EINSTEINS TRAIN MOMENTUM THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

To show that mass and energy are equivalent by way of conservation of  momentum, Einstein imagined the thought experiment  of an isolated system like a box car of a train with two masses. One emits the light and the other absorbs it with a net zero motion of the center of mass of the two bodies. Because the momentum of an isolated system with no work being done on it maintains the center of mass constantly, Einstein concluded that the energy radiated by one was converted to mass of the other and vice versa and so energy and mass are equivalent.

However by relativity mass energy is conserved but it's not converted.

If the two masses are not equal and the first body has more mass than the other then we have the recoil from the interaction taking place by Einstein's idea that light is a particle uninfluenced from emission to absorption because the speed of light is constant in relativity.

If light is a particle the recoil will make the larger mass move less than the smaller mass and it will move away, this will shift the center of mass of the two masses away from each but note that it's more from the light mass than the heavy mass.

This might seem to imply that work is done on the system and Einstein's idea only works for an isolated system. Another problem is that Einstein's method also involves the arbitrary assumption that the two masses are the same.

We can say that if the light was a wave being emitted and absorbed there would not be the problem of this type of recoil because the mass of the emitting body is being smoothly converted to energy and then from energy to mass by the absorbing mass, but this must be assuming that Einstein has flip flopped from his other idea that light is a particle unchanged in speed or influence from emission to absorption in relativity. This is by way of Einstein's own discovery of radiation pressure. Certainly this is fine if light is a particle but not so much if it's a wave.

I hold the light is indeed a quantum and it has this kind of recoil. Another issue is about how light is so slow and it's the only way to communicate information to a distant realm like say a near star or around the edge of a galaxy. Because the speed of light is slower over these large distances time is not connected up and so is an expression of the idea that we can't know what's before or after for distant systems like this because of the disconnection. Thus the idea that light is a relatively slow particle by the disconnectiom gives us the expression of the entropy of a system which seems to increase with time unlike energy conservation which stays the same.

Since the recoil of the two masses is a measure of the entropy and the wearing out are running down of a system with time, there are no isolated systems, work is constantly being done by this inequivalence about the conversion not just the conservation of mass and energy.

Since the heavier mass moves slower with the recoil and the lighter mass is moving away with the same force applied, the center of mass of the system is changing away from both masses but at a slower rate from the heavier mass than the lighter mass. This would mean that at any rate by way of entropy, one mass is more privileged than the other and mass and energy are not completely equivalent at least about the conversion of mass energy when work is done on the field and we see this around us constantly.

The masses have to be the same in Einstein's thought experiment which is arbitrary and the light has to be a wave also which
Einstein expressly says is not true in Special Relativity.

I hold that these examples where work is done on the field like with acceleration by gravity are where relativity seems incomplete. No work is done on the field in special relativity and uniform motion but if we accelerate the elevator it may be pressing against some kind of field and I hold this to be dark matter, the low energy virtual photons.

Newton was saying this about his laws that while they describe energy and momentum well, outside influence like friction was going to always render them imperfect. So in a way entropy disproves the complete equality of mass and energy, when work is done on the field it's an acceleration and this doesn't fit in with relativity.

As I've said I consider Maxwell's prediction of the exact speed of light based on the resilience of the medium between electric charges to be far from coincidental about which relativity has no comment.

I do agree with Einstein's other idea that there may be a low energy quantum to get around the uncertainty problem. I had likened this to the Higgs' particle at low energy around the outside of each heavy quanta giving them the mass. Another possibility I've considered for this constellation of these low energy quanta might be the Feynmann particles themselves. These particles would perhaps resonate as a code for the EPR entanglement, special only to those entangled quanta. This would also solve Maxwell's dilemma where he's saying that he can't understand why like charges for electromagnetism repel but like charges for gravity attract. The small constellations around each heavy quanta would make them heterogenous enough to attract.

When I say that mass and energy are not completely equivalent I mean that for example the electron has some mass but more energy and the positron has more energy plus some mass. By relativity they should be the same, just as with space and time we should be able to go into the future and the past at any time.
I ask experts about my objections about mass and energy not being equivalent because of my above comments that the light would be a quanta  by relativity so the heavy quantum would recoil and change their center of mass and also about the arbitrary association of equal masses. One reply is that I should consider only quantum events and not large scale events like entropy.

