Hello,

I'm not a scientist or an expert, but rather I make software that analyzes models. I have become interested in quantum physics because it relates closely to the software I work on. What I am particularly interested in is the problem of using light to measure a 'real' thing. I understand from the Uncertainty Principal that using light to measure a thing is not possible/accurate because the light we see affects the thing being measured.

Perhaps my question is non-sensical (not being an expert), but wouldn't it be possible to measure something using changes in gravitational fields? If all things in our universe exert gravitational force on each other, wouldn't it be possible to indirectly measure the exact position and velocity of say an electron without affecting it? I assume that if we want to directly measure something, we will always have the same problem no matter what method we use now, or in the future. Thus perhaps an indirect method is actually superior. (This probably runs against good scientific practices, but still...)

My questions comes from a more philosophical perspective as this is the area in which I am developing theories. I take the approach that it is actually not possible to know exactly what a thing is, because we make the thing by measuring and conceiving it. However, it should be possible to detect other 'things' we don't know about, by measuring changes to the things we do know about, and relating it to what we want to measure, or more succinctly: what we want to conceive.

E.g. If you wanted to measure how people's actions affect the number of jobs available in the economy, don't try to measure the physical indicators that you are aware of (education, health, crime, etc.). Instead, focus on changes to HOW people act, and relate that to the desired outcome. Thus measure changes to the amount of fear motivating actions, and correlate this to the possibility that more or less jobs are being created.

Relating this back to quantum physics: Instead of measuring the location of an electron based on reflected light, measure changes to the gravitational field and relate this to the known effects of how an electron interacts with its environment. Then correlate the known effects to the changes in the gravitational field to 'know' when, where, and how an electron is moving.

I look forward to your thoughts! And thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts.

What you've proposed is slightly beyond the trickiest in trickdom as the electron has charge......this force is tens of powers stronger than the feeble gravitational force.....keep up the good lateral thinking mate, one day it might "pay-off"

Finally, don't let anyone ever convince you of the "impossible" as today's impossible is only a "yawn" in the unfolding super cool future.

This implies that you really ought not take any notice of what I've just stated.

If you've a bee in ya bonnet....go for it!

The worst that can happen is that you'll provide a lot of laughter for small minded idiots like me.

Hello All_one,

Brilliant question .

This is a starter reply - hopefully someone else will be able to correct me and give a better answer.

Apart from the technical difficulties of measuring such a small force..

By way of example..
When an electron goes round a nucleus you'd sort of expect the nucleus to wobble a bit - not much but enough to be detectable - as far as I know this doesn't happen. My best suggestion is that the electron only has a probability of being in any position on the orbit at any particular time. The larger the portion of the orbit you look at and the longer you wait then the greater the probability of finding the electron. The probability of finding the electron in all of the orbit all of the time is (close to) 100%. As far as I understand it gravity works on the 'all of the orbit all of the time' probability and acts from the average position - in the centre.

My impression is that generally the gravitational field originates from somewhere central to where the particle 'might be' and therefore gives no information to help resolve the uncertainty.

I could well be wrong..!

Best wishes,

Confused2.

fivedoughnuts - sorry, your posting must have come while I was having lunch.
Yes, dead right, 5d. Take what I suggest as a possible indication of what you're up against and go for it anyway.

-C2.

all_one,


Welcome!

There could be a high amplitude wave of consciousness going around right now. Many different mass densities are "tuning in". Your translation of this (instinct) is perfect.


You asked "If all things in our universe exert gravitational force on each other, wouldn't it be possible to indirectly measure the exact position and velocity of say an electron without affecting it? "

Yes, but as you also said:

"I take the approach that it is actually not possible to know exactly what a thing is, because we make the thing by measuring and conceiving it."

I can only add, that this IS being conceived by individuals right NOW; what needs to happen next is the exposure of this "conception", or the "communication of this idea" to many other individuals, who can then "resonate with this vibration", or agree with the idea. This raises the amplitude to higher levels, and can then attain "social acceptance". This is the Philosophical-Vibrational description of what "they" call Science.

So, to refer to your statement:

"However, it should be possible to detect other 'things' we don't know about, by measuring changes to the things we do know about, and relating it to what we want to measure, or more succinctly: what we want to conceive."

