Limited Theory of Quanta

From Felicityful
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a cry for help

"When one decides to cut a piece out of another piece; must you name each piece differently solely because it is smaller? Are they not now two different parts, but the same? If one strips the arm from a man, we do not call the arm its own entity, with its own special traits- without knowledge of the whole, the piece is merely labeled for convenience. The same is true for the universe. Until the Extended Hypothesis is proven, we are pedantically labeling limbs of it and trying to understand the limb's reason for existing." - Maalikel, early proofs of the Limited Theory

The Limited Theory of Quanta, or classically known as Quantum Physics before being separated from physics, is the branch of universal science relating to particles existing in a quantum state, referred to as Quanta, which appear to violate certain causal laws and appear correlated in distances over the speed of f but are not in general related to this correlation, and using the correlation tends to create failures in reliability, despite such correlations being causally deterministic, but cannot be intentionally caused over distance without uncertainty in the results. An Extended Theory of Quanta, the believed Theory of Everything, exists to unify all parts of classical Quantum Physics, and the Standard Model which includes Electromagnetism, Gravity, and Nuclear Forces.

The particles are generally extremely low mass ones with no electric charge, but are still polarized and their orientation can be changed. They are point-like particles, rather than spherical atomic particles. What creates an issue is when particles are sent through an experimental field and arranged according to this polarization, they can be separated into two, neat, opposite values without any other apparent causes. When turned, they result in the same manner, and so gravity and other causes cannot explain the results. The only changed variable is the sorting, which only separates them by apparent spin. No variables, or causes, have been named as a result; but nothing has ruled it out, which leaves it as an uncertain reality.

Given a very simple experiment where three I/O values are begun and observed, it is not at all unfeasible or inexplicable to see the same results despite long distances which appear to violate causal spacetime laws. However, this is true because these experiments can only be done and seen as unwelcome correlations when done over distance- even if over distance means 'beyond the time reliable information can reach the other'. That they are potentially non-locally correlated and determined in the same manner as local correlations as well, such as by simply performing the same sorting via the same inextricable methods that result in the same values. This implies this can be predicted and that both causes can have equal reactions despite distance, is the primary criticism and question. Uncertainty grows as more results come negative, and any such negative result creates a further issue with experimental construction. What could have deterministically caused the similar action is only valid because there absolutely must be a possible reason, or else nothing else could result from it but random assortments of values, which may well be causally related themselves in a scale we are unfamiliar with.

An easy way to sum it up is that to say the results are inconclusive is to either say the particle is continually getting the wrong result (which is the same as saying it is always true, both consistent but opposite) or either observation, equipment, or methodology is lacking. The latter is most likely, but the latter is tended to be expected to disprove the former, and that there is no way for the particle to have predicted where it will be going- and that expected variables can clear up any issues, perhaps down to the exact location in spacetime at the time of testing. If it is so precise, then it is inextricable over distance, let alone locally. Despite that, experimentation points towards positive regards.

While this seems unlikely and can be dismissed as coincidence in any regard, there are many correlations in arbitrary results that line up nicely. If the results are non-locally inextricable, i.e. coincidental, then the local results must also potentially be inextricable. This does not line up with experimentation, and only further refinement can be used to more precisely define these variables. All other explained forces are causally related and result from deterministic sources, and thus it cannot be ruled out that while coincidences over large scales can be acceptable, coincidences on wider, impossibly actionable scales are inexplicable and unexplained by conventional science. However much understanding of spin is accepted, however, there is no particular way to prove quickly that over a local scale too, within actionable experimentation and observation, can be causally explained, even well under F. The difficulty lies not in how the mechanics are named, but in ignorance of what all can disturb them to result in an expected consistency; much like 'spooky' ghosts have been proven to be conjecture and the causal haunting can be explained by an observer willing to put the time in, so can this correlation over f. The highest difficulty is when it is apparently possible to create this action despite time, and with great consistency. Much like the tides of the sea were once unknowns but utilized for their currents, the tides of the universe are unknown but waiting to be discovered.

I hate mathematics. This article contains a mixture of real and pseudoscience, or hard and soft science. In many instances this exists as a state of speculation, rather than being explicitly soft science- ie, nothing is 'true' in the sense of the setting internally, but such claims made in the article are neither believed in-setting or out-of-setting. Thus, this disclaimer exists to point out it may be inconsistent with itself, which is acceptable in these instances, as long as it is not integrated into any of the other sciences.
  • Often this will either be moved into Hard or Soft science once a decision is made on the truth or non-truth of the matter, and whether it is believed or not. "Theories", supported by internally consistent research but not proven in-setting or possible in real life at all (or even attempted, or considered, for that matter) are also included.