Superverse

[LugusLuna]

This is a brief summary of this concept, so I apologize in advance for the lack of detailed argument. My primary intention is to express the concept and hopefully stimulate discussion/debate. I have no ego in this, just want to expand my understanding.
The basis of the Theory of Everything, as I understand it, is to produce a theory that explains how the universe functions on all scales-- In other words, to bridge the divide between Quantum Mechanics on the small scale and Relativity on the large scale. Contemporary thinking seems to support the idea that a working theory of gravity lies at the heart of the solution (i.e., why gravity is so much weaker than the other primary forces).
The fundamental postulate of my theory is that Quantum Mechanics is not just how the small scale universe works, it is how the entire universe works, and relativity is actually a special manifestation of Quantum Mechanics that results from the decoherence (collapse of uncertainty or superstate) of the large scale universe that in turn results from the observation of those inhabiting the large scale universe. In other words, the large scale world we perceive around us is actually just an ‘instance’ of a more expansive universe. This ‘larger’ universe in its entirely functions exactly the way the small scale universe functions, and incorporates all of the quantum effects that the small scale universe exhibits; we just lack the sensory tools to observe it.
In order to present my arguments in even brief form, I need to provide some vocabulary (I apologize if terms for these things already exist, if they do, I am not sufficiently informed to be aware of them). Here are some terms I will use throughout:
Universe = The observable universe that generally regarded by the layman as ‘everything’. It is the continuum in which we live and move, and which we are able to observe directly (limited only by our astronomical tools). The universe obeys the laws of relativity and superstate is not directly observable in it, except mathematically at the subatomic level.
Superverse = The true and complete universe that incorporates elements we are (at present) unable to observe, except at the subatomic level, and which obeys the laws of Quantum Mechanics at all scales. The Universe is a subset of the Superverse.
Multiverse = This term I am aware in already in the public domain (as used by David Deutsch in his publications). I use it here with respect to those that coined it and, though I disagree with it, it was this concept that gave me an important missing piece to my theory, so my comments mean no disrespect.
Superverse theory is based primarily on the principles below (some of which are mine):
• The location of an electron in an atom is never precise; it is typically represented as a cloud that defines an area of probability. What is interesting about that cloud (as I understand it) is that there is no point, no matter the distance from the nucleus, at which the probability of the position of the electron actually goes to zero. It quickly becomes an incredibly small number, which is often treated as zero for reasons of convenience, but I believe this to be a mistake. The fact that it doesn’t actually go to zero—anywhere—is a profound piece of information.
• Superstate (the condition where a sub atomic particle maintains all possible states until decoherence is triggered by observation and a single state emerges) applies to all quantum states, including physical position. The only characteristics of a particle that appear constant are charge and mass, by which the particle is identified. But even that may be an erroneous assumption resulting from the limits of our observational abilities.
• Global General Relativity, as presented by Hawkin and Penrose, suggests that the future universe is just as real as the present and past universe, and the ‘flow’ of time is an illusion created by out limitations of observation.
• The idea that the flow of time is an illusion requires that physical motion must also be an illusion, because physical motion requires movement in both time and space. Therefore when matter appears to move, it isn’t, something else must be happening. (my extension of the previous concept)
• The principals of Gobal General Relativity also imply that we, as sentient beings, exsit throughout the entirety of our lives simultaneously, rather than just in the present. The feeling of ‘moving through life’ is an illusion created by the same phenomena that creates the illusion of the flow of time. It also suggests that our physical appearance is an illusion. If we could see ourselves in our entirety, we would appear as a kind of immense worm-like creature occupying a convoluted length of space-time with one end being the point in space-time that we experienced as birth and the other end being the point where we experience death. Given this apparent requirement of Global General Relativity, our consciousness appears to behave like a kind of sentience ‘charge’ that is conducted along this worm-like structure.
• Relativity and quantum mechanics appear fully incompatible because they seem to describe completely different environments governed by different rules of behavior.
• In the quantum world, probability is not a measure of whether or not something exists, because in the quantum world all possible states exists simultaneously. On the quantum level probability is a measure of dimensional distance (this is part of my postulate).
I suggest that the reason we do not perceive quantum effects in the large scale universe that we can directly observe is precisely because we are directly observing it. The very nature of superstate dictates that it cannot be directly observed without triggering decorherence. That does not mean it isn’t there.
I suggest that the Universe that we perceive is, in effect, an ‘instance’ of the broader Superverse. The Superverse is the large scale universe in which all particles exist in superstate. The Superverse is, from our perspective, multi-dimensional, but thinking of it as a ‘Multiverse’ is a mistake. This suggests that these dimensions exist in some kind of parallel state where they are independent of one another. They are not. They fully co-exist in the exact same space time, and this does not violate underlying laws because of superstate. The reason the probability for the location of an electron at a given point in time is not zero for any point in space is because the electron does, in fact, occupy all possible points in space—as do all other elemental particles—we are just only capable of observing one of them at a time.