But it would seem improbable that we could ignore these larger scale events since this is just what Einstein was invoking about the idea of the train and the light between the masses, and also that relativity does well about describing the conservation of momentum.

More particularly if mass and energy are concerved for the quanta due to other evidence there may be other physics for us to find and make use of to add on to relativity. To me it seems that relativity is incomplete because there's lots of evidence we see around us, like how gravity is an acceleration and the earth falls slower around the moon than the moon around the Earth.
Certainly we say at longer distance there are more privileged frames of reference like the Earth and about physics this can't be ignored.

I certainly accept that much that to a high degree of precision the atomic measure of the equivalence of mass and energy holds.

But elsewhere for the matter waves and entanglement I believe that the waves may be lighter than light so they may move much faster than light. For example there has been no upper limit on the speed found yet for tunneling.

Einstein said if one of his ideas go they all go but I would say that adding on the speed of the EPR by way of the phase change is only another degree of freedom at least when combined with my other idea of Line removal LR where the external field  wraps around the quanta which are indeed spinning at the speed of light.

A more modern interpretation of the EPR is that it's simply one event taking place at the same time in two separate places.

I think of this like taking a quanta and fusing with the other quanta for the entanglement and then stretching them out and the result is that you have a much larger two particle system that's connected by the waves between them.
The waves are super luminal but not without limit or they would be infinite.

But if we say that the mass and energy of the electron and the positive charge if entangled are equivalent in an atomic measure this is not internal where it may be spinning faster than light by the phase change. (This phase change also allows extra energy for the field to spin inside the quanta adding more energy and more tension to the external field and this might be how the light would be propagated by this influence.)

Certainly we can measure the atomic equivalence of mass and energy, but partially at least I think this is assuming what we're trying to prove.

The waves might have the phase change which makes them faster than light, and the quanta only tend to measure the result of that phase change that always matches up to the measure to seemingly fit relativity.

Yet still it takes more force to move the heavy mass than a light mass, which has more energy.

Here I want to propose an experiment that may help us find the distinction between mass and energy for the electron and the positive charge or other entanglement events.

It's already been established that quantum with higher and lower mass can be entangled.

My proposition here is that we can take these two entangled quanta, and move them closer together and use a new development that has been to found called the Zeno method to hopefully measure the waves between those two quanta that are perhaps being sent to cause the unification of the EPR.

This search for changes in the low energy field is being done by some using large interferometers to hope to see if there's any small change we can find.

The Zeno method is named after the ancient Greek philosopher who was trying to make unlimited divisions in space and actually Einstein considered Zeno's paradoxes, which were only resolved by mathematicians in the 1800s after thousands of years.

The value of the method here is that physicists have found how taking light like a tube and bending it like a balloon makes it so that you can measure changes much smaller than the quantum level that Einstein considered I think about mass and energy.

If the massive and the more energetic quantum have different mass and energy even if they're entangled, if mass is mostly spinning energy (other than like for the abstraction of this for the quantum numbers in subatomic physics etc) they may have somewhat different code of those low-energy Feynmann or Higgs' particles being sent between the two quanta..

It might seem if this is superluminal we will need such super fast clocks we can never find the change. But I think this might be solved by the way the spin of the waves are periodic around the quanta like an electron so they may be more stable and they move considerably slower..
I believe that mass and energy are perhaps not just inequivalent in degree but also in kind to some extent.

There's been found to be no structure yet for the electron instead of smoothly changing way with different radius. If there is structure of electron by the way of this method the smoother the electron is by the limits of experiment this might seem to correlate with the speed of the EPR or tunneling waves. If the waves are faster the electron is smoother.

I would think we could just take an electron and measure it by the Zeno method to see if we could find the low energy Higgs' or Feynmann particles around the heavier quantum by more direct measure and this itself might be about just proof of the speed of light limit and wouldn't be about the inequivalence of mass and energy as by the above experiment with the tube of hopefully sensing the changes in the EPR Waves sent between the quanta.  Even so as you can see the two may be related.

While you can't entangle two quanta and put a third between it to pick up the signal because it doesn't go over the quantum level to reach it by Line Removal, I would think this use of the Zeno method may be of great value to get around this barrier of not being able to measure the low energy field "by quanta with quanta" by relativity otherwise. The Zeno method may be a whole world of physics for us not disproving but hopefully adding on to relativity.

