Are we past due to declare EM/Light/Waves its own dimension?

[pittsburgh]

TL;DR

Unifying theory for the large and small

If we set a dimension for the unobservable, we may stumble on a unifying theory for the large and small.
3D + Time + Waves
When I say Waves, I'm talking about the waves a particle becomes when it is unobserved and going through the double slit.
If waves only exist as math, observation pulls them out of out of that dimension and gives them real world 3D structure (wave collapse). When light is pulled out, it becomes photons.

 

[berkeman]

Summary: Unifying theory for the large and small

If we set a dimension for the unobservable, we may stumble on a unifying theory for the large and small.
3D + Time + Waves
When I say Waves, I'm talking about the waves a particle becomes when it is unobserved and going through the double slit.
If waves only exist as math, observation pulls them out of out of that dimension and gives them real world 3D structure (wave collapse). When light is pulled out, it becomes photons.

We discuss mainstream science here at the PF, not personal theories. Can you post a couple links to reputable scientific articles that you've been reading that have led you to ask these questions? Thanks.

 

[pittsburgh]

Everything I said is derived from mainstream science. I'm pointing out the obvious.

 

[berkeman]

Everything I said is derived from mainstream science. I'm pointing out the obvious.

Then it should be easy for you to find some links to post. That will help us to respond to you. Thanks.

 

[fresh_42]

I'm afraid it isn't that easy. Spacetime is what we live in, what we observe, experience or measure. Everything we know takes place in this environment. Waves are an observation within this spacetime. Your suggestion is a bit as if we should model a car ride by location, time and velocity. We can do this, but they are no longer a basis, which means we lose uniqueness: there will be arbitrary combinations of (location, time, velocity) all belonging to the same configuration 'car'. This way we will have lost, not gained a perspective.

Waves are a mathematical model within this spacetime. A model which sometimes fits well to our understanding of waves on water, and sometimes less. In any case they do not represent an extra dimension, only something which takes place in the other four dimensions.

There might be additional dimensions or not. But they can't be described in a meaningful way by something which already is described by space and time.

 

[pittsburgh]

If we have a tiny 3d object and allow it to go into superposition. Not being able to see that object says the object is either losing a dimension itself or is going into another dimension. Do you want a unifying theory or not?

 

[bhobba]

Everything I said is derived from mainstream science. I'm pointing out the obvious.

You are not. Its rot. You speak of superposition for instance - all objects are in superposition all the time and in an infinite number of ways. A word of warning from a mentor - please get facts straight before posting. Its
in our rules - please stick to them.

Thanks
Bill

 

[pittsburgh]

I mentioned the double slit, this the type of superposition I am talking about.

 

[bhobba]

I mentioned the double slit, this the type of superposition I am talking about.

There is only one type of superposition - that the states form a vector space for pure states. Even the computer you re writing this on is in superposition - admittedly a superposition of states very close to each other. Everything is quantum all the time.

Thanks
Bill

 

[pittsburgh]

When something can only be described as a wave/math then.

 

[fresh_42]

If we have a tiny 3d object and allow it to go into superposition. Not being able to see that object says the object is either losing a dimension itself or is going into another dimension.

This is nonsense. Even if I substitute the undefined word 'see' by 'measurable' means, that it isn't there at all, or that my equipement isn't accurate enough. Going into another dimension might not be ruled out at the beginning, but if we do not find any evidence for this, and we haven't, then it is only a fantasy and has nothing to do with science. We know of nothing which disappears and reappears again. If so, dimensions would be a good way to investigate the phenomenon. But, there is no such phenomenon so far.

Do you want a unifying theory or not?

Sure, however, no fairy tales.

 

[fresh_42]

This thread is operating on too thin ice by its undefined terms, inaccurate language and hidden assertions.

Thread closed.