SyntheticModel

QuantumEventTimeSpace is defined by an ExperienceModel of the relative phenomonon of everyday life, and a synthetic model of the underlying hidden bottom layer of absolute reality.

Wolfram| and others have shown that any model capable of exihibiting universal computing is equivalent for the synthetic model since it cannot be observered directly. We only experience the emergent behavior of chaotic environments that may be equivalently generated by various sorts of simple rules at the bottom.

We expect out measurements and other phenomonon in the experience to result from unseen action the actual wokings of the universe that we cannot observer directly. The synthetic model is the simplest model that could be the actual actual workings of the universe so far as measurement reveals. It represents what might actually exist and is sufficient to account for our experience. Experience represents a random sampling of the underlying universe and so we expect that same physical rules will exhibited.

Emergence itself is complicated, not simple, to be understood we look toward PertibationTheory and EvolutionaryGameTheory.

Interaction probabilities are associative and communicative. Given quanta A, B, and C. If A x B, then B x A, and if A x B, B x C, then A x C. We can see that the possibilities manifest themselves like the set of possible theorems of the predicate calculus. The ordering of crossings of a quanta defines a dimension of relative possibilities. A crossing closer to the yin end of the quanta than another manifests a yin and vise verse.

Changes in our universe occur in discrete quantum||WhatIsAQuanta bits. This implies that a synthetic model composed of [[quantum|]] changes might provide a simple solution.

The minimum synthetic model assumes no internal events and models only perceived events. By Occam's razor and Wolframs equivalence of complex systems we look for generality with minimal complexity that relates well to the problem domain-- experience. Thus we will extend the princibles used in the ExperienceModel to the synthetic model as well. Thus we consider quantum (binary, yin yang's) disturbances in nothingness. The synthetic model requires a direct means of interaction beween quanta-- crossing. Crossing creates the possibility of percieved adding cancelling and folding while manifesting orderings.

Every quantum action has a reaction, nothing happens without cause. We have quantum dimensions with a possibility of reassociating and logically interacting created by adding, canceling or folding into another dimension. We do not presume any spooky actions at a distance. Only connected interaction is considered.

We look to the experience model to determine how interactions are manifest. All manifestations are relative. We find quanta can add, subtract, or fold.

Interactions perceived as yin yin or yang yang exclude one another defining a distinction between their position manifesting space. This provides for the communication events we perceive as multiples of quanta. The potential interaction chains of each are joined/crossed.

Yin yang interactions annihilate or subtract, collapsing space. Its yin is replaced with a possible yang and its yang with a yin in the fabric of possibility.

Though crossing is necessary for an event, the crossing need not be persistent. It is logically possible for an interaction quanta to not line up neatly, they may fold. They may manifest independent dimensions. Independent logical dimensions logically manifest a perpendicular. This logical orthoginality represents and manifests the physical dimensionality we observe.

Logical crossing creates possibilities, increasing entropy. Events select among the possible eliminating alternate possibilities, reducing entropy. the conservation of information (energy) in quantum (classical) physics suggests a parity of crossings and events at least in aggregate.

We now have a sufficient logical structure to generate the experience model with the possibility that not all logical possibilities are actually manifest. The quantum nature of experience suggests, however, that the constraints on the universe are logical, not physical. In a "perfect" model, all logical possibilities would be manifest physically. Nature relentlessly obeys mathematics, and the quantum suggests that its mathematics is discrete logic, perhaps because there is no way to generate a continuous system finitely.

Perhaps this structure is more complicated than it need be. Or it could be just what is needed. Our synthetic world has quanta joining and folding like proteins, but into any number of dimensions. Two dimensions of integral size define a triangle analog, three a tetrahedron and four a hyper tetrahedron.

There is no conservation principle in possibilities. Through general purpose interaction (add, subtract, fold) possibilities combine to manifest all possible systems. However, yin and yangs are manifest in different directions, if we limit possibilities to those manifest to some set of interacting observers we find that not all possibilities are manifest. The remaining possibililities manifest reality.

In the case of the quantum clock, an event source is manifest, possibilities are manifest by our perspective, or how we perceive the events, serial or parallel, equal or opposite. A pure event source would generate random logical structures, some of which would conserve information and exist over time.

Logical genesis of possibilities in both cases generates the harmonic series, 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 but with decreacing locical frequency.

Summing the sizes bounds events by pi squared over six http://www.pisquaredoversix.force9.co.uk/ or about 1.645 except that different perspectives could allow multiple perspectives on any term to exist.

If we enforce a conservation principle on actual observations by communicating observers, the maximum manifest per event would total one. In otherwords observing the first one, 2 halves or 3 thirds would preclude all others. This is consistant with quantum measurement.

