[Wick]

Based on Michelson/Morely and many experiments since then, it has been the convention to describe light as particles that move (or waves that propagate) through space at the velocity c in relation to all other objects in the universe. Gravity is also said to propagate through space at the velocity c. Light speed serves as a substantial portion of the foundation upon which General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are built. These theories also describe a universe that is largely static and unmoving (In what direction should a universe holding all directions move?).

Yet it seems that light speed can be interpreted two ways (and we have stubbornly chosen the obvious one). We perceive the light moving, so our assumption is that light moves. But if the light appears to move at the velocity c in relation to all things, another option might be that all things are moving in relation to light.

Copernicus taught us that apparent motion in the heavens indicates actual motion of the planet upon which we live. Here I am suggesting that apparent motion in quantum phenomena (light, electrons and quarks) indicates actual motion in the universe we live in.

Thus, as the face of our planet is a two dimensional surface moving through 3 space, so the universe is a three dimensional surface moving through 4 space. All phenomena which produce fields in 3-space (light, gravity, and particles) are actually 4-dimensional phenomena presenting themselves in 3-space as a "cross-section." As such we find these phenomena somewhat counter-intuitive (wave-particle duality, uncertainty, entanglement, mass, charge, spin, symmetry breaking, etc.). But the reason we struggle to understand these phenomena is because we only perceive the merest slices of each whole. In the words of Boethius (on of my favorite philosophers), we have taken “that which is one and undivided" and "mistakenly subdivided and removed [it] from a state of truth and perfection to a state of falseness and imperfection.” So by making “divisions of that which by nature is one and simple, and in attempting to obtain part of something which has no parts, [we] succeed in getting neither the part—which is nothing—nor the whole” which [we] cannot comprehend."

In a sense, we have returned, since the days of Copernicus, to a Ptolemaic universe--one which is central (in that it is the container of all things) and is unmoving. As a result we have had to resort in quantum mechanics to various "epicycles", "equants", and "deferents" to describe quantum "motion." We have even begun to construct something akin to the Ptolemaic crystal spheres--seven tiny dimensions that exist at the Planck scale. We have come to this crisis, just as in the days of Copernicus, because we have assumed that while the elements of the universe might move, the universe itself cannot. I believe this is an erroneous assumption and that we will never understand the quanta until we consider the possibility that the universe moves.

[Wick]

Eight Rules that Might Govern a Moving Universe

Rules regarding universal structure

1st rule: The greater universe is a 4-space filled with resting energy (light serves as the only frame of reference)
2nd rule: The observable universe is a 3-manifold moving through 4-space (perhaps in multiple ways: rotation, revolution, linear motiion, who knows).
3rd rule: Time is not a dimension, but a property belonging to the moving 3-manifold and the reconfiguration of light and matter on its surface. Time represents changes of state, not necessarily changes of position. Changes of position could occur in 4-space outside of the influence of time. Duration and time are not the same thing.

Rule regarding light interactions in the 3-manifold

4th rule: As the 3 manifold descends through the resting light, the light interacts with 4d particles of matter snagged on the manifold and causes ripples (a vector field) on the 3-manifold surface and associated motion in the 4d particles. Observers in the 3-manifold percieve light moving at c, but this is indicative of the motion of the manifold through the light.

Rules associated with the nature of fundamental matter:

5th rule: 4d particles of matter, snagged onto the 3-manifold, are dragged through 4-space whereby they acquire the property of mass.
6th rule: Motion of 4d particles through the 3-manifold surface leads to properties like chirality and charge, and presents the appearance of disparate localized fields (spinor fields).
7th rule: 4d particles bind together in 4-space (strong force) to form more massive particles of matter, or unbind in 4-space (weak force) during radioactive decay.

