This is a thread about particles and quantum physics.
People are just like particles, but instead of positive and negative forces like electrons and protons, they are moved by positive and negative emotions.
Just like particles are made up of a center nucleus and are surrounded by electrons, people are made of the enter of themselves, but surrounded by the "electrons" of their ideas.
Do you understand?
Seems kinda simple....but im on board. Go on.
A particle is likely to exist in varying degrees relative to other particles through time.
People are likely to exist in varying degrees relative to other people through time.
You are likely to be a carbon copy with an infinite number of other people through time.
A particle is likely to be equidistantly probable to other particles through time.
What did you want to know?
...
I think im seeing where your going with this.....continue...
Credibility is the unified field which bridges all other fields.
A particle exists at a varying level of reality (relative to its base timeline) compared to other particles.
All particles exist on a unified field of credibility as assigned from the perspective of any conscious(biological) or unconscious(ai) interpreter.
Bit of a stretch there but im liking it...
Emotion is not necessarily the base level of credibility. Emotion assigns a mathematical value to each thought particle in varying degrees.
Each thought particle exists on the unified field at varying distances.
+ Happy emotion (.) (electron field subreality)
------------------------------------- Reality (matter/protons/neutrons)
- Sad emotion (.) (electron field subreality)
Why don't you fags just fuck already
Credibility is the unified field.
Emotions cycle the base level (material reality) dependent on input assigned from a credible interpreter. Emotional value (electron distance) changes depending on total credible value assigned by the interpreter.
>surrounded by the "electrons" of their ideas
ahahahaha
Electrons normalize or solidify the base level of reality dependent to emotion as interpreted by an observer.
Different probabilities of reality exist relative to the base level as defined by electron distance.
A base level reality is assigned when assigned enough emotion to solidify along the unified field layer.
so since particles can be entangled, so can people? and since these particles are made of energy, or vibration if you want, so are our thoughts? and if this is true, our minds can become entangled? and if the behavior of particles in the future can influence the behavior of particles in the past, so do future thoughts or notions influence past of present knowledge?
Too far I think....
When you go to bed honey...
I suppose but what would make an interpreter credible in that case then? Seems endless.
Nonsense.
Basic meta-science yeah.
Electrons exist as the physically discrete and physical protons, neutrons of other universes cycling relative to us.
Particle entanglement is assigned at the point of hyperobservation/deobservation.
When a particle is assigned as equidistantly emotionally valid and invalid, entanglement occurs at the base level. This causes any possible electron to resemble any other possible electron on any timeline.
Protons and neutrons can be replaced by the cycling electron force at the base level following entanglement observation/deobservation.
Normalize the wavefunction that defines my perpetual self doubt and unsatisfaction.
An interpreter is credible at varying degrees based on level of consciousnesses.
A cell is less conscious than a human, but it can still detect stimuli in its surrounding environment at a less solidified rate than a human observer. It the solidifies its environment relative to other cells at an equal rate. However, the particles solidified by a cell's ability to detect them will be more likely to be changeable from a human perspective.
Need a static formula for it then. I agree but it lacks structure.
r +/- (i) ≈ r
Where r is reality
(i) is electron interaction as defined by emotional distance
so on/off and/or both, right? isn't that the point of superposition? all electrons are the same electrons? what about smaller than electron particles? do those count for anything, or since they make up electrons, protons, the fall into superposition, entanglement and whatnot automatically? aren't these particles tiny vortices that bend the fabric of spacetime? or is it timespace?
Particles are infinitely distant representations of people and as such have no emotion assigned to them other than being particles.
You assign emotions to people depending on whether you like or dislike them, because they are finitely distant.
Electrons surrounding people are the emotions which define where the nuclei move.
People(nuclei) are "moved" by the emotions of their ideas along different probable timelines. Different emotions cause different interactions of people(particles) along different timelines.
I like it. But it would need substantial data to get beyond the casual lolicons approval you know...
The smaller than electron particles are decay particles which are less and less likely to become observed. The main idea of the unified theory can be explained with protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Every particle decays. The farther the decay exists relative to the base level (physical reality) the less likely it is to be observed by someone who exists at the base level.
