fullawe

fullawe t1_iwspylj wrote

The team behind this have proposed a pretty easy and sensible experiment. The article is terrible, but the theory of information having weight is pretty cool.

The idea that the probability chart for any given fundamental particle, has physical weight. The probability chart for any given particle interaction becomes a bit, and they have proposed an information 'particle' size.

The experiment is shooting an electron beam into positrons at CERN (through a moderator), and measuring the outcome. The team has proposed an expected outcome to support their findings.

2

fullawe t1_iwspcnd wrote

They're saying that the probability of the fundamental particle characteristics (% chance of a electron or other particule having a particle spin/location), is physical and has a measurable weight. This probability chart is 'an information bit'.

The team has proposed an experiment that involves shooting an electron beam (at CERN) into positrons. They have proposed an expected outcome and if they are correct it would be very significant proof of theory. That information does have weight and needs to be accounted for.

4

fullawe t1_iu5w2c3 wrote

It was cyclical cosmology that lead me into my idea. The change of scale at absolute entropy is a cool idea.

I think we should be trying to find solutions that aren't cyclical though. Although that doesn't mean that spacetime isn't preserved.

Another thought I had was to split space/time. In that, time started at the moment of the big bang, and is tied to space in a direct correlation of 1:1.

Space would be preserved throughout universes, but not time. I believe that the implication is that time can be tied to the speed of light across a unit of spac. That all non baryonic particles can be unified into a single field, that excludes gravity.

Gravity becomes an artifact of the deeper level of emergent space, and the expansion of our universe becomes the potential energy of each subsequent big bang being realised.

2

fullawe t1_iu3jbdj wrote

I think in the same way that the mathematical existence of the Amplituhedron implies the existence of a deeper layer, so does the big bang.

An event happened that caused the big bang and all that comes after. Therefor there was something beforehand.

If one event can happen, another may as well. I hope we find structures within the CMB. I think it would show that our universe was born inside another.

Perhaps others could be born inside ours, with their initial inflation showing as late inflation to us.

2