Complete math form might replace superposition vs binary

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have claimed that the positive and negative aspects of a quaternion complete math form (-1, 0 +1) are neutrino's. But i can take the claim away. And if i do. Those points remain. So i'll do that. I don't need need to say what the points are. They're there. It doesn't stop the math working. Regardless of the points having labels.Or not.

TextThe formation of an interference pattern when a beam of particles passes through a double slit is the classic signature of the wave-particle duality of quantum particles.

To solve this. (-1, 0 +1) represent the particle in a waveform. But is to be thought of in a wave shape. It is 3 points of a wave. We know what a wave looks like.

0 represents what the information that -1 and 1 define it to be as a particle which has been propagated towards a wall with slits.

0's position at the front of the wave is annihilated/removed between the 2 slits leaving (-1, , 1).

The positions of the (-1, , 1) allowing them to pass through the slits.

They re-entangle on the other side of the wall in their waveform(-1 0, 1). Resulting in the known wave detected.

If you place a detector at one of the slits. The one on the left as your looking at it. Not only is 0 removed. But also the -1 as it has been detected. The +1 has nothing to entangle with. Resulting in no interference pattern. Alternatively. You could place a detector at the right slit. Annihilate 0 and 1. -1 has nothing to entangle with. No interference pattern.

This math form matches the known results in my examples.

Only when you consider it in binary form are you left needing superposition as your reason for not knowing which slit the particle makes it through.

Textinterferes with itself only.

But leaves the question. How do you define "itself"? When if for example a photon. It isn't the photon interfering with itself. It is the positive and negative aspects -1 and 1 which hold and carry the information as to define what 0 is.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Homefree

Too many?

To infinity+-. They're never ending. Large or small.

I think that microbrew turned into nanobrew.

a reply to: Homefree

We only need one. Either it is or it ain't.
How much it gonna cost me a new saddle, a room for the night, your finest whore, and a bowl of stew?
"1."
Sold American.

a reply to: Homefree

If you have 1. 1 can always be taken away. -1.

Enjoy your stay.

What relationship does this have to Eigen vectors, Eigen values and Hessian Matrices/Markov Chains?

I vaguely recognise the maths behind it via the above but used to the i, j, k notation - not studied it in decades but aren't the i, j, k/ l, w, d meant to be underined? [i.e i/, j/k , k/] (being pedantic, I understand how annoying/impossible it is to descripe math without pen/paper and a mix of MatLab online.

I still have notes from then and 99% certain that field used the exact same mathematical process (just with i, j, k notation) I can post/PM if it would help the research.

a reply to: bastion

Thank you bastion.

I appreciate your kind offer of help.

PM would be good.

I am not a mathematician.

My model is a set of drawn diagrams which i have been trying to explain for a couple of years now.

I was introduced to quaternions only recently by a Prof elsewhere while trying to describe my model mechanically. He also pointed me to Einstein's tensors to see if i could fit them to my 4d hyper-cube diagram model.

I was already using L,H,W as my dimensions. After all. They are the dimensions we live in.

Changing i,j,k to L,H,W is the only change i made to the quaternions. And thanks for pointing out my error i/,j/,k. It only amounts to a spelling mistake. I did link to quaternions for clarification.

The 4d hyper-cube is a product of a transform from the quaternions by way of propagation/expansion and rotation to octonions.

The hessian matrix describes the inner cube which is a vector space and dependent of the action of the outer cube scaling/value being raised or lowered. See diagram on page 1, and please take into account it is a 2d representation of a 4d space/object. I have not labelled the additional 3 hidden by the centre S+T's, (also explained in that reply).

The eigenvectors would be the points where the inner cube connects to the outer cube in the diagram i pointed to above? But, i didn't find it that way. The vector space is 10% smaller and rotated from the outer cube.

Hopefully we can discuss this further when i have received your helpful notes and maybe i will be able to explain a little clearer.

Although the point of my thread is a complete math form vs binary based on the quaternion (-1, 0 +1). The information you are pointing out should support my overall model further.

This may take me a while to attempt to explain more clearly. You might have to be patient while i learn to understand your points.

a reply to: blackcrowe

No problem will PM them over today - they're from a course specialising in vectors and tensors so should hopefully provide some leads or relevant topics. My Great Unlce was Stephen P Timoshenko (invented modern mechanics and mechanics degrees, beam/tensor equations) I have his books too (may be annotated by him in the margins)

Your above description makes a lot of sense though need a few days to digest/refresh myself on it. It's certainly and intruiging and beautiful looking model thus far which shows great promise as natural order generally tends to beautiful equatons.

I may have difficulty trying to explain what any of the maths actually means though. I found the maths behind it really easy compared to other subject areas but my head would spin like craxy and get a migraine if I attempted to apply it to the resl world and see what the implications are. I comprehend it but don't understand it so doubt I'd have the skill set to teach but can point in the right directions.

a reply to: bastion

Thanks for your encouragement. It is a refreshing change. Especially on here (ATS).

I do realise that what i am proposing (my hypothesis) might seem to be above most peoples heads. But, it is actually quite simple and intuitive.

The difficulty is in finding the supporting evidence to explain it in a manner that it can be understood simply.

As i said in my previous reply. Prof Paul helped me greatly by introducing me to quaternions and Einstein tensors. Unfortunately, he is busy working on gene folding. I can't help him there.

Hopefully. The information you provide will help further. But might take me a while to understand and explain how it fits into my model (as work and life get in the way too)l. There is no hurry though. It's already taken me a couple of years.

Another problem for me is that i am proposing something against science. Where science wilfully and ignorantly accepts a mystery (superposition) with no other explanation needed. And i don't believe or accept there is or should be a mystery. As in my example at the top of this page (2). My solution to the double slit exp.

Trying to do it alone also seems near impossible and perhaps unfair for me. So, being pointed in the right directions is greatly appreciated.

On a brighter note. Other members replies/input can also be helpful and useful. As in More1ThanAny1's reply suggesting balanced ternary. Which i like the look of and definitely can't dismiss. I especially like the fractals. Which i had already been thinking about for quite a while. Where in my solution to the D/S exp i use (-1, 0, +1). 1 is a complex number and represents the particle (photon) at 0. The photon being made up of the parts of the standard model, dark energy, dark matter, em force, strong force and weak force would all become fractals+- of 1 and -1.

Again. Thanks for your support.