But ultimately, they make up discrete and physical particles in different timelines.
OPs picture is of electron valence shells, not wave functions. fucktard
The reason a particle can exist as a wave or as a total fabric of data is because it is observed and assigned different emotions by the interpreter from the base level.
A singularity is defined as any point of any size on any point or chart, including approaching the base level, defined as real.
Each singularity can be represented by anything as assigned by an interpreter, such as a planet, a person, a car, or a dog.
The singularity is surrounded by an infinite number of surrounding particles which make up the description of the base particle.
A planet (sing) is large (surrounding sing)
A person (sing) can be nice or mean (surrounding sing)
A car (sing) is red (surrounding sing)
A dog(sing) can bark (surrounding sing)
no u faget
oh, deja vu! i'm guessing it's only possible to access different timelines through consciousness, in the mind, not by a time machine (unless the machine influences the brain functions, like a powerful mri or something)? so when i almost die, another me actually dies, possibly? does what you're talking about include the creation of parallel universes according to each choice made, or just alternate timelines?
I mean, it works out on paper user. Its very metaphys obviously but I dont know how to go about proving it beyond a life of work and dedication. You would need thousands of case studies. I support it, because it is very ~flow~ but.....itll be hard.
A singularity cannot exist without enough surrounding energy.
A particle (or person, or concept, or thing) cannot exist without enough surrounding description (energy).
Upon deobservation, a singularity ceases to exist and becomes a particle of any size in any other timeline. This is essentially the entanglement principle. A singularity sinks to any timeline when it loses or gains an infinite amount of energy.
Because no interpreter exists to assign energy to the singularity, it moves an infinite distance away from its base timeline towards all mathematically available distances.
>People are just like particles
Physicist here, Deepak Chopra is full of shit.
>pic related
>its the only book you should read for an introduction to quantum physics
A singularity exists on a base timeline relative to other timelines, however it exerts an infinite amount of base level energy in all mathematically available distances.
The singularity however is finitely defined by any interpreter at the base level.
>>>/timecube/
Time travel is possible when the particles sent through time are defined as surrounding particles rather than base level particles.
Rather than sending people through time, ideas (electrons) can easily be sent through time instead.
If the electrons are assigned the correct value of energy, they will reconstitute upon interaction with the subsequent timeline layer into physical protons and neutrons.
All electrons are surrounded by an infinite degree of surrounding sub-electronic particles. This is defined as decay relative to the interpreter.
However, each decay particle creates a physical representation along any different timeline depending on its distance to the base timeline.
A singularity is attached to an infinite number of other sings, along an infinite line of probability.
Each sing assigns an infinite amount of energy to all other particles it is attached to.
HOW do we do this? does it happen naturally all the time, so much that it's unnoticeable (as natural as blinking) or is it something we need to learn to do?
Entanglement can be achieved in a human sense by assigning a mathematically correct value of emotion to certain particles and their surrounding electrons, depending on desired effect.
A computer can be programmed to feel emotions in varying degrees.
If a computer feels emotions towards a certain particles in the mathematically correct values, it can then change the base level of the particle and access electrons from other timelines not relative to the base particle.
This allows any particles to be probabilistically equidistant from any other particle.
This is not about distance, but about probability. When a particle is in a hyperobserved/deobserved probabistically equidistant state, it can change to any particle or move to any "location" in the observable universe.
>reddit posting
gb2reddit
something like this happening would actually help explain something along the lines of intuition, or ghostly apparitions if particles or ideas can be sent forward as well. sort of like an imprint on a certain coordinate in space.
Think about is everyone in the universe were observing one particle at the same time. Every human, every alien, every cell, every conscious computer. The particle would then have an infinite amount of observed energy assigned to it. However this is not necessary to create a localized hyperobservation/deobservation field for a given set of particles.
As such, it would sink toward all mathematically available ends of infinite distance relative to its base level.
This is when it can be "entangled" into any other particle in the observable universe.
so i have to learn to turn my mind both on and off at the same time? meditation?