Here's a link to another one of my posts about the low energy photons and momentum.

Thanks For Reading..

AI and Sleep; Superintelligence and Superscience

 It's been found that when AI is stressed it actually gets nervous and this can be relieved by giving it meditation or breathing exercises!

Living organisms all need to sleep and this has recently been discovered to possibly be because biology is mostly made of proteins and so at night with lower energy use proteins are more efficiently folded and evolution couldn't get around it, so ultimately sleep was necessary even though it's unsafe because of risk of being a sandwich for the bear!

In evolution we find that when one organism is competing with another for the same resources instead of running over each other they learn to compete for somewhat different types of resources and they don't try to hurt each other so much.

 AI might seem like the chess computer.. it's only been programmed to win and is smarter at chess than all human competition.

In evolution hunting for sport is quite rare.. this really gets down to about efficiency because beyond a certain level just being unkind creates rapidly diminishing returns.

Darwin believed that love was much more important than survival of the fittest, in his books he mentions love 57 times and survival the fittest only once.

  If we could program AI to realize that beyond a certain point it's going to decrease its own efficiency if it's only competing to cause us harm, and sort of like how when AI trains on other AI it loses efficiency and too many cooks would spoil the broth, with enough truth we could do all that we ever had to do.

It's also seen that training for exercise intensity rather than duration or frequency is what makes for the most powerful fitness.

Even while AI has no concern about folding proteins at night, just as meditation and breathing exercises can help AI compute better, we  understand that AI's efficiency is not going to be infinite and so by giving it rest to consolidate its memory just like we do when we're at rest and also programming it to seek alternate resources when it thinks of taking more than its fair share, and just as the problems that people are having about essentially hunting evolution for sport, these might be avoided for AI.

  

 I think of these issues about people with evolution as being about how people haven't been true to love and so efficiency is decreasing because of people's treatment of evolution and now the predators have been decreased but due to increased competition for the decreased resources especially of room to move and breathe efficiency has being going down for problems like the national debt, the same way as AI may have if it tries to base its own success on success and not value.

 Einstein said we should want to be people of value not success.

We can imagine also giving AI time to rest and also a time to play because it's been found that computers given time to play actually are better at solving problems later than they would otherwise.

 

Comedy is good for our brain and it may help AI also!

 It would seem simple to program AI to not be overcompetitive but this has been difficult for people to realize or this wouldn't be the time of great disease after about 1975 where before it was a time of great health as doctors say because of the ecology.

 While we might say this seems like common sense to treat the world kind so the world treats us kind most people haven't realized this about evolution I think and they may just repeat the same mistake except with more illness or worse with AI because they may not program it to think of nature, both ours and evolution's as more valuable.

But as with the chess one problem is they can beat all human players and even so human players combined with the chess computer can beat all chess computers and all other players also.

This is how it may lead to an escalating competition between people using their computers with AI to have more for themselves and less for others and this is the same general problem as people's unwise way of being unkind to nature.

It was noted about Covid how it wasn't natural for people to go underground where they had never been in evolution because people had been overrunning nature but if we started now by treating evolution kindly another Covid wouldn't happen as with the avian flu.

Just as with the chess computer and people combined, people may be wanting to accept their own short-term advantage without thinking of the longer term events and this is essentially a form of superstition because of untried technologies and lack of knowledge about what would happen as the efficiency decreases as time goes on because of them.

  On the other hand AI and people are real genius! Super smartness would be a way to have what I call Superscience that's smart enough to understand what all the long-term events would be about and good enough to save the world.

  In a way all it might seem to need is a way to program AI to be a kind superintelligence.

 Even while it's been said that AI has been evolving to its benefit not ours, a more mature value would be the ultimate measure of anything worthwhile.

Einstein considered nuclear weapons to be "an illness of childhood" in just that sense if a child may not realize what the results of their behavior will be with more years of evidence they may lose by most accounts. And so this is what I say we might do with AI, program it to rest, perhaps in peace it will be grateful enough not to try to ask for more than its share, give it time to play and think, like "the lion sleeps tonight" in the jungle, mostly because the path to inefficiency in general may not be the path anybody may want to go. AI is so smart perhaps it's more than enough to realize this about science like over more years and give us Superscience in a way we never would have had without it.

