It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Reconciliation of Quantum Physics and Relativity

page: 1
3
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 08:54 PM
Here I am going to discuss a Mathematically sound system for organizing all Energy in the Universe. The numerological layout incorporates both a relativistic 'field' and an absolute 'field.' Relativistic Energy can be expressed in terms of increasing velocity(E=mc^2), which resonates with frequency, and it is numerologically sound to make this a base 4 system, for reasons to be explained later. Absolute space-time is defined in terms of quanta. I should make it clear what is meant by 'quantum,' to avoid misunderstanding. Quantum physics implies discrete units, as opposed to the continuous systems of classical thought.

Every point in absolute space/time, every ‘quantum,’ has polar relationships surrounding it in multi-dimensional space-time. All quanta existing in absolute space/time thus equals 0 in relative space/time, due to the self-equalizing nature of polarity.

Thus we can describe the relationship between a quantum and a relativistic field by: Q(as E --> 0)=Infinity; this has a corollary, in that Q(as E --> infinity)=0

Thus we can demonstrate a relationship between relativity and the quantum world, in that absolute Energy approaches infinity simultaneously with the approach of the zero-point of a quantum. The corollary implied by this is that as you approach the zero-point of absolute Energy, you approach infinity. Given the impossibility of drawing a mathematical model of infinite space/time, we define this space in terms of 8 quantum levels. Each of these levels is anchored by an equalized polar relationship. That is to say the Energy of the polar-ends is equivalent, and therefore creates a zero-point.

Therefore, the first system of relativistic 1-3 Energy occurs at any Quantum rate according to three anchor-points for relativity to occur in any dimension of space/time. We define eight quantum levels. This numerologically resonates with the 8 levels of Energy defined in the Periodic Table of Elements. Those 8 Elements also happened to be modeled horizontally, as in this model. Given eight quantum levels, Quanta are defined in terms of a base 9 number system.

We can systematically relate this system of 24 Elements(quantum/relativistic entanglements/attractors) as such:

1-3 -- 2-3 -- 3-3 -- 4-3 -- 5-3 -- 6-3 -- 7-3 -- 8-3
1-2 -- 2-2 -- 3-2 -- 4-2 -- 5-2 -- 6-2 -- 7-2 -- 8-2
1-1 -- 2-2 -- 3-1 -- 4-1 -- 5-1 -- 6-1 -- 7-1 -- 8-1

This basic format defines can define any number of relationships between the Elements, due to its symmetry.

The higher vertical row defines the highest relativistic Energy level(E3), the lowest defining the equal and opposite Energy level(E1). The middle-point between these two creates a zero-point in relative space(E2). As you approach the 8th Quantum, you approach infinite absolute Energy, due to the fact that absolute Energy increases in proportion to Quantum level. As you approach the 1st Quantum, you approach zero absolute Energy. Thus 0 Energy and infinite Energy can be seen to be a polar/symmetrical force driving the existence of both quantum and relativistic states in the first place.

0 and Infinite relative energy attractor-points define/create relative space, and 0 and infinite absolute energy-attractor points define/create absolute space. Thus Energy always remains equal through all dimensions in both relative space/time and absolute space/time. Energy balances through polarity at a quantum, and Energy balances by an infinity attractor-point and a zero attractor-point.

I believe the implications of this are tremendous. I have really been working out some implications the last few days, just now coming up with some formal mathematical notation.
edit on 25-12-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:18 PM
Anyone with a knowledge in (insert whatever field of math this is in) explain this to a human being please? For example, what the actual significance of the equations are and the implications that are supposed to arise from this? Maybe even if they are correct or are equations?

I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the English language and reading comprehension but the bombardment of unnecessary (superfluous if you will) words makes each sentence less understandable than the next.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by topherman420
Anyone with a knowledge in (insert whatever field of math this is in) explain this to a human being please?
I doubt it will make sense to anybody besides the author, no matter what knowledge they have. The only thing that makes any sense to me is the title, the solution of which would be one of the grails of modern physics since currently those two theories have not been unified or "reconciled".