Rule associated with warping of the 3-manifold

8th rule: The drag (mass) of 4d particles exerts a pull on the 3-manifold, which distorts and warps its surface and leads to a property called gravity. Warping of the 3-manifold increases where matter accumulates. The warping of the 3-manifold leads to relativistic properties described by Einstein which are directly related to the 3-manifolds motion. Consequently we perceive that gravity propagates through space at c, but this is indicative of the motion of the 3-manifold, not of gravity waves.

[Wick]

Hmmm. This is feeling like a monologue. I was hoping for a little help here. Perhaps this is one of those times when a fool must talk with himself.

The reason I think this new perspective is important, is because it turns the tables on what we consider permanent and what transient. Currently when we think about matter-light interactions, our inclination is to think that matter is stable and permanent and that light is transient. This theory implies the opposite--that light is stable and permanent and matter is transient.

I am intrigued with the work of Fritz Albert Popp and the International Institute of Biophysics. Popp describes light-matter interactions that occur at the cellular level in living tissues. These electromagnetic fields are almost entirely coherent. He calls this coherent field "biophotons", or a "biophotonic field" and makes a strong case that biophotons are not associated with waste, but on the contrary are intrinsic to the workings of the organism. He concludes in an online paper that "a great deal of work has to be done in order to reveal the molecular basis of biophoton emission."

Perhaps just the opposite is true. Perhaps the coherent biophotonic field is the basis for molecular structure.

I would argue that these coherent biophotonic fields are the patterns from which organized physiological forms arise. These fields are stable 4d patterns. What we see in the 3d universe is an exposed surface of each 4d pattern divided by time. I would also argue that the thing we call consciousness arises from this 4d pattern of coherent light. In other words, consciousness is not a byproduct of the brain, the brain is a byproduct of consciousness (the biophotonic field).

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by Wick In a sense, we have returned, since the days of Copernicus, to a Ptolemaic universe--one which is central (in that it is the container of all things) and is unmoving. As a result we have had to resort in quantum mechanics to various "epicycles", "equants", and "deferents" to describe quantum "motion." We have even begun to construct something akin to the Ptolemaic crystal spheres--seven tiny dimensions that exist at the Planck scale. We have come to this crisis, just as in the days of Copernicus, because we have assumed that while the elements of the universe might move, the universe itself cannot. I believe this is an erroneous assumption and that we will never understand the quanta until we consider the possibility that the universe moves.

I'm not sure if I'm reading you right, but I think the reason you may not be getting any "bites" is because what you have written is consistent with the present model on the one hand and is a known work in progress on the other. There is nothing to argue with.

The only thing that struck me as odd is your contention about motion. The present model is based on things within the universe allegedly moving from the expansion of spacetime. I don't think anyone is anymore thinking the universe can't move, except myself.

[Wick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I'm not sure if I'm reading you right, but I think the reason you may not be getting any "bites" is because what you have written is consistent with the present model on the one hand and is a known work in progress on the other. There is nothing to argue with. The only thing that struck me as odd is your contention about motion. The present model is based on things within the universe allegedly moving from the expansion of spacetime. I don't think anyone is anymore thinking the universe can't move, except myself.

Thanks for your post, NOBODY. I was starting to feel a bit lonely in here. I'm interested in how my theory is consistent with the present model. Could you give me examples? In the past when I have discussed my ideas with mathematicians and physicist, I have been told that my idea is very inconsistent with GR and QM because it gives light a resting frame of reference, because it implies a fourth spatial dimension in which light and matter operate, and because it opines that the "observable" universe is moving through the fourth dimension (most scientists don't consider expansion the same as motion).

Einstein describes the observabe universe in a 3d + 1d structure. In that structure all past, present and future moments are stored in the universal structure. Future moments already exist, we humans just haven't reached them yet. Each of these moments is sometimes refered to as hyperplanes. Einstein handles hyperplanes differently from Newton, but both scientists believed that hyperplanes are stacked up and stored in some way in the universal structure.