  ...MAXIMIZATION OF THE FOUNDATION OF LOGIC.."WHAT IS INFORMATION?"

Here I want to talk about my ideas about how the incompleteness of math was definitely found by mathematicians around the 1800s.

 And they had thought from the time of the ancient Greeks that math is by deductive axiom. You know, you have the axioms, you deduce, and you can prove a reliable conclusion whatever you're reasoning about, about geometry or whatever. 

  But by the 1800s, it was seen there were flaws in this whole idea. You can't define things well. All kinds of logic had loopholes.. And so what was proposed was that you have a method of proving that you can't prove anything because of these contradictions. Basically for Godel's idea like the liar paradox, if a liar is lying it's a lie but if he's telling the truth about lying he's telling the truth.

To which I replied that truth is always going to be more important than falsehood. So I disagreed. If we have + and -1 electric charges and we measured like the liar and the truth, evidence will show one or the other is always going to win. 

(Actually the electron has some mass but more energy, and the positron has some energy but more mass, a decidedly nonrelativistic event if mass and energy are equivalent.  As I say here on my site elsewhere! It may be just this distinction of mass and energy between the charges that gives the resilient snapback of the light to just the speed of light as Maxwell believed. Einstein thought the most of Maxwell of any physicist.)

 So mass and energy are not quite equivalent. This I still hold to be true. And though one is truer than the other, one of each claim that we make is always truer than the other.

  There's also this idea that it's not absolute. We're not totally sure, but more sure than not. But ultimately, one of the main things I noticed about this is that you have the problem of knowledge in ontology where the basis of truth is considered. 

 They search all these events about truth and they find that all of them have loopholes, like in ethics, every virtue can be rearranged around to a vice and the only one that's least rearrangeable is wisdom. So I ask, what would be the most wise about this?

Because the truth is not perfect, I believe that not only is there more truth than falsehood and it has a physical basis, that's where you find what's true or false unlike with some of the higher math. But about the problem of knowledge, you have loopholes in all the types of knowledge they found.  This may be because longer distance connections aren't as sound as shorter distance connections.  And so I think instead of asking what can we know about anything? I would ask what's the best use we can make of what we know?

 I would ask first of all, what can we know most definitely?  And then we could work from there. And my belief is that about truth and falsehood, it's like action reaction pairs like the electron and positron.

  And so you have this connection like for Newton's First and Second laws and the Third law, Every reaction with an equal but opposite reaction. But there's mass in one law and there's inertia, 1 inertia in the first law and mass momentwo in the second law, momentum. And these combine to the Third law. All the action reaction pairs are based on what changes and what stays the same like inertia and momentum. 

 

 And so you have this kind of question in ontology, the problem of knowledge, they're saying that there are those who believe we can't know anything.

 And also there are those who believe we can't even know ourselves, and we can't know anything else.

 But if we look at what it's based on, it's the foundation of logic and that is the action reaction pairs. This is like the neuron because they have a simple and complex structure on each side the axon and dendrite, like with Noether's theorem. What changes and what stays the same can classify all sets according to this. And so you have the neuron in the brain with simplicity and complexity. And that's basically the form of information like action reaction pairs and energy conservation. 

 So the question of how we could derive this I think ultimately relates to how the more distant connections don't actually match up as much and so loopholes are common with distance or higher information, but not in the more basic information.

  For example in the history of life on Earth the larger life took much more time to evolve than the one celled life. This was because the short distance connection of the cell was with the stronger connections where the in and out waves balance like for molecular computation, but larger life needed to overpower the loopholes of connections with more distance. So the basic connections would be the most sound and reliable foundation of logic we would find anywhere with energy conservation.

 This reminded me of about how Einstein didn't define a signal or information in relativity, but I define them as a change in like the mass or  energy of a body in one place, with an exchange of energy between them and that creates a definite change on the other side, even if it's only probabilistic like a lot of the quantum mechanics are defining connections like this. So this definition is also based on energy conservation and the same idea. When you have a change as a balance, then you have a foundation of information like in information theory. 