Lets scale down our quantum clock from the universe as a whole to "mini bangs", or local quantum systems like atoms, black holes, ball lightning or stars, where it is more appropiate.

In the simple logical model the event souce is at a frequency having a energy equal to the mass of the object by e=mc^2. Real object may be composed of many slower sources adding up to this equivalent source energy.

The object can remaim stable as long as the escaping information (energy) is less than or equal to the zero point energy (175 Gev) supplied by the universe, e.g. a protons, atoms, planets. smaller escape energies make black holes, larger make ball lightning or stars.

The trick is modeling this behavior. Possible logical interactions from one perspective, if they all could be perceived amount to e+e/2+e/3+e/4...e/n where n equals e/planck-energy. This however is more energy than there is, so at least sum(1/n*n)-1 of the possibility must be eliminated by logical exclusion from our frame of reference in a non-inflationary setting. Additionally observing and internal behavior reduces the energy of the system. To be stable the system can give information only if it receives information. The "hidden" internal events manifest mass.

The first requirement for receiving information is that it fits in the system. We will get back to this later. The inside distance of these objects is larger than the outside dimension and the perceived dimension internally depends on the frequency received. What is received is what is manifest. Quantum events consume 100% of the signal or nothing. A signal between a stationary sender and receiver manifests a change in state space over a distance resulting in a equal opposite state change in the receiver.

A signal does not propagate through nothing, instead it is propagated via virtual particle holes and bumps generated by the ambiguous nature of the state change.

States of electrons are manifest a discrete values of four variables calles a Hilbert space. It takes at least 4 quantum dimensions and the number represent quanta percieved as being lined up. It may be through of aa a set of quantum hypertetrahedrum of sizes 1, 2, 3, etc., inside one another like russian doll boxes. Like heisenberg, however, we should just look at how the numbers are manifest and not try to impose our mathematics on them so they can reveal to us the mathematics of nature herself. It suffices to say that quanta crystalize into these four dimensional spaces while the sum of the 2 dimensional interactions over time generate our familiar three dimensional space.

All sorts of logical systems may be generated at random by logical interaction in an ecology of information where systems that hoard the most information for the logest time, propogate themselves, and find synergetic relationships emerge and consume the available information resources. (See EvolutionaryGameTheory and ANewKindOfScience}

Microwave interference sparks and ball lightning are interesting msnifestation of quantum plasmas where anything up to the mass of the plasma might be manifest. These can be throught of as visible quantum clocks with significant energy. High energy particle collisions also create these "mini bangs" where we can witness emergence in these complex systems from a quantum soup.

Atoms manifest a Hilbert space of four integral dimensions. The proton manifests the simplest stable particle but it manifests two incomplete independent quantum dimensions manifest and the external electron of the hydrogen atom. Since particles manifest yin yang pairs of quantum dimensions they do not logically exist except in pairs, the two dimensional positron partner of the external electron may be considered trapped in the inner dimension of the hyper tetrahedron. Although we cannot see the internal events we can presume they balance the external electron activities and ignor them.

Energy is manifest only as a discrete number of quanta, and thus discrete frequencies by e=hf where the maximum energy is frequency having the plank length, and the minimum frequency has the planck energy.

The changing possibilities and changing perspectives can be modeled in a cellular automaton sort of way. The model must be simpler computationally than directly modeling Hilbert spaces to be useful. To be practical it must also allow for simplifying aggregate behavior of composit objects and environments.

Consider a quantum oscilator which alternatively manifests yin or yang. Each action manifests the Planck energy (stationary observer), e1. Two action events may manifest 2e1 one half as often, 3 manifest 3e1 one third as often, and so on. This is consistant with manner and frequency of the energy we perceive interacting in a chaotic manner which manifests general purpose behaivior.

We can postulate mass manifest as a quantum| clock which generates quantum changes at some frequency. Frequency is related to energy by Planck's constant and hence to mass. But we do not experience the frequency of a mass due to its energy until it decays. It frequency is somehow hidden inside. It is easy to see how logical systems can have both internal events and events that interact with the outside world. Since the internal events have no effect in our world, they are not part of our experience model. Internal interactions can explain how mass can delay a signal.

The idea of hidden events in a mass is analogous to the theory of a black hole. The information inside can never get out without being totally scrambled. Like black holes masses in general scramble the signals we send them. And the size of particles is generally within an order of magnitude of the black hole size of the same mass. On closer examination we find that all the interactions are logical and reversible themselves. It is the incomplete knowledge of the receiver that makes the signal seem scrambled. Maximally encoded information is equivalent to noise.

