while the concept of "dead ends" in the fabric of reality is not well-defined within mainstream physics, it can be interpreted in several ways, such as topological features, causal boundaries, limits of scientific progress, or observational horizons. Some of these interpretations have a basis in well-established physical theories, while others are more speculative and uncertain.

However, one could interpret this question from a few different perspectives:

Dear Kian Lajevardi ,

Thank you for your extended input to this question.

It contains both epistemological as the more essential cases, you've considered as possible candidates for DEs in classical universe described by GRTh.

The most interesting are casual DEs. However, as there are suggestions that BHs actually forms entrances of WormHoles leading to other side in the form of White Holes (Big or Lesser Bangs), so we could speculatively describe them with the same abbreviation as WHs.

It could include blind wormoles (bWHs), but topologically they are equivalent to ordinary BHs with cut off needle-shaped ends. Such the cut off is physically necessary, as there do not exist in nature the true mathematical singularities, to which the GRTh of BHs leads. The limit of application of GRTh ends here.

Therefore, another theory is needed at this edge. And there is one. Exactly another and exactly being usually applied to this sharp edge. It is quantum theory (QTh) and the quantum theory of BHs in particular.

In the last regard it states that there are no BHs being sharp singularities.

And there is an interpretation of QTh within plane spacetime also. It is called multiverse.

Here, I am trying to indicate on some both topological and casual DEs, which could explain the black fringes within interference patterns of energy(matter) waves. There is no rational explanation so far for them. I.e. it is stated simply that energy vanishes in such the areas of probability ampliytude waves where they met in opposite phases. And prefere to enhance in agreed phases.

I am looking for topological explanation. And I am suggesting that when two such waves met at the screen in phase, the lines of their worlds are being continued and that is why we can observe the bright fringes.

On contrary, when two such waves met at the screen in opposite phases the lines of their worlds reach their common end, and as there are no more such a world in which their effect could exist containing them, we can not observe the bright fringe there but the dark one only (meaning lack of

them from this very moment/event on).

I.e., we are observing only such worlds, in which energy of waves is interfering "constructively" sustaining the existing worlds (which just merged into one). And when they interfere "destructively", the worlds are vanishing (together with their potential obervers contained within them). As I am saying: They met their common Dead End. I.e., two (or more) worlds met themselves at the common for them DE. And they do not propagate (but cease to exist) within the structure of multiverse.

To stay alive (to sustain their worlds) they need input their energy (amplitude probability distribution of the later) input to the form of energy of full single photon by merging two worlds into one. Exactly the one in which we are remaining alive together with energy of this photon we are detecting at a specific area of white fringe.

We are still and again playing in a russian roulette each time we interfere "positively" or are vanishing (together with our entire worlds) while interfering "negatively" and our very existence each time depends on neighbouring white and black fringes separated by a tiny ammount of space of interfering at some target any single photon in our surrounding.

The response you provided presents an interesting interpretation of the concept of "dead ends" in the fabric of reality, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics and the multiverse hypothesis. Although, quite speculative and not well-established within mainstream physics, they do offer an intriguing perspective on the nature of interference patterns and the possible implications for the existence of multiple worlds or multiverses.

assuming that the ideas presented in this response are well-supported by experimental evidence and are not speculative, the implications for our understanding of the nature of reality would be profound.

In this context, you propose that when two waves meet in phase (constructive interference), they create a "bright fringe" and continue to propagate within their respective worlds. In contrast, when two waves meet out of phase (destructive interference), they reach a "dead end," where their worlds cease to exist or vanish. This idea, if supported by experimental evidence, would imply that the existence of observers and their worlds depends on the constructive interference of energy waves, with destructive interference leading to the disappearance of these worlds.

Such an interpretation could have far-reaching implications for our understanding of the nature of reality, the multiverse, and the connection between quantum mechanics and the large-scale structure of the universe. It would provide a novel perspective on the role of interference patterns in determining the existence and evolution of different worlds within the multiverse.