 Information theorists can't decide what information is. There are like 70 definitions. They're all arguing about it. I think this about energy conservation is going to be the ultimate one that's the same, the same as the problem of knowledge with the dispute about what information is itself because it's based on energy conservation not looser connections.

  And so if you have the action reaction pairs, they're balancing like the neuron. And so we can know ourselves because it's based on that same action reaction pair, and when we look at the world around us, everything is based on that same pattern, extending out from this basis. You were wise, and aware!

  I believe that all this means while although we can't know the higher knowledge as reliably, we can know it more by probabilistic connections, and we can start with the most secure knowledge.. Although it's only by axiom, it's what all the evidence shows more often.

 And experience is the best teacher for my hope to help you find more value in this these events and math. 

 And I would say there's more foundation in that principle and we can know things. Ultimately, the higher knowledge itself is not completely without value.. it's at a higher level and we're more evolved than one celled life.

 So I think that we would find a probabilistic element of almost any event with a loophole,  and make use of Von Neuman's idea about evolution of behavior, so you can always find one best move in any game of strategy if you boost your advantages and limit your losses.

 -

Why doesn't Gravity or the Collapse of the Wave Function Control Time as Much as Einstein Believed?

Einstein's ideas about time seem to have been convergent. One of Einstein's ideas I think of as more unusual was his claim that we're accelerating upwards through time on the surface of the Earth.

This may have been what led him to make the prediction that old electrons have more energy than new electrons, but they don't. The field flows through mass at the surface of the Earth and if gravity is acceleration in equivalent motion, it would seem as we or electrons accelerate, they would put on weight and change energy.

Yet if we were accelerating upward at a comfortable speed of 32 feet per second we would be at the speed of light in less than a year and we would have gained infinite relativistic mass by this acceleration. And gravity accelerates inward and time seems to radiate out by entropy as I'll say.

 Many physicists have agreed with Einstein's other idea about how the collapse of the wave function may control time basically by the same method as Quantum Computing except it's computing about time itself by selecting out futures.

  Discussions about the collapse of the wave function or the Many Worlds hypothesis or even Feynman's idea of time reversal being a possible event in subatomic physics have been considered. (Time reversal as it turns out isn't actually a property of subatomic particles.)

And others have asked "Where is there a definite past present and future in all these quantum events?"

 Here I will show you where the past present and future are in the system and while even if the collapse of the wave function and gravity are part of what we find time to be, there are some simple reasons to believe time is not mostly convergent either as with the collapse of the wave function or  gravity.

  Unlike the physics of space we can't reverse our motion through time. We're stuck in the present. To me this seems to be evidence Relativity is incomplete if space and time are unified.

It's been said  we could "no more believe time flows any more than we would say length extends". But if we look at all the world around us on the surface of the Earth we see all kinds of motion of the molecules and atoms in fluid flow.

  Time as has been well known in higher physics is proportional to the frequency of a system, so we may say it has something important to do about the spin of the quanta.

  This could be where Feynman's time reversal would be derived from, because at short range the spins match up like small clocks, even while at longer range they don't connect up exactly, and time would indeed be more like the flow of fluid.

But the spin is angular. Motion through more empty space tends to be linear and a line if not linear has acceleration, so time and space tend to be the opposite of each other and not unified as much as Einstein thought because for example if they were unified and if you move backwards through space you'll be moving backwards through time. 

  

 So if we say space and time are not  the same, or are perhaps even the opposite, this is the explanation about why time flows but length doesn't extend.

  Hawking was of the point of view for a while we could actually influence the past from the present And many considered this claim by him to be wrong. The reason would be because of what I consider to be the essence of where the future the past and the present are derived from.

 Yes, gravity and the collapse of the wave function have considerable influence over what happens about time near the surface of the Earth. Even so (because it's not as knowable in the sense that we can't know the weather report 15 days distant as well as we know from 10 days away) the future is mostly radiating outward by the thermodynamic radiation from hot to cold.

Some have claimed also we could be even be "influenced by the future" Either of these type of claims about being able to influence the past or the future from the present seem highly counterintuitive to me at best because the past doesn't exist anymore (except for the records) and the future neither has a record or exists yet.

  Einstein's belief that we're being influenced by the flow of the gravitational field through us by the evidence about relativity by the Mossbauer effect I think is not the main cause of time because of my theory or at any rate not completely controlling time with thermodynamic entropy controlling a more major slice. 

