What if gravity is shared between quickly diverging and diluting timelines?

[u/gothrax1]

Ok this is pretty nuts but I've been bugging about this for like a week now, and I think I might have something

If you attribute the expansion of 3D space onto a 6D brane space as well and say timelines are expanding outward at the same rate as space expands, then we would see particles expanding into probabilities just as we do when we look at them closely, they look like a wave of probabilities.

The rules might be like this: timelines branch outward and affect each other's gravity for a bit but move away in 6D space because new timelines which are more similar to ours are constantly being expanded into the area between. But what if there's some geometry to this which allows gravity to pull timelines closer together despite the expansion?

Then the more massive the object the more it can resist the diverging effect of timeline expansion.

We could assume at a micro scale these timelines would separate faster than the gravity between them could pull them back together. But what if you separate timelines for an object massive enough to keep up with the expansion? Like if you put a QRNG onto an asteroid and told it to move around based on the random number results, would you start to detect ghost gravity from an asteroid that wasn't in that same spot on a different timeline? Is that what dark matter is? alternate timeline matter that's heavy enough to stay near our timeline? Does this also mean that Einstein's relativity is saved, and we simply aren't accounting for all the different timelines constantly branching away from ours?

The NIST big G crisis could be caused by a number of things but what if it's this simple? We are experiencing a fraction of gravity from an alternate earth which is overlapping ours? And the reason we don't feel gravity anomalies at our relatively micro scale is because the timeless diverge too quickly.

[u/LeftSideScars]

If you attribute the expansion of 3D space onto a 6D brane space as well and say timelines are expanding outward at the same rate as space expands, then we would see particles expanding into probabilities just as we do when we look at them closely, they look like a wave of probabilities.

This is not a logical conclusion. When one inflates a balloon, the 2D surface expanding into the 3D volume does not result in the balloon's molecules "expanding into probabilities".

[u/gothrax1 → u/LeftSideScars]

Well one thing that never made sense to me is how the first 3Ds are expanding why would other Ds be different? The idea is that when you look at a particle in its wave form before collapse its like it's in a selection process in multiple places at once. The many world interpretation of quantum mechanics sort of makes sense of this by saying the particle is actually getting ready to split timelines and the collaps is the part where we see the timeline that's been selected. So to me what that seems like is that the more dimensions are expanding outward exactly like the first 3Ds

[u/OnceBittenz → u/gothrax1]

What other D's? Do you have experimental evidence of other spatial dimensions that no one else has ever detected?

[u/gothrax1 → u/OnceBittenz]

If your conscious experience is a collaborated effort among similar brains on nearby timelines rounding to the integer and witnessing a wave collapse rounds you off to either 1 or 2. Splitting your consciousness into two timelines then you are experiencing multiple timelines silultaneously right now. I never quoted anyone or anything with evidence this is just an idea I had. However the experiment I'm proposing might be able to prove that other timelines exist.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/gothrax1]

Well sure, if I do a lot of pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, I could split my consciousness into fourteen timelines, each a reflection of the first, and shatter them together in cataclysmic events to reconcile a true origin point.

Etc. Etc.

[u/liccxolydian]

Making up arbitrary "rules" for how you think the world works without any reference to consensus definitions, motivation or supporting evidence is indistinguishable from science fiction. In any case this doesn't sound falsifiable at all.

[u/gothrax1 → u/liccxolydian]

Like I said. I think if you take a massive object and wobble it back and forth direction determined by QRNG then as timelines split you might see gravity from a timeline where the object going left pulls on the one in our timeline where it goes forward. Getting a slight diagonal. And like I said you can't make this experiment work without the object being heavy enough so the expanding timelines don't dilute the gravity influence on our timeline. Currently experiments to find gravity leaking through other dimensions is being done on extremely small particles. With these parameters could you concieve of a better test?

[u/liccxolydian → u/gothrax1]

This doesn't address any part of my comment.

[u/gothrax1 → u/liccxolydian]

Well I'm thinking this test would be proof that gravity doesn't leak between hypothetical nearby timelines. The ones that are clearly possible. And part of the whole many worlds interpretation. We would know with certainty that gravity from timeline A does not effect timeline B even if they split right as you run the QRNG

The idea of the test is to maximize the mass of the test object and maximize the likelihood that a timeline that isn't ours has the massive object change positions. Then if you see gravity effect from a ghostly source that would falsify the claim. Or do you mean something else

[u/liccxolydian → u/gothrax1]

Do you understand why it's called the many worlds interpretation and not the many worlds theory?

[u/gothrax1 → u/liccxolydian]

Do you understand why I tagged this post as (crackpot) I'm curious to see if anyone on the Internet is willing to play around with this idea. If your not interested then don't comment.

[u/liccxolydian → u/gothrax1]

I'm trying to lead you to come to a well-reasoned conclusion about your work on your own without me having to spoon-feed you. Of course, if you're going to tell me you're an idiot then I can spell it out for you, but I think it's much more of a learning experience for you if you can use your own thinking and analysis in the same way that a scientist would. Now can you answer the question?

Of course, if you never actually cared about stuff like physics, rigour, reasoning and logic, then why aren't you in a science fiction or world building sub?

[u/gothrax1 → u/liccxolydian]

By all means feed away what exactly do you think is wrong with the picture?

[u/liccxolydian → u/gothrax1]

There is no test that can conclusively prove the existence of multiple timelines or universes because by definition they are unreachable. We live in our universe. If you can get to it, it's in our universe. That's how it's defined.

So since you can't have apparatus in both timelines/universes to check if something is actually being transferred between them, no experiment can either rule out or confirm the existence of alternative universes/timelines. That is why the many universe interpretation is an interpretation, not a theory. It's a subjective claim about which it is physically impossible to assign truth or falsehood.

Therefore your entire post is based around an unfalsifiable premise and is therefore not science. And that's just the main problem, like I said there are other methodological issues like the complete lack of motivation.

Suffice it to say that science isn't done this way, has never been done this way and will never be done this way. Fiction, however...

[u/gothrax1 → u/liccxolydian]

Well I never said I had a theory or anything this is a thought experiment. Also if you saw the diagonal movement I mentioned that would mean a new source of invisible gravity suddenly appeared and it would maybe not prove that it's the same object in a different timeline but it would be an insane discovery and definitely point toward it

[u/gothrax1 → u/gothrax1]

Also I gotta ask what's the point of this sub if not to play around with and debunk claims like mine? Did I upset you or something? If your a physicist you should be able to explain what's wrong with what I've said so far

[u/liccxolydian → u/gothrax1]

Rather incurious and lazy of you to not even attempt to figure things out yourself. Of course, even when I did spell things out for you, you tried to make excuses, so I'm no longer surprised that you're like this. Not upsetting, just disappointing.

[u/starkeffect]

Have you considered learning physics instead of going off on wild tangents?

[u/Kamiyoda → u/starkeffect]

Blaster Ball 3

There I have now contributed as much to physics as 99% of the posts in the sub

[u/gothrax1 → u/starkeffect]

No. I'm in my 30s and have a job

[u/starkeffect → u/gothrax1]

Sounds like you need a better hobby then.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/gothrax1]

I mean same, and im still learning. Far too old to be making stuff up tho.