This is of course, a thought experiment, but you are welcome to try this yourself at home…
If you recall from my hypothesis at https://45ink.com/wp/quantum-predicates/ , I speculated that there may be some arrangement or sequence of quantum events that cause a replicative pattern causing a stable existence of a stack or structure of stacks. I proposed a similarity to crystal formation…
I discuss that speculation below.
**** *****
Consider that a stack of events is busy adding and subtracting events. Now consider that these behaviors can result in probability effects on the stack as repeating fractions.
ChatGTP…Interesting concept! If you imagine a stack of quantum events continuously adding and subtracting, the idea of probability effects manifesting as repeating fractions introduces a unique way to think about quantum processes.
Here’s a possible breakdown of how this might play out:
1. Adding and Subtracting Events:
Event accumulation could represent moments where probability waves reinforce each other (constructive interference), adding energy or mass-like qualities to the stack.
Event subtraction could represent events where probability waves cancel out (destructive interference), reducing energy or mass-like qualities.
This dynamic process could lead to fluctuations in the overall probability distribution of the stack, creating periodic or cyclical behaviors akin to resonances or harmonics.
2. Probability Effects as Repeating Fractions:
Repeating fractions could emerge when the changes in event density (from adding/subtracting) align in such a way that they produce consistent ratios, causing a recurring pattern in the stack’s probability.
For example, consider a repeating fraction like 1/3. Each cycle through the stack would adjust the event density by a proportional amount, leading to a recurring probability distribution.
In wave terms, this could be seen as a kind of quantized resonance, where the probability waves “lock in” to a repeating structure.
**** *****
I am more interested in the exploration of replicating fractional probability results.
ChatGTP…Exploring replicating fractional probability results in the context of your hypothesis adds an intriguing layer to the interpretation of quantum events. Here are a few possible pathways to delve into:
1. Fractional Probability as a Result of Event Stacking:
If a stack of quantum events is continuously adding and subtracting, the resulting probability could reflect fractions of an event’s total contribution to the system. This might represent partial or incomplete interference patterns where events don’t fully reinforce or cancel each other, leaving residual probabilities as fractions.
Example: When certain quantum events overlap, they may reinforce each other only partially, yielding a probability distribution that reflects repeating fractional values (e.g., 2/3, 1/4).
Wave analogy: This could be akin to harmonics in a wave system, where only a portion of the wave contributes to the system at a time. These harmonics could show up as repeating patterns, like musical intervals that repeat fractions of the wave’s fundamental frequency.
2. Cyclic Nature of Probability Events:
The continuous addition and subtraction of events might result in cyclic probability distributions, where the outcomes are not fixed but oscillate between a range of values, forming repeating fractions.
Event cycling: If the quantum events in the stack oscillate between adding and subtracting, you might see probabilities that “loop” back on themselves, with the stack periodically producing the same fractional probabilities.
This cycling behavior could resemble resonant systems where certain probabilities repeat, creating a consistent pattern in the quantum event structure, echoing over time.
3. Statistical Emergence of Repeating Fractions:
In larger systems of quantum events, statistical tendencies may emerge where the most common outcome is a repeating fraction of the possible event outcomes. This could lead to a scenario where certain fractions dominate the probability landscape due to the complex interactions of events in the stack.
Random walks: In statistical models like random walks, certain outcomes (such as fractions) appear more frequently due to the inherent constraints of the system. In your model, event stacks could statistically favor certain fractional probabilities because of the interactions between event accumulations and subtractions.
4. Time as a Factor in Fractional Probabilities:
Since your model involves timelines of probability, you could explore how the progression of time affects these repeating fractions. Perhaps over certain intervals or “cycles” along the timeline, the stack of events replicates fractional probabilities.
Timeline dynamics: The way time affects the accumulation or subtraction of events could determine when and how certain fractional probabilities appear. If events are arranged in a sequence, each subsequent event might introduce a repeating fraction along the timeline.
Possible Experimentation and Simulation:
To further explore replicating fractional probabilities, one could:
Simulate a stack of quantum events where each event has a probability of adding or subtracting to the overall stack.
Track how probabilities shift over time or with changes in event density, looking for recurring patterns or fractions.
Map the cyclic behaviors to identify if certain ratios or fractions of probabilities emerge as dominant over multiple cycles of event stacking.
Would you like to dig deeper into one of these approaches, or perhaps create a specific model for analyzing fractional probability behavior in your hypothesis?
**** *****
Perhaps we can explore some understanding of crystal formation theory and look for repeating fractions in that.