This limitation of observation causes us to experience the world around us as a sequential collapse of superstate. That collapse creates what I refer to as an ‘Instance’. An Instance is one possible state of the Superverse, and is what we experience as, and refer to as, the Universe. Superstate and the quantum principal that all possible states occur require an explanation for what happens when we experience an situation with more than one possible outcome and, to us, only one of them actually happens. The concept of the Multiverse has been put forward as a way to think of how multiple events in a branch can both occur, but the Multiverse concept requires parallel worlds branching off from one another endlessly. The Superverse doesn’t require that, because the Superverse is a single multi-dimensional universe that exists in superstate and expresses itself to observers (like us) as a series of Instances. An Instance is not a separate dimension; it is simply a ‘view’ of the Superverse. String Theory suggests that our Universe exists in as many as 11 dimensions, but these are not the parallel dimensions of the Multiverse (which are infinite), these are simply dimensions of environmental measure, like the first three physical dimensions and space-time. We just don’t experience them on a level that allows us to directly observe them.
The relationship between quantum mechanics and relativity is that relativity is the set of laws that govern an Instance. Quatum mechanics governs the larger Superverse, of which the Instance is as aspect. A useful metaphor would be to think of Instances as ‘facets’. A crystal may have many facets, and yet still be just one crystal. The facet does not possess all the characteristics of the entire crystal, the facet is a flat plane, so if one takes measurements of the facet and the crystal independently, without having a concept of the relationship between the two, it would be difficult to reconcile how the measurements and apparent rules governing each could actually be descriptions of the same thing, one just being the description of a portion of the larger item.
The fact that we think of quantum mechanics as the physics of the very small is part of the problem. It isn’t. It is the physics of the very large—the absolute.
As we observe this sequential decoherence we observe objects that appear to express motion, but they are not really moving as we think of motion, we are just observing a sequence of positional states for similar combinations of particles. Those states are composed of some of the infinite positions occupied at all times by the elemental particles making up the object being observed, but nothing actually ‘moves’. Well, that’s not entirely true. The one thing that seems to move is our consciousness as it is conducted along its ‘worm body’.
Have I lost you or convinced you that I’m a complete nutcase yet? No? OK, try this then…
One of the things that Superverse Theory unavoidably implies is that the reason we have so much trouble figuring out exactly what happened in the first milliseconds of the Big Bang, is because the Big Bang didn’t happen. At least what exploded wasn’t a primeval atom. What happened was an explosion of consciousness within a superstate Superverse. The reason we can’t explain how an utterly uniform primeval atom could have become the decidedly un-uniform Universe we see around us is because, well, it didn’t. The Superverse is still just as featureless as it has always been. It is featureless because everthing in it is in superstate, so all particles occupy all possible points in space-time, and have all possible states. This would obviously produce an utterly featureless continuum—just as the primeval atom should have produced. It is only the presence of a sentient observer that causes that featureless continuum to present Instances that we experience as a heterogeneous universe in which time flows and things move. The laws of relativity are the laws that govern that Instance, while the laws of Quantum Mechnics govern the Superverse as a whole.
This is why the Uncertainty Principal exists. In an Instance of the Superverse you would, of course, not be able to measure velocity and position at the same time for the simple reason that velocity is an illusion created by sequential decoherence. Therefore, when you measure position you are measuring the highest positional probability for that particle based on the perspective of the observer at the time of measurement. Since the particle isn’t really moving (you are—or your consciousness is), there is no actual ‘velocity’ to measure. Velocity is an illusion that occurs within the Instance, and position is a function of probability relative to the perspective of the observer. You can’t measure them at the same time because they are actually different views of the same value. The particle really exists everywhere at once, so your position measurement is, in effect, a ‘choice’ of one of the particle’s infinite positions. The velocity measure is a function of your observation within the Instance that results from the sequential positional probabilities of the particle as it’s superstate decoheres from your observation. You can’t collapse uncertainty to a select Instance of the particle while also measuring the sequence of positions required to express the illusion of velocity. They are both essentially positional measures, and you can’t take two different positional measures within an Instance because that would require you to be able to directly observe superstate.
I referred previously to the idea that, in the quantum context, probability is actually a measure of dimensional distance. The word ‘dimensional’ in that statement is not correct, but I can’t think of another word to use, so I’ll have to suffer it. What I am trying to say is that, as the position of the elemental particles move away from their point of highest probability, the nature of the Instance they participate in increasingly diverges from the Universe we perceived. The fact that the probability of position for an electron in an atom drops to a radically small value in a very small space means that, for postions that are large scale distances away, the electron is participating in an Instance that is possible so different from the one we perceive that it might be unrecognizable to use as a universe at all. It is quite likely that it might not even be governed by Einsteinian Relativity. Relativity is the physics of the Instance we perceive. I can think of no argument that requires all Instances of the Superverse to be governed by the same rules, anymore than all facets of a crystal are the same (depending on the crystal, they are not even all flat).
If this theory has any validity—aside from the fact that it would surprise me—I think it implies that the energy output resulting from the collisions at the highest energy levels in the pending Large Hadron Collider should be higher than predicted; possibly much higher. It also implies that the population of elemental black holes should be higher. This is the first collider capable of energy levels close to the Big Bang, that means it could effect how our consciousness interacts with our Instance in such a way that we could interact with multiple other Instances of close probability. That would massively increase the amount of mass involved in the collisions once the beams cross a critical energy threshold.

