would claim:–
25 + 9 = 16
we can rectify this by multiplying the [opposite]² by -1
[hypotenuse]² + [-1]x[opposite]² = [adjacent]²
which, of course leads us back to:–
[hypotenuse]² = [adjacent]² + [opposite]²
which is now true, for example:–
25 = 16 + 9
So, the falsely identified sides (if we persist in falsely calling them these names) should have been written:–
[hypotenuse], i[opposite] and [adjacent]
(where i represents "the square root of -1") to make the relationships true.
That would also imply that i has no real "value" – it is simply a mathematical trick to rectify a false assumption.
Note that the connection of an electron with its antiversal twin involves dipping into and out of the antiverse/universe divide at the SoL (hence e=mc²). The antiverse will perceive the universe to be in its past and the universe will also perceive the antiverse in its past. That suggests that the direction of entropy is probably inverted when we "move" from universe to antiverse.