[Wick]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

My own version of the TOE has gravitons as the connections and the HBs as the nodes of the fabric of spacetime/aether. Neither are actually bosons. Your vibration is carried, therefore, by the network of gravitons. To me this seems much more likely as it links QM directly with GR in a simple logical (and some say naive) way.

I on the otherhand would not be surprise if a Higgs and a few other particles turn up in the collider. My contention is that these particles are not fundamental. Electrons, quarks, Higgs, etc are parts of a larger 4 dimensional whole. We keep seeing the cross-sections of 4-d matter as we pull more of it through the surface of the hyperplane, but we are missing the important possiblity that all the cross sections we see are only part of something complete and whole. We think we comprehend wholes, when we are only comprehending parts. As long as we do this, we are destined to fail in our quest.

PPS - I'm looking for a particle with a charge of +2. Any ideas?

Sorry, Felix, I'm still trying to find out what causes charge to begin with...and mass for that matter...and time. Good grief!! When all is said and done, we still know almost nothing.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Wick

I on the otherhand would not be surprise if a Higgs and a few other particles turn up in the collider. My contention is that these particles are not fundamental.

My contention is that the Higgs is not a particle at all. It's the part of the underlying structure that gives rise to the string which, in combination, forms a particle. I think this is where Calabi Yau comes into the equation as it has to have shape.

Similarly the graviton, whilst it could be described as a particle, is not in the form of 'ordinary' matter and is not therefore, to be discovered through bashing 'ordinary' matter together at great speed and energy. I have no doubt that many particles will turn up in the LHC and that it is a worthwhile project. I just doubt that it will find either the HB or the graviton, neither of which are fundamental.

As regards the comment on your postings being blocked on another site. Just compare it with someone trying to preach the doctrine of another religion in Church. The physics community are in a difficult situation and are dreadfully afraid that the solution will come from outside.

Felix

[dleviwing]

Felix;
A particle with a charge of +2 is called a Helium Ion. Do you view charge as a property of the particle or an interaction of the particle with space?

Wick;
Maybe you should use the your blog pages to present your theory. That way it would not be scattered throughout a thread or forum. You would also have better editing features and control there. When you feel it’s ready, you could then create an article.

[N0B0DY]

Perhaps you can consider spatial motion as the equivalent of mass, and the configurations of that motion equivalent to the charges. Notice the direction of water as it goes down a drain by throwing in a small piece of paper, and consider what would happen if the water's motional direction reversed.

The question I ask myself, though, is where is space moving to if it is already everywhere?

Re: expansion of a box with holes in it to allow for light to pass through and in part get trapped in order to interact and create the variable configuration of mass. If the box and its internal configurations were to be expanding at c through the exterior light - unbeknownst to those inside the box - the result would be an answer to a question.

Right, Dave?

[Wick]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

As regards the comment on your postings being blocked on another site. Just compare it with someone trying to preach the doctrine of another religion in Church. The physics community are in a difficult situation and are dreadfully afraid that the solution will come from outside.

You're probably right, but in my opinion, physics should be nondenominational. If physics is the science seeking to approach truth regarding the natural world, it must not permit itself to become dogmatic. The papers on special relativity and the photoelectric effect came from a patent clerk. It wasn't until after their publication, the author was permitted to enter the hallowed halls of physics. Shortly thereafter, he was called by many the Pope of Physics. Ah, well...I'm probably preaching to the choir.

[Wick]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Wick;
Maybe you should use the your blog pages to present your theory. That way it would not be scattered throughout a thread or forum. You would also have better editing features and control there. When you feel it’s ready, you could then create an article.

I'm embarrassed to say I've never made a blog. I've looked at a few since your suggestion. I'll try one out. If you have any pointers, please let me know.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Wick

The papers on special relativity and the photoelectric effect came from a patent clerk. It wasn't until after their publication, the author was permitted to enter the hallowed halls of physics. Shortly thereafter, he was called by many the Pope of Physics.

Einstein underwent many problems from the physics community of his day and it was a long time after publication that most accepted his work on E/M - for which he eventually got a Nobel Prize. However, there were many in the community who never accepted relativity and he did not receive a Nobel Prize for his greatest work. A 'religion' in its widest sense, is a set of firmly held beliefs that are held by a group even in the face opposition. My dictionary states "(5) a thing that one is devoted to (e.g. football)". Some aspects of physics (e.g.String Theory) definitely qualify as a religion in this sense and have as much dogma associated with them as many 'religious' religions.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Do you view charge as a property of the particle or an interaction of the particle with space?

I have not made my mind up on this, David. I think charge is a property of the particle which affects the probability function but I havn't worked out how. So far I have neglected E/M as I have concentrated on QG.

Felix

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Wick

I'm embarrassed to say I've never made a blog. I've looked at a few since your suggestion. I'll try one out. If you have any pointers, please let me know.

Wick;
In your blog pages you are the moderator. Practice as much as you like and delete what you don’t like; including those who annoy you there.

[Wick]

Thanks, David. I haven't been writing much here because I've been trying to figure out how to organize the blog. I hate it. Can't seem to make it do what I want.

In the meantime, however, I wanted to put a plug in here regarding the so-called arrow of time. This arrow is a puzzle for most because it doesn't apply to most physical processes. In most applications, processes in physics unfold with time symmetry, meaning that the process might just as well unfold in either direction.

But in the real world, time symmetry more often than not gives way to the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that entropy in a system increases in the direction of the future. In other words, the universe is moving away from order and toward chaos.

In my theory, the arrow of time arises naturally from the motion in which the universe is moving through 4-space. We experience greater entropy because the state of all objects in the universe is forced by universal motion to change (to decay). I would be interested in hearing from some of you about the application of the arrow of time to your respective theories.