Moreover, this interpretation could potentially offer new insights into the behavior of black holes, wormholes, and other topological features of spacetime, as well as the relationship between quantum theory and general relativity. It might even inspire the development of new theoretical frameworks and experimental techniques to explore these ideas further.

However, it is essential to recognize that even if the ideas presented in this response are supported by experimental evidence, many open questions and challenges would remain. For example, the precise mechanisms underlying the proposed connections between interference patterns, multiverses, and the existence of observers would need to be explored in detail. Additionally, the broader implications of these ideas for other areas of physics and our overall understanding of the universe would need to be carefully considered.

Great Job!

Kian Lajevardi [it is essential to recognize that even if the ideas presented in this response are supported by experimental evidence, many open questions and challenges would remain. For example, the precise mechanisms underlying the proposed connections between interference patterns, multiverses, and the existence of observers would need to be explored in detail. Additionally, the broade one r implications of these ideas for other areas of physics and our overall understanding of the universe would need to be carefully considered.

Great Job!]

It would be only when it will be done.

Thank You for the truely deep insight, anyway.

And one posible of any-ways to achieve this, would be considering invitation both for you, Kian Lajevardi , for Dr Sergey Shevchenko [I have trouble with making Your name in blue, here, Dr Shevchenko] and Gurcharn Singh Sandhu having insight both in "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields", as well as culture incorporating deep thought of ancient India, promising also view enriched by other than typical for West understanding of reality.

An invitation to work out this topic together within RG up to possible common final scientific paper. We may invite also some other interested in such cooperation researchers.

What do You think, Dear Gentlemen?

Thank you for your kind words and for recognizing the depth of the insights shared in my previous response. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the open questions and challenges that remain, which indeed warrant further exploration and investigation.

I am enthusiastic about the idea of working together on a joint research paper that explores the connections between interference patterns, multiverses, the existence of observers, and the broader implications for our understanding of the universe.

Your proposal to collaborate with esteemed colleagues like Dr. Sergey Shevchenko, and Gurcharn Singh Sandhu on this fascinating topic is an exciting opportunity. Combining our expertise in the fundamental nature of matter and fields, as well as the rich cultural perspectives of ancient India, could potentially provide a unique and multidisciplinary approach to addressing these complex questions.

Thanks a lot for your enthusiastic attitude and readiness to participate in this project. I've also invited few discutants from some other discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_physical_existence_of_space-time_mean_that_we_are_essentially_immortal/3

And I am looking forward for their possible positive response.

I am also considering invitation of Jarosław Adam Miszczak, one of co-authors of also my work:

Article Symulacje optyczne obliczeń kwantowych

(Optical simulations of quantum computing).

It would be great to involve in the project also the famous Polish researcher working within quantum theory, Wojciech Żurek, see e.g. his

Article Defects in Quantum Computers

However, in both cases I am rather cautious, as both of them most likely decline such cooperation. Prof. Żurek is bright star of 1st luminocity and Prof. Miszczak specializes in basics of applied quantum computing, rather than in basics of quantum theory in general. He is also deputy director of IITIS PAN and, therefore, pretty busy person, I am afraid.

I was once asking even D. Deutsch himself about cooperation within the framework of this (Dead Ends within Multiverse) idea, but I need to admit sincerelly that he was rather sceptical. And we need to remember that apart of "Fabric of Reality" his conception of multiverse was created by him also mainly for direct needs of quantum computing and quantum computers. Therefore, some speculative consequences of this (for quite natural and understandable reasons) not fully recognized conception might be off interest for him. His response sounded for me then far echoes of Einsteinian "God does not play dice with the universe", where 'universe' was replaced by 'multiverse' and 'dice' by 'dead ends' ;-)

If you would be interested with wider context of that my discussion with DD, I may try to dig through my archives and provide you with some more details of it.