[Wick]

Originally Posted by neutralino

How can a particle be both stationary and energetic? Also, what do you mean here by 4-space? Do you mean, literally, that there are four spatial dimensions? If so, where is the fourth?

May I ask you to carefully reread the first two posts and then let me know whether they clear up some of the confusion. If they don't I need to work on rewriting them. Maybe you can help me. The basis of this theory is that the observable universe is moving through a fourth spatial dimension. This turns the table on what we consider moving and what at rest. The 4-dimensional light is at rest and we are passing through it, but because everything in the observable universe is moving through 4-space at the same speed and in the same direction, we imagine ourselves at rest and the light moving. NOTE: This movement may be a very slight, exceedingly rapid oscillation (or rotation), so you should not necessarily think of this motion as a wild, speed of light plummet through 4-space.

Whether this is true or not, thinking about it requires one to make considerable mental adjustments. We are not used to thinking of the universe in this way. Our assumption is usually that nearby macroscopic things (say the couch) are pretty much at rest. We don't imagine that the couch, the floor, the refrigerator, the house, the earth, the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and everything between here and the edge of the known universe are moving together through 4-space. Such thoughts are as astonishing to us in the 21st century as a moving earth was at the time of Copernicus. Thoughts like this are unsettling.

No less unsettling is the thought that all light is at rest. Why? We'll lets say that you made a "light" movie of yourself which included the entire magnetic spectrum--gamma-rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, brain waves, everything. In the movie you would observe a radiating figure of light walking about, eating chocolate, looking for the keys and going for a drive. Some of this light would be related to waste generated by your biological functions, but some of that light (the biophotonic portion) would be coherent light which is not associated with waste, but which is an organizing influence that executes critical processes which structure, regulate and control your organism.

What I'm implying is that the light that constitutes you (especially the conscious you) is the steady thing. The body you are wearing is not the steady thing. If this is not already apparent to you, grow a little older and it will be.

So now, to answer your question, our "assumption" that energetic particles are in motion and that non-energetic particles are not arises from our assumption that the universe is at rest. If the universe is not at rest (if it moves through 4-space), the opposite might be true.

I think that the majority of physicists work with both GR and QM, and I'm not sure that there are many that firmly believe in one of the theories and do not believe in the other. Still, that may just be me.

Its not so much a matter of believing or not believing in the two theories. I think all physicist are willing to work within the framework of both theories because they work well enough as long as we keep them in their own realms. What is clear to all physicists is that the two theories cannot both be true.

There are discussions (even arguments) in physics as to which of the two theories is truer. These are the ones who join one sect or another. I think the fairest physicist remain agnostic in this regard and view both theories with reverent skepticism. Such scientist believe that both "faiths" are in error and that at some point in the future, a greater unity will arise that changes both GR and QM into something else.

I enjoyed this book-- it was particularly well written for a popular science book, and did not appear to be all that biased one way or the other.

Agreed. I think Smolin is an agnostic (referencing my previous comment).

It should be pointed out that Einstein was not merely a patent clerk when conducting this work. He was a qualified teacher with a degree in mathematics and physics, who could not find a teaching job. Making such a statement as yours above implies that Einstein was a complete layperson with no higher knowledge of physics/maths, which is not true.

You are absolutely correct. Apologies for misleading. That was not my intent. That said, Einstein was definitely on the outs with the physics community, partly because in his early years he was an arrogant young pistol and alienated many of the great physicists of his day. What I was trying to show was that he was not yet a connected member of the science community.

Thanks for all your helpful insights!