This also suggests that the higher energy would occur as a surge, likely a large one, as the energy applied to the converging particle beams by the collider approach the critical level to generate the elusive Higgs boson. I have to admit to really wanting to be wrong on this (happily, given my modest—read: non-existent—credentials in physics, it is likely that I am).

There is a lot more to this, especially around String Theory and Gravity, but I'll leave it here for now. I welcome comments, especially critical ones.


Regards,
LugusLuna

[Graybeard]

I read it .... you didn't lose me, tho I thought you would. My opinion doesn't really count for much but it makes sense to me.

Its along the same lines as how I think, but have never been able to express. 5 stars for that alone.

I can't find anything to criticise in the science. But, if it were mine, would break the paragraphs down so that the first sentence expressed the idea, the next three or for explained details.

Separate each paragraph by idea/point and keep apart by at least one line. Indent the first sentence.

The scansion was the only thing I did not like. Found it difficult to read and kept losing my place. Hope you don't mind these remarks.


Thanks for sharing, and will check on further posts.

cool bananas ... greg.

[dleviwing]

Before any theory can succeed it must present a rational premise of cause to explain the effect. I do not see such a premise in this concept. It has the same problem as any religion does.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks LL for your presentation here,there is much more that could be said,however you have made an excellent start,will there be more to follow?



regards michael.