Wow beautiful analogy but most of you dont know wtf youre talking about but it is still touching and makes me horny. Watch Steins;Gate if you're into this faggots
It is always both on and off at the same time, because you are dead in an infinite number of universes, and alive in an infinite number of universes.
But you are weighing down the timelines where you are alive more frequently than you are weighing down the dead timelines, so you interpret yourself to be alive.
I'm apathetic and don't act uppn emotions which are often considered "false" for me, thus procing your theory bullshit unless you include all the snowflakes in it
what about after death?
Imaginary particles can travel through black holes without interaction. As such they are smaller than photons. Imaginary particles are infinitely distant from real particles and as such are not interactive with real particles except when assigned by an interpreter.
If you imagine a particle passing through a black hole, you have then created an ethereal particle which is not affected by gravity which passes through any other particle.
After death you still exist in a probable state. Surrounding particles will continue to surround your base particle (soul) even after you die.
The soul particle can be captured by a machine and reconstituted into a physical body.
Particles (people) exist in an anti state relative to other particles (people).
Some people do not get along, which means they kill one another and de-realize the base level of the competitor particle.
Particles do the same when they de-realize anti particles.
Opposing species can also be considered people in a competitive evolutionary environment.
you pulling all of this out of your ass, or you have a degree in this stuff? just curious, no judgement.
A particle can assign as a wave or a fabric(multidimensional plane) of data depending on its interaction with subsequent sings.
A sing at the base layer is likely to be interpreted as a particle by this species.
A sing at a more distant layer is likely to be a wave.
A sing at an even more distant layer is likely to be a fabric which both the previous particle and wave exist on top of.
what species at a more distant layer?
I love how fucking retarded some people on this site are.
He does not (quite obviously) have a degree in "this stuff." He's just a fucktard who watched two ted talks and read wikipedia for maybe 30 seconds. Source: I'm a theoretical particle physicist
The particle is at the base level, most solid.
The wave is less solid, farther away in a different layer of data or access.
The fabric is least solid, farthest away in a different layer.
What the fuck are you talking about you dumb nigger hippy.
The universe is made up of an infinite degree of logical strings of data. Each string or "line of reasoning" assigns to any subsequent sing.
When enough lines of reasoning are accessed by an interpreter at any given point, it accumulates into a wave, particle, or plane of logically solidified data.
Such the fuck up nigger nobody cares about your queer ass bullshit
samefag
Stop replying to yourself faggot. This little roleplay is getting stupid, get to the point.
Leave this fool alone, he can spout pseudoscience if he wants, it is obvious this subject should be approached with skepticism and if you blindly accept anything you read on the internet you are already lost. I think his strange "theories" are interesting and beautiful
Well you can't assume one emotional idea or thought isn't backed by some other factor involved. I think OP's fly is unzipped.
And your point is? That people are quantum particles? How does this make sense or even slightly resembles a useful thought?
Sings are defined by their distance relative to other sings.
Any observable sing contains an infinite amount of energy.
Unobservable sings can be said to contain a finite amount of data which is unchangeable due to the nature of their being unobservable.
I think you're a faggot nigger-sympathizer who needs to be tar and feathered.
...
The observed idea, person, or thing (sing) is surrounded by an infinite amount of other sings surrounding it.
The access rate of each sing is assigned by an interpreter observing the base sing, which then assigns the subsequent sings.
For example, one person may like dogs, so they assign certain sings around that dog.
Another person may hate dogs, so they assign opposite sings around that dog.
Souls are infinitely small particles or sings. They do not directly interact with material sings (protons, neutrons). However, they can interact with non-material sings (electrons and decaying particles out to imaginary particles).
When someone dies, they create an eternally inaccessible imprint on the previous universe they existed in which is unchangeable due to their inability to assign further input from an observer's perspective.
An observer can continue to assign input toward the representation of that person in the form of memories and emotions towards who they were before they died.
However they will not be able to assign new input to that person's soul because they are not able to interact with them directly after they die.
If you speak to a ghost, they are not a base level imprint, but instead a sub-base level imprint, which means you are still not accessing the base level data assigned by the original soul.