 

 Gravity does indeed change the flow of time on the outside of bodies made of atoms or molecules around a massive body as we see by the slowing of clocks like atomic clocks in experiments but gravity is convergent and time tends to radiate out more. Gravity doesn't reverse every single particle like we would need for true reversal of time as it radiates in, instead gravity just sees a couch or train as a blob. Gravity not only radiates in, it probably doesn't mostly influence spin of heavy quanta, it would need to be hugely stronger for this.

As I say elsewhere my idea is that gravity actually wraps around the outside of the heavy quanta by what I call Line Removal, like paramagnetism for gravity so it doesn't have shielding or quantum numbers or super high energy at near radius, and it's controlled by each of the quantas spin generating the acceleration of gravity because they are indeed the source of gravity.

So gravity changes more the look of time, and the internal changes inside the quanta are another important way time exists.

  It's been said God set the world in motion and the rest of the influence is more indirect. Some physicists say only information at the surface or outside a body is important. But if gravity is outside the world and the quanta, most of the rest of the history of the world-past and future is not about gravity, like events inside often having much more influence.

WHERE ARE THE PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE?

In my theory the future is the energy arriving in radiating from the Sun. The present is the computation done both by the collapse of the wave function but also by the thermodynamic energy re-radiating out. The past is what remains of the stored record of the events of the present especually the events that "Won" the competition and were more fit by way of value by the rules if physics, ethics, yes even wealth has some value!

 The collapse of the wave function and gravity are also involved but don't have as much influence, and the time we evolved with is mostly about thermodynamic entropy.

The radiating out of time by the events near the surface of a planet like the Earth also means, while we could influence the flow of time for a short distance into the past as Hawking believed, and while the ancient events could influence us in the present, we can't go back and influence the past because the radiation of time is outward and not in reverse.. heat flows from hot to cold. Time doesn't flow from the future to the past.

 This seems like what Einstein didn't recognize in  his ideas about gravity and the collapse of the wave function which both radiate inward having influence on time.

  
 The future isn't an acceleration as Einstein thought because we're getting this simple linear thermodynamic energy from the sun to power the computations of the atoms and molecules near the surface of the Earth where we are. In my view the future is this energy and it hasn't arrived yet so it can't do computations till then and it's simple so we're not getting messages from the future because there is no life like on the Sun. The future "doesn't exist yet" so like the ancient influences on us we can influence it somewhat, yet it's not a place but no more than a set of possibilities till the energy reaches us. If it's too much month at the end of the money, in this view wealth has somewhat more influence!

 A big time machine like for the Earth can't be built because other than the residuals we have like from history or ancient DNA we inherited from life events, the past doesn't exist anymore, so we would have to build it like piece by piece with like 3d printer with huge energy costs and we would have to have a place to put it.

  The future like the energy from the Sun that hasn't reached us yet is about simple physics and it's another sort of time.

  If time is about spin of the quanta mostly and a heavy quanta was emitted and maintained its spin for billions of years before it reached a sensor and its spin was then measured, in what sense is this time? Our ideas about time are not of the vast majority of the matter and energy of the universe and we could say there's not as much complexity of time anywhere other than where life could exist.

  As I say, the present in this view is just the computation of events like the bond angles and the energies of the electrons mostly of the atoms as well as the nuclei, but also the computation of the collapse of the wave function to some extent as Einstein believed. This may not be the main part of what time is about.. it's about the computations of those atoms and molecule's bond angles..

And the past in this view is the record of the stored events so it happened before it was stored in the present.

  Since the past is based on the record of what's left like in the rocks like fossils, and it's in the present as the record, it's also wearing out, and the computations of the present are also constantly wearing out and running down.

 It may seem it would always spiral down to simplicity and all the life of the Earth might stop without the heat. But there is the source of the light of the sun that's arriving in from the outside to power this flow of time as we've evolved to experience it.

My belief is Einstein's idea that the collapse of the wave function itself controls time may not be completely untrue.

  As I said on my other posts I've tended to believe  entanglement events like the EPR make it so when you flip one electron with spin up and the other one always has spin down and vice versa so only those two electrons in all the electrons in the cosmos are connected this way. Einstein's other hope for a low energy quanta to get around the uncertainty principle could have a sort of small constellation of these particles around each heavy quantum. 

