thoughts on quantum physics

Some thoughts on QM:
1. First, I seriously wish I had the time and the means to get my PhD in physics. I have too many ideas that need the math as well as the ideas.

2. So strings vibrate? How? Randomly rippling along the length? Or oscillating? “Vibration” implies oscillation.

3. If Oscillating, then it must have mass…of some sort.

4. But physicists think that they are “strings” of energy.

5. If energy is infinitely compressed, does it become solid? What if black holes are points of energy (whatever form?)

6. String theory, if unifying the four types of forces, slips out of the dimension when concentrated on a single point of infinite density.

7. Does that explain the Big Bang (from secular point of view)? It was an infinite point of energy whose extra-dimensionality allowed for the fragmentation and development of strings

8. How many string “types” are there? And how are they determined?9. Do strings have frequency?

10. What about wave interaction and phasing?

11. Does Ballard’s Harmonic Matrix Theory apply to light wave and further to string theory?

12. Do strings necessarily need to be closed-loop? Are they?

13. What if strings are the means of “Entanglement” between particles?

14. If strings are the connecting points of entanglement between particles, then they may resonate along their “length” (whatever that means)

15. does entanglement mean only opposites (two opposite possibilities between two particles)16. Probability does NOT mean causality. it is possible for ALL electrons in the slit experiment to go to the far right or left, and not scattered. So potential does not mean certainty any more than a child with the propensity toward music will be a concert pianist.

17. If 16 is true, then what might disturb probability? An outside influence, of course, but also an inside influence. If an electron is “spinning” Left, will it necessarily follow the same probability as one spinning R? Again, predetermination influences probability.

18. Time is still problematic. Even physicists seem to treat it as if things “happen.” But even St Paul speaks of “predestination” combined with an element of choice. This is the only way one can have predetermination “happen.” This would explain how probability is taken out of the equation re: the electron patterns. It is predetermined, not like shooting a gun makes a predetermined bullet path, but more as if each infinite moment is predetermined.

19. If #15 determines a pattern of multiple particles and 18 is predetermination, is it possible that there are more entanglements between multiple particles? Suppose a particle goes to the left in the slit experiment? Given that entanglement means a + on one and a – on another is the obvious conclusion, what if there are multiple variations?

20. So if time is all ONE, then a scattering of electrons would be both predetermined (no matter what order or frequency we shoot them) and “random.”

21. Except that the randomness is predetermined by the connection of strings: just like the Argentinean bola connected multiple projectiles with leather strings, a “series” or collection of electrons would be connected by “strings” of energy.

22. Thus, a “random” electron veering to the ‘left’ of the measurement grid, would also have determined how much, and thus it would contrarily affect one that was “opposite” that might be fired much later.

23. Also instead of “opposite” (as in measurable +/- and in extremes), what if our ideas of “opposite” or even terms of measurement are not limited to 1’s and 0’s as it were (on/off)?

24. In an “opposite” world, all data has to be quantized to + or – in an extreme case, but also to whatever resolution the world needs to be. “Qualifying assessment” can never be perfect as long as there is quantification. Qualification can only be perfect when there is an infinite resolution.

25. So now “opposite” may mean to be unequivocal in a trans dimensional world, just as + and – are in ours.

26. Suppose, now, we consider “opposite” as two choices (3.g., 2 dimensions) in our 4 dimensional world. We arbitrarily assign points between them as points of measurement, most often on a timeline or a grid. in a 6D world, suddenly “opposite” can take on the form of unequivocality — leaving the quantization to what our 4D world would perceive as infinite, but in a higher dimension be just as unequivocal as our + and -.

27. Suddenly, the pattern of electrons is no longer “randomly predictable” based on probability, but are entangled on a multiple strand system and affected by a predictability (not probability) based on 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 dimensionality. But they are all: unequivocal, absolute, and of infinite resolution

28. Now I need the math to back it up/prove it.