Embedded Files
Not just
Questions & Answers
But also a dumping area for random stuff
Please read the introduction page first if you haven't already
*** Take what you read here with a grain of salt. It's speculation & creative exploration from an outsider perspective. But I hope it sparks ideas. ***
Q: Self-Awareness & the Collapse Question
A: One of the longest standing open questions in quantum mechanics is what actually causes superposition collapse. The Copenhagen interpretation just says "observation" & leaves it at that, which has driven physicists mad for a century. It implies a special role for the observer without ever explaining the mechanism. What is an observation? Who or what qualifies as an observer? At what scale does collapse occur & why?
PT proposes something more satisfying: collapse is intrinsic. It is the system's own self-discrimination, its primitive awareness of its own ternary states. The observer doesn't cause the collapse. The observer is just witnessing a process that has its own internal trigger.
That internal trigger is self-observation. Not consciousness in any grand or mystical sense, but the most minimal possible version, perhaps the quantum of conciousness: a thing registering that it is this & not that. You cannot divide without some mechanism that discriminates. You cannot split into ⁻1, 1 & 1⁺ without something that registers the difference between them. In PT that discriminating mechanism is intrinsic to every mechanism all the way up, from the first pulse of the Phen to every quantum event in the Phenomena.
That's not a small claim. It directly addresses one of the most contested & unresolved problems in all of physics. It may also have implications for quantum computing, for the nature of measurement, & possibly for a structural account of consciousness itself. Those are bigger conversations for other pages. But they all start with a Phen & photon becoming aware of what they are.
Q: Is the Loop of Causality a paradox?
A: Yes & No, but Phen Theory shows how it resolves
If the Phenomena gives rise to consciousness… & consciousness gives rise to observation… & observation is what creates the Phenomena… Then we are dealing with a closed causal loop. A self-reflecting cycle. A paradox, but one rooted in structure.
When you realise that observation doesn't just come from an observer but also originating internally by 'matter' as a form of self observation / realisation (I am something if I can divide or in order to divide I have to be aware of my current state & existing orientation etc). Then you start to see how a conscious observer may have arisen from the very things it has observed. Surface level it seems like a paradox. But structurally it resolves.
An internal self-observation that sets up the wavefunction & an external structural or forced observation that collpases it. Both working in tandem to reduce the ternary states into binary polarity. One being matter 1⁺ (1/3rd of the ternary) & one being dark matter ⁻1 (1/3rd of the ternary) & the invisible 'glue' like thread between them of potential / dark energy which combines with the dark energy in the dark matter to make 2/3rds
If you look at that again you'll see that dark matter is as simple as one of the 2 probabilities that SP calculates with the wavefunction equation, then throws away one & wonders where the dark matter is? like holding a rod & turning it until you see one end then thinking the other end magically disappeared.
Q: Rotational & Ternary Confusion?
A: Depending on the rotation of the Phenomenon in the Phenomena, structures & functions may present themselves in many ways. But the Phenomenon doesn't need to physically rotate as the Phenom are in ternary states that can effectively flip or rotate the Phenomenon just by changing their ternary polarity.
Most combinations of structures or functions in the Phenomenon are only described from the rotation of the image in the Phenomenon section of the site. But keep in mind that depending on the rotation of the Phenomenon or the Phenoms ternary states, there may be many more combinations or appearances than listed here & also the reason why SP sometimes sees multiple things as the same thing or vice versa they see one thing as many. The whole purpose of PT is to eventually reduce this Particle Zoo confusion
Q: I heard there is actually 17-ish particles with 5 of them bosons in SP?
A: Nup, in PT Bosons are the bodies of Projection Phibres not particles or phenom. Looking from the outside in, there are 5 Phibres for each phenom. 1 scalar (a Phield Phibre) & 4 non-scalar (Philter Phibres), they are the vectors & axes of the Phenomenon. The intersection of the Phibres (Bosons in SP) are what create the Phenom or illusion of matter through accumulated compression of light and energy.
This is very easy to visualise if you look at the phenomenon Square Bipyramid model you will see from each Phenom 1 scalar Phield Phibre that extends toward the center Phen position, & 4 non-scalar Philter Phibres that radiate in 4 directions - reaching towards a square base pyramid shape
But in PT only the 3 internal axes (Phenomenal generations / Phield Phibres) are real "bosons" the Phield Phibres which align with RP's W⁻, W⁺ & Z⁰ bosons. The outside Philter Phibres are infact more closely aligned with sets of 3 in a Phace being akin to Gluons in SP.
All this confusion comes about because SP sees each thing as being multiple different things for 2 reasons, firstly they are unaware of the PTM structure & secondly they havent yet seen the PT Symmetric Ternary that forms it
Q: Are there particles in PT?
A: No. PT shows us that Particles are just illusions. What are seen as particles are infact the intersection of light Phibres. Not freely moving independent objects but vector points on the Phenomena's matrix. Phluidity explains the illusion of their motion.
Think of them more like light knots instead of particles. Not independent & get more compacted when you tug on them increasing their 'solidity' (mass) or illusion as objects of matter (Phenom)
Q: How does the Phield differ from the Higgs Field
A: This is just pure speculation at this stage but basically PT sees that it's not the Phield but the end of it, where it collides with the Philter as where mass occurs, whereas I think that SP proposes it's the Higgs field itself that is responsible for mass generation, thus confusing & combining 2 seperate components of the SP Weak force (Phield) with the SP strong force (Philter)
Q: Why do you dislike the terminology of Particle Decay?
A: Particle decay is yet another term that I feel SP uses wrong. Firstly as noted above particles are not really a thing in PT, but even if we were to refer to Phenom etc, it is still the completely the wrong image or description of the process. When we imagine decay we imagine a process where we start with something & eventually end up with nothing. Death & destruction. This is the complete opposite of what is happening. We start with nothing, then we have some more stuff! Call it whatever you want (a photon, a phenom etc) it then divides & makes 2, they then divide & make 4 & on & on until the universe is full of “stuff”. This is a process of generation not decay. It’s a process of birth not death. To confuse generation with destruction is a fundamental error. How can we describe the processes of the universe if we confuse its birth & building with its destruction & death
If we need to use the term decay it should be when particles merge. After all if they keep doing it long enough you’ll end up with only 1
When a woman comes out of a hospital with a set of twins, that hopefully have a smaller mass than her & we see them all at the next BBQ get together. We don’t say “wow I see you’ve just started decaying!”.
When we see cells divide we call this life. When they stop its decay.
So PT definitely shows that SP needs to stop using decay to describe the process of birth, generation & creation. Particles are not decaying, they are giving birth to future generations
Google Sites
Report abuse