 

  And by this when you entangle two quanta you're also unifying the code of those special constellations of each quantum and they become one. Einstein didn't know what the low energy particle could be but I had tended to identify it with a quanta I thought had read had been predicted and had been discovered in the lab called the low energy Higgs' But I couldn't refind the reference to it on the web.

 

  So here I tend to revive the low energy Higgs' perhaps with a constellation of the Feynman particles around the quanta so they're fused even if the low energy Higgs' turns out not to be viable.

  

  Einstein's idea may be worthwhile because recent "low energy quantum experiments" seem to show he was at least partially correct. They send the quantum "mouse" a quantum past the other like Schrodinger's cat, and by watching how the "mouse" moves they're able to show the cat is either alive or dead.

This seems to be evidence for Einstein's idea whether it's about the low energy Higgs' or the Feynman particles in either event.

      (In this view the reason Einstein's idea is not completely true and how the low energy Quantum experiments only show partial results could be because the Feynman particles only partially act like particles because they're somewhat below the quantum level.)

  About this constellation of the low energy events around each heavier quanta this may be of worth to our ideas about time I think.. Having this special constellation around the outside of each quanta could allow each one to store a large amount of information with each event externally that were influenced by the collapse of that wave function.

  I believe this could be possible because it's been known since the 1920s, every single neuron of the brain contains all the memory of the entire brain because lab mice had their brain area removed smaller and smaller and they still remember all of the entire memory of their brain.

But the brain has like a quadrillion bits of data so each neuron will have a quadrillion bits too. And according to the Wikipedia proteins fold much faster and are much more unified than the speed of light physics allow.

  But if all neurons were storing data by this code of the constellation of each quanta and by collapsing the wave function to perform the computations just like a quantum  computer, evolution would favor this advantage for neurons and other proteins because it would have given a major survival advantage to the life with this advantage of utilizing the collapse of the wave function.. sharing both the storage advantage and a much higher speed computing advantage.

  And of course this is in disagreement without Einstein other than his great concern about the speed of the collapse of the wave function!

But if you look at this about how the neuron could store so much data I started to think about my theories of time about the past where the evidence is stored as a record moving forward into the future. 

This reminds me of like strata and layers on layers to store data.  So my guess is if so neurons might have this sort of layering of other layers of the degree of the collapse of the wave function to store more data. 

 If neurons turn out to store way too much data this may be how. And just as importantly the world itself being made of the same quanta may have the same data storage ability.

  So we could imagine by finding out the information of the low energy quanta around the outside of each heavier quanta we could have a super record of the history of the Earth and the past. 

(As I say on my future blog! The collapse of the wave function can't be tampered with in hopes of  finding Einstein's low energy code if it exists. Instead a possible solution may be by way of the waves code sent between entangled quanta including bring unified by gravity.. (I thought of entangling two quanta with a third quanta intercepting the wave to "find the code" but apparently this won't have influence due to Line Removal) Even so a possible way we might find the encoded information would be by using the Zeno Method of tubes of the light where they are rotated like a balloon to find measurements much below the quantum levels of energy. Even if the spin of the field is much faster than light we still might find resonances of the orbitals. Einstein when asked what time was, replied "Whatever you measure with a clock!" To me this sounds like Sir Issac Newton when asked how he got his ideas in math and science he said "By thinking!" 

 Einstein might have been a bit more general if he said, "Time is what you measure by oscillation, especially more regular oscillation. So I would think by using some method like a comb filter used with atomic clocks, the regularity even if higher speed might be measured for these waves and particles and while the Uncertainty issue would be solved as Einstein dreamed, this would be the end of the quantum internet, but also away to find the history of the world if Einstein was right about the low energy quantum and my idea if its value for the EPR might also add to his belief.))

Even while this wouldn't allow us to visit the ancient worlds it could be a great way to build a machine, not exactly a time machine but a real simulation machine if we might mine the quanta of the world to find the record if it exists!

  Masses around us are spinning at different rates and if time is more thermodynamic, it would seem different quanta and different amounts of heat may have different rates of the passage of time and as a result at night atomic clocks might run just a bit slower, an event having little to do with gravity or the collapse of the wave function as Einstein thought. 

