Bad Physics -- Started 2020/11/17 -- Updated 2022/1/7Back to Snerx -- Contact us on our official Discord. ______________________________________________________________________________________These are all things we've discussed during our Diogenesis lectures, formulated either by philosophers or physicists in the Diogenesis Table Society. Most of these ideas are half-baked and highly speculative. If you want to learn physics from scratch, I recommend these incredibly useful infographics for overviews of physics and videos further explaining them on YouTube. All Particles Touch: The 'orbit' atomic model has been abandoned for 100 years now, despite still being taught in schools. The contemporary standard model of particle physics uses wave functions to describe particles as 'clouds of probability', and the clouds taper off exponentially with a limit line that says they never reach zero mathematically (but Planck length acts as physical limiter). This means, in the maths, all particles are touching each other infinitely throughout the universe, and in reality they are touching and overlap a good handful of other particles locally. In both cases, all particles in the universe are touching in a contiguous cloud quilt, which is loosely the basis of quantum field theory. Heat Death Will Never Come: In relativity, space and time have an inverse relationship. This means a wheel spinning at a constant rate will appear to spin slower the faster you fling it through open space. Another way this is commonly said is that the faster a particle moves through objective time, the slower its subjective time flows. Subjective versus objective time can be thought as 'internal' versus 'external' movement. If you combine this with the knowledge that space is expanding at an exponentially accelerating rate, we find that time is slowing down at an equivalent exponential rate. Put simply, the faster space expands, the slower time goes. This means there will never be an end to the universe; heat death never finishes since time slows down logrithmically the closer we get to its end. This also means the first five objective seconds of existence accounts for more subjective time than all of time to come, and five seconds of subjective time near the end of the universe will equate to trillions of years in objective time. There are weird eschatological studies that can be done because of this, but the main takeaway here is that time is infinite and will never end. Speculative Mass-Gravity: Thinking of gravity as an effect of mass has always been a placeholder idea; in reality it is more like, and better to think of it like, the other way around. Spacetime condensed is mass, and spacetime condensed at one locality results in the stretching of the spacetime around it which is then semantically and observationally equivalent to the typical way people think of gravity despite the explicit disinclusion of a 'force' or any 'matter'. As it turns out, we find that the exact amount to which spacetime is condensed or compressed is directly proportionate to the frequency at which the relevant strings occupying that space should vibrationally equate to. So what is really being described here is that by collapsing (amalgamating qua dialectical annihilation) our conceptual models for spacetime, gravity, and strings into each other, we can explain all three as a single entity. Stellar Cartography: FTL travel around our galaxy may be disorienting since the constellations you can observe will radically change depending on your location in the galaxy. But what doesn't change are the relative positions of other galaxies to ours, so mapping and making constellations out of those (and those alone) will provide a way to determine your position within our own galaxy even if you are randomnly shot around in it. It would make sense to only bother mapping things that can be seen at least ~15 degrees above or below the accretion disc of the Milky Way since trying to look through the disc/arms of the galaxy could obscure the image made by optical instruments. Another possible addition to this could be the use of a percent-based unit circle, which we discuss on the /math page of snerx. Soft Determinism: Entanglement is widely misunderstood by people but for this all you need to know is that entanglement results in the appearance of remote causation and thereby explains a good chunk of local randomness, which in turn makes causation in a local environment not hard-deterministic, but one could salvage a soft determinism, the fundamentals of determination itself, by having an account of universal correlation via entanglement's remote causation. You can plug in almost any standard framework for physics or metaphysics past this point. Universal Topology: There were talks about applying Hausdorff dimensionality to the universe, which is conceptually easy since all you have to do is scale the universe by a factor of two and use a method like box-counting to estimate the dimensionality. While conceptually easy, this is practically impossible, so an easier task would be to scale something much smaller, like the solar system, voluminously by a factor of two and perform the same box-counting method. Most large bodies are spheroids and would average out more topologically interesting bodies like asteroids, which suggests the dimension of a spheroid may be the upper bounds of the universe's dimensionality at a number slightly bigger than 3. This raises a question - if the dimensionality of the universe is between 3 and 4, then do higher-dimensional entities actually exist? Relativistic Units of Time: Given the contemporary forumlation of spacetime, time decelerates as the expansion of space accelerates. This inverse relation allows for interesting frameworks to be built around how we measure andgivetime.Percent-based systems are good for any relativistic framing, and as mentioned in the Heat Death section, this obviously applies to time itself since time is relativistic. We do not however use measurements of time that are relativistic in regular practice, and this is problematic because it means our system is only applicable to one place, that place being Earth. It doesn't work anywhere else and further it doesn't maintain mathematical base consistency. Our current system goes from base 60 for seconds and minutes to base 24 for hours to base 7 for weeks to base 3.5-ish for weeks in months or base 52 for weeks in years, and then base 12 for months in years or base 365-ish for days in years. None of this is consistent or useful on any other planet.If instead we used a base-100 system and counted things as parts out of a whole, then a percentage-metric accounting for the passage of time is perfectly universally consistent. A 100% year means a full orbit of a planet around its star, whether that be Earth or any other planet, so you no longer have to convert 365 days into its proportionate position in the orbit to find out how much is left for Mars. Granted, 100% of an orbit for Earth is not the same objective amount of time for 100% of an orbit for Mars, but again we are not using a narrow objective measurement here, this is a relativistic measurement. When giving time differences between planets, we give them as proportions anyways, i.e. we say one rotation on Earth is 24 hours compared to Jupiter which rotates once on its axis every 9 hours, 55 minutes and 29.69 seconds, making one day on Jupiter approximately 41.67% of an Earth day - a percentage.Using a percent-based system of keeping track of time also happens to map nicely onto the system of time measurement we already have. If a full orbit of Earth is 100% of the year, then 1% of the year is 3.65 days, and 2% of the year is 7.3 days, about a week, which we would expect because there are 52 weeks in a year and that is pretty close to half of 100. This means weeks can be measured basically the same and days pass three and a half or seven and a third's times per week. That may seem less obvious to keep track of than our current system, but look up and if three Suns pass and you want a day off work, call it the weekend and do what you want. Living your life based on how others keep an arbitrarily developed and executed time system that holds no actual relation to how the universe works is pathetic and you deserve to suffer if this is the path your ineptitude has not found a way out of yet.Anyways, 100% of a day means there are 100 units in a day instead of 86,400 seconds, 1,440 minutes, or 24 hours. This puts a single unit of the day, or one 'Percent-minute', at 14.4 normal minutes. This makes 1% of a day approximately a quarter of an hour. Measuring with 100.0 (factor of a thousand instead of a hundred) puts a single Percent-Minute at 1.44 normal minutes. Either way, this is a more human measurement as your body's internal clock follows these times more intuitively than the normal way we measure time. Measuring with 100.00 gives us Percent-seconds of 0.14 minutes or 8.4 seconds, and at 100.000 our Percent-seconds are 0.014 minutes or 0.84 seconds. The ideal form is to measure a day with 100.00 units since this gives us familiar and intuitive relations to our regular system as well as being displayed in a %##.## format. It also means we can give a time as an overall measurement for advancement into the year. For example, instead of saying this was being written on 2020/08/17 at 11:45:13 PM, we could just say 2020.63.01.98.97% or %63.019897.I believe there is also an important psychological component to reframing days and years in terms of percentages since waking up at 11 AM just means you slept in for most people, but waking up instead to see that 46% of your day is already over motivates you to change your habits quite rapidly. The same with seeing how much of the year has elapsed as a percentage - 80% of your year being over motivates you to finish up projects, a kind of reverse-new-year's resolution.