I describe a single moving and reconfiguring hyperplane. In a sense, my structure is 4d - 1d. In that structure there is a universe of 4 dimensions, but our observable universe is a three dimensional surface falling through 4 dimensional space. Past moments do not persist in this structure. The past is merely the wake of the hyperplane upon which we ride. The future does not exist in this structure. The future is a trajectory that lies before the hyperplane upon which we ride. Time is not a navigable medium. So time travel is out of the question. If the hyperplane were to reverse course, we would not experience past moments, we would simply continue reconfiguring (perhaps in a castrophic way, but reconfiguring none the less).

I argue that time is not a dimension, but a property associate with motion, that if time were to stop, changes of state would stop (decay, regeneration, quantum reconfiguration), but changes of position on large scales could continue to take place. The universe would not suddenly freeze up. Motion in 4-space over durations would continue, but matter would no longer decompose.

Finally, with light at rest, I think we can talk about consciousness in interesting ways. Resting light becomes the pattern for matter, the organizing principle that organizes organisms at the subconscious level, and the seat of creativity and choice at the conscious level.

[Wick]

Let me explain how I think this theory is different by considering the interactions of a 4d particle snagged upon the surface of the 3-manifold. I'll do this in the only way I know how by reducing each of the dimensions by one. I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

Imagine a 3-dimensional loop of thread (this will be the 3d equivalent to my 4d particle). The loop intersects a plane (the 2d equivalent of the 3-manifold or hyperplane). Its initial intersection reveals a point particle, but as it continues to descend through the plane, two diverging point particles appear in the plane. If the loop were to pass completely through the plane, observers in the plane would observe the two "point particles" converging, merging into a single point and then disappearing from the plane completely.

If on the other hand the loop were constrained to maintain intersection with the plane, observers in the plane would always consider the loop to be two things (i.e. two point particles). They may come to the conclusion that the point particles were entangled or bound together in some inexplicable way, but they would not understand that the point particles were actually attached to one another in a higher space--that they are one thing.

Furthermore, if this loop of matter were to rotate through the surface of the plane (like a wheel, with one side passing up through the plane and the other side passing down through the plane), observers in the plane may not detect any motion at all. They may detect a property (say charge), suggesting that the "up" moving intersection has a positive charge, and the "down" moving intersection has a negative charge, but they would not associate charge with a kind of motion through the plane.

Similarly, if the loop were to twirl through the surface of the plane (like a snake, which having bitten its tail rotates inward toward the center of its circle, then downward and out), observers in the plane may not detect any motion here either. They may detect a property (say chirality), suggesting that the particle is left-handed or right handed, but they would not associate chirality with a kind of motion through the plane.

Finally, if one of the particles were to become an axis upon which the whole particle rotates through the plane, observers in the plane would detect motion in the "outer particle", but no motion in the "particle" which serves as the axis. If the motion were fast enough (and since this thought experiment is ours, we'll say that it is), observers in the plane may decide to describe this motion as a localized field.

These simple motions through the surface of the plane would be completely misunderstood by observers in the plane. They would be unable to comprehend the true nature of the particle's motion, because they are limited to observing a very small cross-section of the particle's whole. They see multiple particles where there is only one. They fail to see motion where motion is present. And when they detect motion, they misunderstand the nature of that motion.

Now lets imagine that in addition to the motions intrinsic to the particle, the plane itself begins to move or descend through 3-space. As it moves, the particle which had been weightless up until now, suddenly feels a pull through 3-space. Observers in the plane would not necessarily detect the motion of the plane. To adapt the words of Einstein, "if [the universe] falls freely [it] won't detect [its] own weight." But observers in the plane, would detect the property associate with the universal descent. All of the sudden, this particle (and all other particles intersecting the plane) would obtain a new property called mass. Another way of thinking of mass is drag.