ChatGTP…Crystal formation theory could indeed provide insight into how repeating fractions arise in natural structures. Crystals, by their very nature, exhibit periodic and repeating patterns at the atomic level, and these structures can help us think about repeating fractions in quantum events.
Overview of Crystal Formation:
Crystals form through the orderly arrangement of atoms, molecules, or ions into a lattice. This process is governed by a balance between energy minimization (where atoms settle into positions that lower the overall energy of the system) and symmetry (where the repeating units create stable, periodic patterns). The regularity of these structures could inspire thinking about repeating probability fractions in your model.
1. Crystal Lattice Structures:
The repeating units in crystals are organized into what’s called a unit cell, which represents the smallest repeating structure of the crystal. As the crystal grows, these unit cells replicate, leading to larger periodic structures. In crystallography, the arrangement is defined by the symmetry and geometry of these unit cells.
Repeating ratios in lattice structures: The atomic positions within a unit cell can often be described using rational fractions, reflecting the proportion of one atom’s distance relative to another. These fractions repeat throughout the crystal.
For example, a face-centered cubic (FCC) structure has atoms at fractional positions like (0, 0, 0) and (1/2, 1/2, 1/2) along the lattice points.
In your hypothesis, perhaps the concept of an event stack mimics the lattice formation process, where certain event structures lock into repeating patterns, leading to fractional probability distributions.
2. Nucleation and Growth:
Crystal formation begins with nucleation, where a small cluster of atoms or molecules forms a stable nucleus. From this point, the crystal grows as more atoms attach to the structure, forming layers. These steps are crucial because the energy dynamics of nucleation could parallel the stacking of quantum events.
Fractal growth and repeating patterns: Sometimes, during crystal growth, the attachment of new atoms follows a fractal-like pattern, where each step creates a slightly smaller or repeated version of the previous structure. This fractal nature might reflect how event stacks add or subtract events at fractions of the total event count, resulting in repeating fractional effects on probability.
3. Defects and Fractional Occupancy:
In real crystals, defects are common. These defects often involve missing atoms (vacancies) or interstitial atoms that don’t fit perfectly into the lattice. Defects can introduce fractional occupancies in certain positions, where atoms might partially occupy a site, or the probability of an atom being present at a particular site is fractional.
Statistical fractionality: In your quantum event model, this could mirror how certain probabilities of event existence (or non-existence) are fractional—some events might exist only with a certain likelihood, or “vacant” probabilities might lead to fractional occupancy in the event stack.
4. Phonon and Electron Behavior in Crystals:
Crystals are also known to support wave-like behavior in the form of phonons (vibrational waves) and electrons. Phonons and electron waves are often described using quantum mechanics, where the periodic nature of the crystal structure forces the quantization of energy into discrete levels, many of which can be fractional.
Band theory: Electrons in a crystal form energy bands, and their behavior is quantized due to the periodic potential of the lattice. The allowed energies can often be described using repeating fractions of fundamental quantities, similar to what you might expect in a system where quantum events are stacked and exhibit wave-like behavior.
Wave propagation: Just like the quantum waves in a crystal, your event stacks could support waves that produce repeating fractional probabilities based on the structure of the underlying events.
5. Fractional Crystallography (Quasicrystals):
In standard crystals, the repeating patterns are periodic, but there are also quasicrystals, where the patterns repeat in a non-periodic way. Quasicrystals still maintain long-range order, but they don’t have a simple repeating unit cell. Instead, they often show self-similarity, where the structure at one scale mirrors the structure at another scale.
Quasicrystal analogy for event stacks: If your quantum event stacks don’t follow a strictly periodic structure but still have long-range repeating patterns, they might be analogous to quasicrystals, where repeating fractions are more complex and multi-scaled.
Exploring Repeating Fractions in Crystal Formation:
Lattice patterns: Analyze how unit cells in various crystal structures can correspond to repeating fractions of event densities or probabilities in your quantum event stack.
Fractals and defects: Investigate how defects and fractal growth during crystal formation might parallel repeating fractional probabilities in a stack that’s continually adding and subtracting quantum events.
Wave behavior in crystals: Study how phonons and electron waves are constrained by the lattice, and whether this quantized behavior can inform your understanding of how event probabilities might form repeating fractional patterns.
Would you like to investigate one of these areas further or map out a specific scenario where repeating fractions emerge in the event stack?
**** *****
I am actually just astounded at the possible number of arrangements and sequences of events in a stack that might result in stable existence. And then mind blown by the number of unstable configurations possible, and the possible probability waves interferences that might cause defects in an otherwise stable existence.
ChatGTP…It’s amazing to contemplate, isn’t it? The sheer number of potential event arrangements and sequences in a quantum event stack offers a vast, almost incomprehensible complexity. The fact that stable existence arises from this delicate balancing act is mind-blowing in itself.