Unlike theoretical black holes, particle are only stable at very particular masses. It you add events (energy) the particle decays fairly quickly back to its stable mass becoming an active participant in absorbing and emitting change information.

More clearity to come in the preceeding.......

Double Slit Experiment

Consider a coherent light source passing through two parallel slits and hitting a screen. The waves, or virtual positron electron pairs line up perfectly at the same frequency. Most travel straight through the slits and are received by the screen as all positrons or all electrons with all interactions being additive. Some signals, however, are randomly scattered by fluctuations in the zero point energy and travel a little longer distance to the screen depending on the angel of scatter. This creates bands that alternate between virtual positron interactions and virtual electron interactions. Since there are 2 slits there are bands originating from both. We would expect that where they are like, they add and where they are opposite they cancel. We might expect that the effect would diminish as the frequency of events becomes slower than the emission delay, if any. However, since the two dimensional signal cannot occupy a definite position in space without interaction and has a size which is relative, not absolute, the change information does not take a specific path in space relative to the slits and the differences will only propagate along lines that do not cancel.

In classical, or aggragate systems we can reasonably model a single randomized path for each event to simulate the net effect. When considering single events however our model must handel abiguity.

In the synthetic model crossing quanta in the density the zero point energy (175 Gev) provide bumps and holes, or yin yang paths corresponding to the virtual electron positron chain. The chain proceeds across event orderings alternately following yin or yang. These virtual points occur at half the wavelength but are not manifest. A chain is formed for each dimension of the communication. When a "fold" into another dimension occurs, we cannot say whether the new dimension will start the new chain with a virtual positron or electron and multiple paths become possible. The ambiguity may be resolved when a real object receives one signal or the other, or when paths cancel. This results in the possibility of taking both paths though two slits and exhibiting interference.

Let's start with photons, a simpler case, they transfer linear momentum from an electron at the source, to an electron on the screen, propagating a lattice of possible states sized according to the particular energy of the photon. Like radio waves, which are after all photons, they travel from a sender to a "tuned" receiver collectively. There is push from the source, and pull from the target that determines where the photon lands, deterministically, as demonstrated in the Cramer/Mead transactional/collective models.

Think of the lattice of this resonant grid in the vacuum as being almost solid, as the vacuum energy is only marginally less dense than matter(Wheeler/Dirac). Think of it as a block. We put a marble on one end, and roll a marble into the other end. The momentum of the rolling marble is passed to the block, and then to the stationary marble on the other side.

What path did the momentum take through the block? Every way?

While it was elastically conveyed by atoms in the block to the marble on the other side, the momentum was transferred to the entire lattice, not just a straight line of atoms between two the two marbles. We must consider the transfer of momentum of the photon in the vacuum lattice to be similar except that virtual electrons and positrons carry the momentum in place of atoms.

Photons reach particular electrons on the screen because the they are resonating at the frequency of the photon in phase. If we consider a photon passing two slits the resonate grid from each slit may be out of phase, exhibiting momentum which are opposite to the photons. This is similar being tuned to a different frequency in that the photon signal cannot be received. There is no degree of freedom in the quantum system for that point on the screen.

Considering electrons, they have an additional angular component such that the potentials jump both forward and backwards exhibiting a rest frame like a photon bouncing back and forth between two mirrors except the mirrors are the interactions with the vacuum momentum acting as virtual electrons and positrons.

In this case the screen is positively charged meaning there are lots of holes (virtual positrons) for the electron to fall into on the screen. This results in net motion of the electron toward the screen generally pulling the electron by allowing it to fall in that direction more often.

Which slit pulls the electron? Both. Again the occupied momentum state lattice of the two slits exposes two images of the electron at each point on the screen, these may be out of phase in exposing both a receding image and a advancing image of the electron in which case there will be no pull of the electron toward that point on the screen.

What is the standard interpretation? The electron or photon interferes with itself backwards in time. There is no interference between photons period in the vacuum in any direction of time that has ever been measured. They do not interfere with each other at all, ever. Electrons interfere with each other but never with themselves. To say they do so backwards in time is ridiculous. Because the fringes look like interference is no bases for assuming probabilities are physical. We should not assume an illogical explanation just because we don't know for certain what logical process is involved. As I have expressed here a logical explanation is conceivable. While I have not addressed all the dynamics of how the vacuum gets organized into relative resonate grids, the evidence suggests that it does, and we need to formally understand exactly how that happens, not accept illogical explanations that are contrary to experimental results..

% Protons and Neutrons

In the ecology of information logical system that succeed exhibit resiliency self synergy, replication, and symbiosus.

Protons represent highly stable systems which have consumed much of the energy in our universe.

See QuerkCalculus

% Conclusions