In places where particles are gathered together, the drag would be greater and it would begin to pull "upward" on the fabric of the plane. The gathered particles would draw closer and "squish" together. As the upward pull on the plane continued, other particles, somewhat distant from the collection of attracted particles would find themselves nudging toward the group and the pull on the fabric would consequently increase. In places on the warping plane where particles are squished together and their intersection begins to twist, the particles begin to combine and transform. This warping of the plane describes gravity. Gravity is the pull exerted upon the hyperplane as a result of the drag of 3d matter through 3-space. The distortion of the plane would propagate through the plane at the velocity of the plane's descent--in this case c."

Now imagine that 3d (but ultra miniscule) particles of light at rest in 3-space (not all of which is constrained as matter to maintain intersection with the plane), begins to pass through the surface of the plane. Just as raindrops on the surface of water, the light strikes the surface of the plane and leaves behind a disturbance upon the surface of the plane (this describes the electromagnetic field). When light directly strikes a particle of matter (somehow the fine structure constant fits in here), it enters the plane (it is not emitted) using the particle as a "door", and begins moving through the surface of the plane until it finds a "door" out (it is not absorbed). In both cases the light energizes the matter it interacts with.

Here's where we go way out on the limb. A certain kind of organized, coherent light, which serves as the pattern for all organisms on the plane and their respective consciousness, establishes and maintains intersection with the plane when conditions are right (i.e. conception). These light patterns do not reveal themselves in the plane all at once, but serve as the pattern for procreative processes and subsequent development, infancy, adolescence, adulthood, old age and death. In a sense, the light pattern is like a cd in reverse, matter plays the light pattern from its first track through to the final track. Once played the light pattern is not "gone". The light pattern (and the consciousness associated with it) persists in 3-space.

I better stop there and permit others to comment if they wish to. Sorry for being long winded.

[N0B0DY]

Wick,

I was referring to Lemaitre's and Guth's big-bang and inflationary model, and as I interpret it and the new research being done by Hau and gravitomagnetism, I don't find anything that conflicts with your theory. Aside from how I interpret motion, I agree with your flatland analogies as they seem to imply the 3-d universe is the result of frame dragging due to a 4th-d time/motion.

Even the "out-on-the-limb" decay as light interacts throughout the plane I agree with, but I don't understand this, though:

"When light directly strikes a particle of matter (somehow the fine structure constant fits in here), it enters the plane (it is not emitted) using the particle as a "door", and begins moving through the surface of the plane until it finds a "door" out (it is not absorbed). In both cases the light energizes the matter it interacts with."

Perhaps when you get a minute you can elaborate on it. It appears that emission and absorption are reversed for some known reason.

[Wick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Wick, I was referring to Lemaitre's and Guth's big-bang and inflationary model, and as I interpret it and the new research being done by Hau and gravitomagnetism, I don't find anything that conflicts with your theory. Aside from how I interpret motion, I agree with your flatland analogies as they seem to imply the 3-d universe is the result of frame dragging due to a 4th-d time/motion.

As far as I'm aware neither Lemaitre, Guth, nor Hau would permit light to have a frame of reference in spacetime. Light is only permitted a resting frame of reference in one very special case--time. When I talk about 4 spatial dimensions, I completely discount the dimension of time. That said, my reading of Lemaitre, Guth and Hau is very slight. My background is in languages. Yes, I'm a Humanities major, I'm afraid. Most of what I have read on these three I have read about them. If I tried to read them directly, my head would likely do a triple twist and fall on the floor. As for your reference to the "4th-d time/motion, I include no time dimension in my theory. There are only 4 spatial dimensions. Time is a property associated with the way fundamental matter of 4 spatial dimensions interacts on the surface of the 3-dimensional hyperplane. Let me reiterate: this theory does not make room for a special temporal dimension. Time is not a dimension, it is a property of motion through 4-space.