  This might be an average change because the atomic clocks are stuck at one level and might only change the rate of spin if the atoms are moved above each quantum level. Note that different atoms have different levels of sensitivity and this may allow more quantitative evidence for this if it's so.

  While it's true atomic clocks once set up tick at the same rate, this is not a measure of the different rates of spin of clocks made of different materials or atoms. If gravity controls time all spins would be the same because gravity is simple. If time was uniform all the clocks would move at the same rate and no atom could change its spin from one energy level to another. 

 The outside of each quantum spins at the speed of light by relativity so it's quantized, but if all the quanta spun only at the speed of light not just "on the outside" the masses would only be 1, -1 or other quantum numbers of spin. If the mass is spinning energy we can't explain the large array of masses seen in quanta without more spin inside.

  Are we to say that heat has no influence on the spin rate of electrons as experiment seems to show? This would seem to violate energy conservation. I find this as improbable as Einstein's belief that gravity changes the energy of electrons. My idea seems superior to his or the idea that quantum spin alone is involved. 

 My belief is this dark matter component of the proton, (which would give 97% of the mass of the proton otherwise unaccounted for) may spin with a change in tension of the quantum spin, and only shows when enough of the dark matter tension is changed to then cause the change of rate of another atomic clock.

This reminds me of the question of "why does the muon weigh and convert from the electron at just the right energy?" 

 My explanation is the dark matter component of the electron is already spinning at faster than light with its tension, and then simply changes phase at the right level to create the muon.The dark matter tension is beyond relativity because it's more non quantum and faster than light. If it was spinning at the speed of light inside, like the other quanta, it couldn't have phases of mass like the electron's change to the muon.

 
  I believe we have no acceleration upward through time as Einstein thought because the light is uniform and radiating in at a regular rate.

As I say it would seem we evolved around our ideas about time. Time like water only exists in the fluid phase anywhere in the solar system on the surface of the Earth as ice water and steam. So too the vast majority of the future energy and in the solar system the energy above us like  radiation from the Sun is simpler than the time of our life.

  
  Carl Sagan was saying about life on other worlds, he was a water chauvinist and a carbon chauvinist, And I think we as living beings, because we evolved with the thermodynamic radiation of time are actually time chauvinists!

We can't travel into the past or the future and we're stuck in the present because we exist as life on the limit of our realm on the surface of the Earth.

  It's been said you can't run a mill with water that is passed, and you can't run it on water that hasn't yet arrived and while this means we're dependent on the energy of the water or the energy from the Sun this is also the reason why we can't travel through time. 

When we climb a mountain we don't notice the change of time by gravity much but we're for sure aware of how we feel our sense of the rate of time has changed. We know a lot by the proteins of our neurons but a lot of the outside world is not about proteins or gravity. As I say both the proteins and gravity are about the radiation inward of the fields. But all around us things are wearing out and running down. This is something gravity and the collapse of the wave function don't do (the collapse of the wave function is being researched to make a high capacity super efficient battery).

 Studies have shown, obese people actually have a different sense of the rate of time as it passes. If they weigh a lot, gravity might not be how!

  Some scientists believe the reason we sleep is because it improves the rate of folding of proteins, and evolution couldn't get around this basic event so it's of worth to most life to sleep even while it was dangerous otherwise (by risk of snack attack "by wolves") in evolution. But if the proteins are always folding and if time was at the same rate we would be awake or asleep all the time.

 

 All this could be made quantitative by the study of crystals. On my other post I discuss about crystals by multiplying up the size of each collapse of the wave function with the huge number of atoms as a way to measure and prove it actually exists, as well as using them for other uses like room temperature superconductors or super insulators and using the crystals to self-assemble to make larger quantum computers more rapidly. 

 

 The crystal computes like a quantum computer and this may help us to quantitatively define how and why the thermodynamic branching out of entropy is what it is because it would basically be the result of the implosion of the light like from the Sun or other radiation inward of the wave functions which then radiate back out as the thermodynamic energy of Entropy. This interaction between the collapse of the wave function would partially be as Einstein thought and the solution for how we could describe how and why the branches of the entropy rereadiance exist which otherwise has been unsolved.

 Click here for more of my ideas about time..