Axioms and principles of multiversal mechanics, a theoretical framework

Time Travel Mechanics & Theory
, ,
1

[HEADING=1]Taking Things Up a Few Notches & Laying Some Groundwork for More Meaningful Discussions on the Multiverse and Its Practical Applications[/HEADING]
[HEADING=1]Multiversal Mechanics Framework[/HEADING]
[HEADING=2]Introduction[/HEADING]
This framework establishes a theoretical foundation for exploring the concept of a multiverse, where multiple universes exist with distinct sets of events and physical laws. It aims to provide a basis for understanding universe interactions, the impact of observation, entanglement, and information conservation across the multiverse.

[HEADING=2]Axioms[/HEADING]

  1. Existence of the Multiverse (EM): An infinite number of universes, each with unique events and laws.

  2. Measurability of Universes (MU): Universes have quantifiable properties, allowing for comparison and analysis.

  3. Interactivity of Universes (IU): Universes can interact, leading to convergence or divergence.

  4. Observer Influence (OI): Observation can influence a universe’s state, highlighting the quantum mechanics observer effect.

  5. Observer-Created Realities (OCR): Observations and measurements create or select distinct quantum realities, crafting unique universes based on choices.

  6. Inter-Universe Connectivity (IUC): Universes with a high intersection in event sets are in constant interaction, closely linked despite minor RV differences.

[HEADING=2]Principles[/HEADING]

  1. Classification of Events:
  • Fixed Points (I) and Flux Points (Y) represent events unchanged or variable across universes.

[*]Universe States:

  • A universe’s state is defined by its event set P, a combination of fixed and flux points: P = {Yi, Ii, ..Yn, In}.

[*]Reality Value (RV):

  • Events in a universe are assigned numerical values, aggregated into the RV, quantifying the universe’s state.

[*]Convergence and Divergence:

  • Processes by which universes become more alike or distinct, influenced by shared information or observations.

  • Convergence: Universes becoming more alike through the growing intersection of universes (PAdam ∩ PEve).

  • Divergence: Universes becoming dissimilar through growing symmetrical differences (PAdam Δ PEve).

[*]Multiversal Entanglement (ME):

  • Certain events or states are entangled across universes, affecting each other non-linearly.

  • The non-linearity of entangled events can lead to the appearance of time travel and the resolution of paradoxes.

[*]Conservation and Transformation of Information (CTI):

  • Information transforms across universe interactions but is conserved across the multiverse.

[HEADING=2]Notation for Converged Universes (E)[/HEADING]
The converged state of two or more universes, where identical sets of events occur, is denoted as “E”, indicating a universe where PAdam = PEve and PAdam Δ PEve = ∅, signifying complete alignment and successful convergence.

2

In an effort to try not flooding TTI with a bunch of my posts with loose ties to each other like a choose your own adventure, I’m going to containerize most of my related postings in this thread from now on. This thread will be as is Legos, being built on itself, growing bigger and bigger.

In the next few days I plan to update with a really basic demonstration on how a given measurable causality event can result in different Reality Values (RVs) for different observers that are equally valid in context of MM. It’s essential to understand that when dealing with multiple universes, that the same event measured from one set to another can have different / subjective RVs or “weight” that, when factored together, hint at a greater symmetry. Supersymmetry is baked into Multiversal Mechanics by nature.

Give me a few weeks and I’ll even have some easy python scripts folks can run on their own to validate concepts at a fundamental level. It may take months or years to demonstrate how we all entangle with each other on a daily basis, which is required to understand the grand empirical set known as P. Eventually though, we’d have to lay python down, embrace different orders of infinities, and utilize quantum computing in to hope to achieve the precision or units that we want…so we’re never going to get 100% there on TTI alone.

__

RV’s and Weights
Take the iconic double slit experiment as an example, which is the most basic experiment to show the wave/particle duality. Double slit experiments ran to date have only confirmed one thing–the output of what is measured is in a universe that is measurable, and the choice has already happened. Axioms [MU, OI].

  • If you choose to measure a photon as a particle, you get a particle pattern.

  • If you choose to measure a photon as a wave, you get an interference pattern.

Ok? So then how does one go about assigning a numerical value to the output of that choice?
Well first, perhaps you agree with someone that measuring the variance in distribution of the double slit experiment is how each observer will assign the RV or “weight” of Y*DoubleSlit.. *

Just imagine that the only thing that matters that we’re measuring in our microverse is the double slit experiment.
Then P = { Y***DoubleSlit ***}

If that is the case, and you have two observers (Adam and Eve) each running their own experiment at the same time…you can then substitute AdamDoubleSlit or EveDoubleSlit where you see YDoubleSlit. The results of AdamDoubleSlit or Eve*DoubleSlit * are equally valid in context, but unknown until they’re actually observed or information is shared. It’s Schrödinger’s kittens.

If Adam and Eve were to quantize their observations independently, they can codependently verify divergence and convergence between their universes. How?
By sharing their measurement results with each other. That uncomfortable feeling is super determinism.

If Adam and Eve share their results, then they know they are in a universe where the events Adam*DoubleSlit , EveDoubleSlit are already within the set of events for universe E. i.e., they both live in a universe where they made the same choice to run the double slit experiment.
So E = {****AdamDoubleSlit* , Eve*****DoubleSlit ***}
Axioms[EM, OCR, IUC, IU]

Together the double-double slit experiment should demonstrate all of the axioms of MM.

I’m like really hoping there’s someone out there with an open mind out there that understands, because this probably will take a lot longer to click for a classical physicist. It’s pretty straightforward though once it does. Just noting also that superdeterminism does nothing to free will either, since what we’re really going to get talking about are infinities. There’s lots and lots of practical applications to this ideology.

3

Apologies for not updating this thread sooner.

Alright, time to ramp things up a little bit.
Let’s examine one of the practical applications of Multiversal Mechanics in relationship to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Because what good is further discussion on MM without any practical application?

Quick recap of basic MM notation
If we consider the state of a universe P, then the state of universe X would be Px**.**
The universe state Px is the regular set of all fixed points I and flux points Y.
So then, Px**** = {I1, Y1, … In, Yn}**

Substituting General Relativity
If you want to work with familiar GR equations in MM notation, substitute GR in for fixed points I.
Fixed points have a gravitational presence that is less affected by quantum fluctuations. This should be intuitive because on macro scales the universe plays by GR, while it plays by QM at smaller scales.

Think of the GR component as “mass stable” over longer timescales.

Substituting Quantum Mechanics
If you want to work with familiar QM equations in MM notation, substitute QM in for flux points Y.
This should also be intuitive as flux points are things with higher uncertainty and have less impact on the macrocosm.

Special Unified Theory
If we have a micro-universe containing a single fixed point I, and single flux point Y…
The state of universe X at any point t would be Px(t)** = {I, Y}
The Reality Value (RV) of P is the summation of all fixed points and flux point at time t.
Therefore
**RV(Px**(t)) = ∑Ii + ∑Y****j**

Perhaps Professor @@RainmanTime can give his professional physics opinion.
Mayhaps he might even try using said notation to derive the hawking radiation for a 1 stellar mass black hole.

  • The Schwarzschild Metric can be substituted in for I.

  • You can use the energy + time uncertainty relationship approximated using Hawking temperature for Y

4

If you’ve got a lot of related stuff you want to organize, you could always create your own user blog here:

Then it won’t get buried or lost, and you can keep updating it as needed.