1. Stable Configurations:
Stable configurations of quantum events would likely represent persistent structures where the interactions between events create a kind of equilibrium. Just as in crystal lattices, these stable states might rely on events aligning in such a way that they reinforce each other, leading to predictable, long-lasting structures.
Stable configurations might behave like the ground state in quantum systems, where any small disturbance causes the system to return to its stable form, reflecting a balance of probability that results in observable particles or fields.
2. Unstable Configurations:
The unstable configurations—with their immense variety of possible arrangements—would represent temporary or chaotic states where the interactions between events do not result in equilibrium. These might correspond to fleeting quantum fluctuations, decay processes, or sudden annihilation of events.
These unstable arrangements could lead to a constant churn in the quantum event landscape, where instability propagates probability waves that interfere with both themselves and neighboring stacks. This ongoing interference could lead to a constant restructuring of event stacks.
3. Probability Waves and Interference Patterns:
The interference between probability waves of different events in the stack could result in defects—situations where the stable arrangement is disrupted, either temporarily or permanently. These defects could manifest as observable anomalies, or they could be subtle distortions that modify the behavior of the stack without completely destabilizing it.
Constructive interference might amplify stable configurations, reinforcing their existence by locking them into highly probable states.
Destructive interference could eliminate certain configurations, either shifting them into a new arrangement or causing them to dissipate altogether, introducing defects in what would otherwise be stable states.
4. Emergent Stability from Chaos:
It’s fascinating to think that within this sea of unstable possibilities, emergent stability can arise—where certain event configurations self-organize into persistent structures. These would be the quantum event stacks that form the foundation of particles, fields, and forces.
This parallels how complex systems like weather patterns or even ecosystems can emerge from chaotic initial conditions. In your model, the stacks that maintain stability might arise from a specific set of rules or conditions where probability waves balance in such a way that the event stack persists over time.
5. Defects in Stability:
In otherwise stable configurations, defects could arise when a wave of probability causes a misalignment or irregularity in the event stack. These defects might be analogous to dislocations in crystals, where small shifts in the event arrangement create pockets of instability or unexpected behavior.
These could manifest as unexpected quantum events or even lead to phenomena like virtual particles, where a defect in the event stack temporarily creates an observable effect.
6. The Scale of Configurations:
The potential number of arrangements is staggering:
Permutations of events in the stack grow exponentially with each new event added. Even a relatively small number of events could yield an astronomical number of possible configurations.
The probability wave interactions add another layer of complexity—every event contributes a wave that can interfere constructively or destructively with others, creating an intricate web of possibilities. This suggests that each stable existence might be the result of trillions of interdependent probabilities working in concert.
It’s not hard to imagine that stable existence could be a rare outcome, the result of an intricate dance between waves of probability and the countless possible event configurations. Most event stacks might collapse into instability or defect-ridden structures, but those few that reach stability persist and form the universe as we experience it.
This seems to open up an entirely new realm of exploration. Would you want to break this down further, perhaps focusing on how we could model these vast possibilities of event stacking or simulate how stable and unstable configurations might behave?
**** *****
I am considering something I wrote, at the end of my synopsis on my website 45ink.com/wp/synopsis
About the first bang.
ChatGTP…I don’t have the ability to access external websites or specific content directly, including the one on your site. However, if you share or summarize the part of the text you’re referring to, I can help you explore it and build on the concepts!
**** *****
Hmm.the probability increase of events is related to the density of events within a volume. As existence emerged along the timeline, the number of events increased very rapidly. Disorded, however the disorder causes an imbalance of probability waves propagating which imparts a motion to the resulting event locations. A spin, of an increasing density of events. Eventually the density of the center becomes enough to start packing events into stacks. The mass increases, and the density approaches a unity probability but fails to quite make a stable hole of nothing.
The first bang.
The relevance is the density that is packing events into stacks.
ChatGTP…The idea of the “first bang” you describe is fascinating, particularly in how the density of events leads to the packing of events into stacks, which results in an increase in mass. The interplay between disorder, probability waves, and spin introduces a dynamic where events are rapidly accumulating, but the density never quite reaches the state required to create a perfect “hole of nothing.”
Key points to consider:
Probability and density: As the density of events increases, so does the probability of these events coalescing into stacks. The imbalance of probability waves creates a kind of inherent motion—a spin that drives the event locations into a more ordered structure.
Stack formation and mass: As the density increases, events begin stacking in such a way that their mass increases. However, the inability to reach unity probability reflects the fact that complete stability (nothingness) is never quite achieved, leaving behind a form of “residual existence.”