I would suggest reading this for "Seed".
Linking Gravitomagnetism to Infrasound, A thought experiment

and this for "Soil"
MATHEMATIC/NUMBER-THEORY INSIGHTS from TOE project, Discuss TOE implications for maths/geom.

and this for "Water"
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?

You are the Sun.

What can you grow?


TRoc

Hello TRoc, Confused2, and fivedoughnut,

Thank you all very much for your feedback and thoughts. In order of the replies, here are my comments/ideas:

fivedoughnut said:

"the electron has charge......this force is tens of powers stronger than the feeble gravitational force".

-> My theory in essence is that everything exerts an influence on everything else. The only difference is the magnitude of the influence, and, depending on the energy level of the 'things', the result of the influence will be different. (More later in this post) Thus in essence we agree that this is possible, however not yet possible to measure.

Confused2 said:

"As far as I understand it gravity works on the 'all of the orbit all of the time' probability and acts from the average position - in the centre."

-> Actually there were quite a few statements, but just to zoom in on one. If we assume for a moment that we can measure such small gravitational forces (assuming of course that gravity still applies in such small amounts), in my concept of the situation it will never be possible to measure where the electron is, but simply be able to measure the effects of the electron so specifically that you can predict with 100% accuracy the effect the electron will have on the nucleus at any given moment in time. Thus we seem to agree that we are discussing probabilities. My 'theory' relates to quantifying interactions and their effects, without specifically trying to quantify the 'what'. Thus if I wanted to express how an electron in a particular place in space and time would effect a nucleus in another specific point in space and time, I could do that by measuring the change in the environment and the desired outcome I am trying to achieve. (E.g. I want to move the nucleus 3 meters to the left, thus IF I had 10 electrons in a given place I have a 99.99999 or 100% chance that this is what will happen.) Is this making any sense?

TRoc said:

"What can you grow?"

-> Thanks for the reading material!! As mentioned above, I was not totally clear in what I described in my first post. To finish off the electron example: The point of measuring the position of the electron is not to measure the position of the electron, but to harness the result of the interaction of the electron and the nucleus to produce a certain result. If I can accurately (100% - just for the sake of it!) calculate the probability that a certain position of the electron causes a certain effect, I can start to use that information to determine how it is probably affecting other things.

The gravomagnetism theory seems to have some potential to describe what I am talking about here, however I have to read some more about it.

The TOE theory is definitely NOT what I am looking for, although it was interesting reading. To give you some more detail on my theory, although I am looking at a kind of 'theory of everything', it is more a 'relative theory of everything'. What I do is create models of worlds that are familiar to the observer. For example, the atomic world, or the molecular world. Each of these worlds have their own protocol, and the objects in these worlds have their own unique protocols for interacting with each other. Each world however is linked to worlds at different 'levels'. E.g. the atomic world is linked to the molecular world, which is at a higher level than the atomic world. I then map all the protocol 'actions' in each world (like gravity exerting a force, or heat, or whatever) to a generic language that describes how things interact, but not describing the 'what'. (E.g. Velocity, Magnitude, etc.)

To use the model you simply input your desired state for an object in a particular world, and link it to what you know it uses in the world below. Only one link is necessary. (E.g. My water molecule uses an atom of a particular type) I then observe over time the changes in states of all the objects using the generic language. I correlate the changes in states to the desired outcome. By linking these worlds together simply, I can see how quantum behaviour affects water, and how water affects populations, etc.

I hope this wasn't too confusing! I couldn't understand the bubble theory, except that it also seems to say that it is possible to measure things indirectly by measuring changes to things we know about.

So getting back to the original question:

If I want to correlate how 'things' affect each other, I can't do this by direct observation. By direct observation I change what it is that I observe. The best I can do (and it's not so bad if you ask me!), is measure how changes cause other changes. In other words: I can't create a certain state, but I can dramatically improve the probability that that state will occur given a certain set of other states. Personally I believe that we have reached a point in scientific research that we can no longer rely purely on observed facts, but need to mix indirect state changes with desired results. In the end, it's only got to do with what we want to create!

Ok, enough for me, I'm off to bed! Thanks!