Someday, a solution may be found, but when it is, other people besides the author will be able to understand it.
edit on 26-12-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:52 PM
Well, I am not familiar with any system of mathematics that uses infinity as a datum so as for being mathematically sound, I doubt it.

Also, in physics the appearance of an infinity is a big stop sign, something is wrong. It might be an endpoint but it is usually a signal of a mistake or a breakdown, we backtrack to find the error. Arbitrarily creating some sliding system of quantum and relativistic energies and declaring some kind of equality is, well, to be nice, unfounded in physics.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 02:37 PM

Originally posted by willyclem
Well, I am not familiar with any system of mathematics that uses infinity as a datum so as for being mathematically sound, I doubt it.

Infinity is used as a limit in calculus. 0/infinity limits are standard calculus.
edit on 26-12-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by topherman420
Anyone with a knowledge in (insert whatever field of math this is in) explain this to a human being please?
I doubt it will make sense to anybody besides the author, no matter what knowledge they have. The only thing that makes any sense to me is the title, the solution of which would be one of the grails of modern physics since currently those two theories have not been unified or "reconciled".

Someday, a solution may be found, but when it is, other people besides the author will be able to understand it.
edit on 26-12-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Okay so it's not just me. It seems to be just a wordy bunch of paragraphs masquerading as something profound and scientific.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 07:05 PM
Think of this in terms of Information Science, particularly computer programming. In that context, it could be written something like this. This is computer like formatting; specific language is not particularly important with programming, just pure information/concepts. Let letters represent variables, words/phrases represent descriptions.

Quantum(Discrete Energy Level/Shell) = 'Essence' = Q
Q = 1-8
Relative-Energy Strength= Space/Time location/orientation= 'To the Order of' = E
E = 1-3
Input Q
Case(1-8)
IF Case (Q-value)
Then Case (E-value)
Element-Description = D = 1-24

This is a decent description. The quanta/absolute position, quantum energy shell, is defined by Q, and has possible values 1-8. The Relative-Energy position, "relative space/time," is defined by E. Individual inputs Q-value(1-8), which prompts a 1-3 E-value. Once Q value and E value is inputted, the given Element is defined. Everything in the universe and space/time is represented by one of those 24 values, according to this model
edit on 26-12-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 07:37 PM

"Relativistic Energy can be expressed in terms of increasing velocity(E=mc^2), which resonates with frequency,"

No, it can't, no it doesn't, and that's not what 'resonates' means. Relativistic energy depends on rest mass as well as relative velocity between observers. Do you see that there's a big fat "m" in your equation? And that the only velocity in there is a constant? And besides, you're only talking about special relativity. Where's the General? No, the equation you need to look at is the time dilation factor, gamma, which is equal to (1 - (v/c)^2)^-1/2. Velocity has nothing to do with resonances unless you're talking about rotational or phase velocity which is a VERY different thing then linear velocity. Resonance is a relationship between two different frequencies. Period. That's it. Velocity doesn't have anything to do with it.

"Every point in absolute space/time, every ‘quantum,’..."

So now you're saying space is quantitized? AND absolute? Ok, the first is a question that's been debated since the invention of language and the later is just flat-out wrong. Absolute space and time do not exist and were the central flaw of Newton's mechanics. And our best data suggests that spacetime is neither discrete nor continuous, but, rather, fractally foamed at the Plank scale, beyond which even the concepts of "geometry" break down and such questions become non-operable.

This has not been a very persuasive model.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:45 PM
hey, op. I get you. but your approach and title is all wrong.

the post in which you start backtracking, and say instead that this is more about information, etc. was where you should have started. you came in here swinging some big words around, including mathematics, of which you fell short. so, you deserve the harsh critique.

the similarity to some of my own (pre-university) speculations you might find reassuring and helpful (below). believe it or not, people actually held conversations about these things on this site not too long ago. anymore, you're just a target.

so, when you get those formulations worked out, I would like to see them. good luck.

back when speculation was not a crime

3