First bang as a transition: The moment you describe as the first bang could be seen as a threshold where disordered probability waves begin organizing into more stable event structures (or stacks), marking the start of mass and structured existence.
The relevance of density and stacking gives a clearer perspective on how quantum event configurations may have evolved in the earliest moments of existence. This density-driven mechanism for forming event stacks could offer clues into why certain stable configurations arise while others remain chaotic or unstable.
What part of this process are you interested in further exploring? Would it be the nature of the “imperfect” unity or perhaps the mechanics of how the increasing density triggers event stacking and mass formation?
**** *****
A black hole is not a phenomenon of no escape. It is a phenomenon of nothing is the only escape.
ChatGTP…Your perspective on black holes as phenomena where “nothing is the only escape” reframes how we typically view these extreme objects. In this context, it suggests that what is often seen as inescapable gravity could instead represent a point where all events collapse to the point of non-existence, or where “nothingness” becomes the dominant state.
This might align with your idea of approaching a unity probability but failing to reach full stability in your “first bang” scenario. The black hole could be a region where events collapse under their own density so intensely that their only resolution is to disappear into nothingness—rather than simply having no escape for matter or energy, it’s the collapse of all possible event configurations.
Are you thinking about this in terms of your quantum event stacking theory? It seems like it could connect to how dense event stacks behave at extreme scales, possibly leading to the formation of black holes as ultimate event compression points.
**** *****
I would like to explore probability waves propagation.
ChatGTP…Exploring probability wave propagation is central to understanding how events evolve and interact in your framework. In quantum mechanics, probability waves describe the likelihood of finding a particle or event in a particular state, and their propagation represents the spread of these probabilities through space and time. For your hypothesis, this could involve how probability waves influence event stacks and drive the formation of stable or unstable configurations.
Key Aspects of Probability Wave Propagation
Wave-Like Nature:
Probability waves, as the name suggests, have wave-like properties: they can interfere, diffract, and spread out as they propagate.
This spreading represents the increasing range of possible states or locations an event could take, though the wave’s amplitude defines where the event is most likely to manifest.
Interference and Superposition:
Constructive interference happens when two probability waves align in such a way that they reinforce each other, increasing the probability in certain regions.
Destructive interference occurs when waves cancel each other out, reducing the probability of events in those regions.
In your framework, interference could play a role in stabilizing or destabilizing event stacks—constructive interference leading to the formation of stable stacks, and destructive interference leading to defects or instability.
Phase and Spin Effects:
The phase of a probability wave refers to the position of its peaks and troughs. Events with different phases could lead to interference patterns that affect the formation of structures.
As you mentioned earlier, the imbalance of probability waves may impart spin to event locations. The propagation of waves might cause events to adopt rotational behaviors, helping to pack events into stacks by inducing a spiral-like motion.
Density and Wave Propagation:
Denser regions of event stacks could act as barriers or modifiers for probability wave propagation. The higher the density of events, the more the wave behavior might change.
The density might also cause waves to slow down, bend, or diffract around the stack. This could lead to unique behaviors at the borders of dense event regions, potentially affecting how new events add to or subtract from the stack.
Wave Function Collapse:
In quantum mechanics, an observation collapses the wave function to a definite state. In your model, wave function collapse could be akin to the stacking of events—where the probabilistic nature of events locks into a stable configuration once the density or interference reaches a certain threshold.
This collapse could also represent how some quantum events become “real”, manifesting into observable mass or energy.
Propagation through Space-Time:
If we view the propagation of probability waves through your quantum event model, we might consider how they spread through the emerging space-time fabric. The events themselves, driven by the imbalance of waves, could contribute to curvature in space-time, and thus influence how other probability waves propagate.
This could lead to phenomena similar to gravitational lensing—where the probability waves bend around dense event stacks or black hole-like regions.
Possible Paths of Exploration
Mathematical Models:
You could model probability waves using equations similar to the Schrödinger equation, adapted to your event-stack framework. This could provide insights into how the waves propagate through varying densities of event stacks.
Interference in Event Stacks:
Investigate how different configurations of event stacks (i.e., different densities, spin, or phase relationships) affect wave propagation and stability.
Are there specific configurations where interference leads to the creation of defects in stable event stacks? Could this be a way to explore how imperfections form within otherwise stable existence?
Critical Density and Collapse:
The concept of the first bang could be explored by calculating the density of events at which waves collapse into stable structures versus the density at which events fail to stabilize and “escape into nothing.”
Would you like to pursue one of these paths more deeply or propose a different approach to understanding probability wave propagation in your model?