In this section we can make some predictions based on the precondition that a generating function exists which generates the types of stable patterns described previously.

Prediction 1: The nature of the swirls

Our particle patterns have fuzzy boundaries, but well-defined centres. Even though the vectors are only defined at certain grid points, the centre does not need to be on the grid.

In this diagram you see 2d vectors on a grid rotating around a point with non-integer coordinates, i.e. not on the grid.

The vectors are all on discrete grid points, the implication being that there is a minimum distance in space and time.


Prediction 2: Big bang

The generating function is defined starting from an initial condition at the origin. An observer inside the ordered set generated by this function and initial condition would experience each space dimension growing linearly with time. 3-dimensional space would appear to be undergoing accelerating expansion.


Prediction 3: Wave-particle duality

A particle is a pattern in a discrete field of vectors. The countable nature of the pattern makes it appear particle-like while retaining wave characteristics such as phase, and therefore also diffraction.


Prediction 4: String theory

The different particle types are helical patterns of rotating vectors that appear stable in the time dimensions. The different dimensions in which the patterns rotate determine the type of the particle.

An alternative way to look at this may be to consider the particle types to be the different vibration modes of a multidimensional string.

This doesn’t mean that strings are fundamental objects. The most fundamental level is mathematics. However, the patterns made by the generating functions are very big and working at this level quickly becomes unwieldy; so using something like string theory as a higher level abstraction could be quite useful.

Traditional string theory uses a flat n-dimensional space and just one dimension of time. There are variants with different values for n.

We predict that a better fit would use a hierarchy of 30 dimensions (5 sets of 3 space and 3 time dimensions).

A string theory in 6 dimensions (3 space, 3 time) should produce up and down quarks, electrons, gluons and photons. In 30 dimensions you will get the rest of the known particle types.


Prediction 5: Dark matter

We predict that 30 dimensions cover all the particles types discovered so far. The next two levels are 210 dimension and 420 dimensions. Conceivably yet undiscovered particle types could exist in these.


Prediction 6: Uncertainty does not require proximity in the time dimensions

We have shown that that a particle exists in a defined position in a 6 or 30 dimensional space, and that everything is deterministic. There are multiple parallel timelines and the minds of observers are identical in timelines where information about the differences have not reached the observer.

If each of the many parallel copies of the observers sees him/herself as the only one, then the uncertainty seems to exist in the particles, whose position appears to be blurred. Many types of experiments exist that readily show that the uncertainty cannot be in the particles, but must be in the mindstates of the observers, such as the double slit experiment, the quantum eraser, experiments that show entanglement and experiments that show the quantum Zeno effect. We covered entanglement in another section and will discuss the others as separate predictions later on.

Identical mindstates for observers tend to be close to the same generation. They do not need to be next to each other.

If we first look at the 6-dimensional approximation of our generating function, we have shown that the spaces at generation g are located in a triangular plane slice of tx, ty, tz. The number of mindstates for a human observer is limited to the capacity of the human brain and at larger values of g are much, much fewer than the number of spaces at g.

If you’d colour the different mindstates of an observer you get a blotchy map. Each conscious observer has a unique map. Fewer possible mindstates (e.g. because of smaller brains with fewer neurons) result in larger areas. Areas of different colour do not necessarily need to be adjacent.


Prediction 7: Interference requires proximity in the time dimensions

If you send a group of particles through a double slit, you get interference because the particles are a vector pattern with a phase.

If you send the particles through the slit one at a time, you still get interference when each particle can interfere with a copy of itself on a neighbouring timeline.

If you introduce a distance along the time dimensions there can be no interference.

If you could devise an experiment where the alternative paths a particle takes are not adjacent in time you would get interference when you send many particles through in parallel, but none when you send them individually.


Prediction/Explanation 8: Action at a distance / entanglement

This has been discussed in detail in this section.


Prediction 9: Double slit experiment

A particle is a pattern with a phase, hence they can interfere with each other.

The diagram below represents three different setups. The coloured circles are particle emitters and the grey bar is a screen to detect the particle. A detected particle is represented by a black circle.

In the left box a green source produces particles. They arrive predominantly near the black spot. If the green source only sends a single particle, it travels at all angles along different timelines and hence shows up at all positions of the screen that it can reach. When the screen is observed, then the mindstates of the observers diverge from each other for the different outcomes. Each observer in each timeline only sees one particle. When the experiment is repeated several times it appears to the observer(s) that there is a randomness in the final position of the particle with the outcomes that occur most frequently in the different timelines to be the most likely.

In the middle box a blue source produces particles, similar to the previous case.

In the right box both sources produce particles simultaneously. There is interference.

In the next diagram below we use a double slit in place of the green and blue source. The thought bubbles represent the mindstate of an observer.

Above are three boxes as examples of the outcomes of 3 different timelines.

The red sources sends individual particles and still produces diffraction patterns because the particles can interfere with the particles on neighbouring timelines. Again, a diffraction pattern does not appear at once, but forms one particle at a time. At the time the particle passes through the slits the observer has no way of knowing which way it went, so the mindstate of the observer is distributed across all these timelines. This is shown as mindstate A in the diagram. Only when the observer observes the results on the detector so the mindstate diverge; this is indicated as mindstates D,E and F in the diagrams above.

Now we add a detector at one of the slits, effectively reducing the case to the single emitter example.

The mindstate of the observer diverges from A to B. Observation does not change the outcome of where the particle arrives; it has no effect on the particles, but it effectively selects the timeline the observer can be on.

Let’s remember the principles:

  • Observation does not affect the state of anything
  • Everything is deterministic
  • There is no randomness

Here is another way of looking at this. All possible outcomes of the double slit experiments are all the parallel states along the different timelines that the observer ends up in. There are many of them so we group them according to three types of patterns:

Diffraction pattern, two bumps, random

By “random” we mean random looking state with no discernible pattern.

The box on the left in the following diagram represents all the parallel worlds where the observer is in mindstate A from our example above; that is to say the observer is ignorant which slit the particle travelled through.

From all the worlds where the observer starts in mindstate A, the vast majority end up in worlds where there is a diffraction pattern observed. There are fewer worlds that end up in two bumps or random looking states.

Now in the next diagram we start in the set of worlds where the observer is in mindstate B, meaning that the particle has been observed to pass through the top (green) slit. There are fewer worlds with observers in mindstate B than mindstate A. We indicated that by drawing a smaller box on the left.

From this set of initial states the vast majority ends up in the two bumps state.

To the observer living in just one timeline, it appears that observation affects the outcome of the experiment, while really it only selects the timeline the observer can be on.


Prediction 10: Quantum eraser

The mindstates of the observers only diverge when differing information reaches them. An experiment that measures the paths particles take and then loses that information before passing it to the observer doesn’t make the mindstates of the copies of the observers diverge.


Prediction/Explanation 10: The Quantum Zeno effect

This is due to the small sideways drift across the timelines being inhibited by frequent observations as explained in this section.