Even the "out-on-the-limb" decay as light interacts throughout the plane I agree with, but I don't understand this, though:

While I'll admit that this appears to be decay, I will stand with Fritz Popp in saying that the nearly coherent biophotonic field is not decay, but in fact is the very instrumentality that constructs each conscious life form. When we listen to the CD of a symphony and the symphony ends we do not say that we just listened to something decay. On the contrary, we listened to something being created and that creation came to an end. Yet, the pattern is still there. In a sense, the same pattern can be played again.

"When light directly strikes a particle of matter (somehow the fine structure constant fits in here), it enters the plane (it is not emitted) using the particle as a "door", and begins moving through the surface of the plane until it finds a "door" out (it is not absorbed). In both cases the light energizes the matter it interacts with." Perhaps when you get a minute you can elaborate on it. It appears that emission and absorption are reversed for some known reason.

Because the particle has four spatial dimensions (I'm still trying to understand this part. Perhaps Carey can help me on this one), it exists primarily outside of the hyperplane. The hyperplane holds a few cross-sections of each particle (perhaps many more than a few cross-sections if a particle is sufficiently complex), but the vast majority of the particle lies outside of the hyperplane. When the light in 4-space strikes the 4d particle it slides into the hyperplane and in the process energizes the whole particle. Observers in 4-space would be able to see how that portion of the particle outside of the hyperplane is energized, but observers inside the hyperplane (the observable universe) perceive this event as a loss of energy as the electron (for example) sinks to a "lower energy level." The photon then moves through the space of the hyperplane and strikes another electron. Once again, the whole particle is energized. In this case both, those in the hyperplane and in 4-space can detect the way the particle is energized as the photon escapes back into for space.

Perhaps a way to envision this from a flatlander perspective would be to use a loop of thread that appears as an ellipse. This is oriented in the same way i described in my earlier post, such that it appears to observers in the plane to be two particles. It is also moving as I described earlier in the three ways mentioned. Most importantly for this illustration, the loop is revolving through the plane upon an axis located at the point where there "positive point particle" intersects the plane. The negative particle is tracing a circle upon the plane. Initially the ellipse is oriented on the plane along its major axis. When the light interacts with the particle, and enters the plane (what we now call emission), the ellipse tips through the plane so that it is now oriented on the plane along its minor axis. The photon then strikes another "negative point particle" associated with a loop oriented along its minor axis, and as the photon escapes into 4-space (what we now call absorption) it lends enough energy for the loop to tip through the plane along its major axis (quantum leap). I'm sure this is an over simplification, but its the best my simple humanities background can deliver at midnight.

Thanks for your question, Nobody. Please help me to continue refining my idea and let me know if you see ways to improve upon it. I'm grateful for any insights. I have been struggling with this theory since February of 2006 when I had a revelation of sorts. I suddenly had a firm conviction that light, for the most part, was a phenomenon at rest. This crackpot idea went against everything I believed at the time. Nevertheless, I have not gone back to thinking that light moves. I am hopelessly convinced that light doesn't move as we think it does. Generally speaking, light is the standard of rest. Its a fools errand to say so, but I'll keep saying it. That's a fool's prerogative!

Now I must go to bed!

[Wick]

I forgot one thing--the fine structure constant. Feynman speaks of a number that "all good theoretical physicists put...up on their wall and worry about. That number is the fine structure constant, or in this case the coupling constant that describes "the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon." That number just happens to be 137.03597. Feynman prefers it in a different form (-0.08542455). Now these numbers mean almost nothing to me (given my background in languages), but I can't help thinking that this number somehow describes the relationship between 4-d particles of matter interacting with 4-d particles of light on the surface of a 3-d hyperplane. I'm sure that if such a relationship exist, all never be able to write it in mathematical terms. Right now this is just a gut feeling. Its seems a beautiful relationship, so I'll stick with it until a better idea comes along.

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by Wick I suddenly had a firm conviction that light, for the most part, was a phenomenon at rest. This crackpot idea went against everything I believed at the time. Nevertheless, I have not gone back to thinking that light moves. I am hopelessly convinced that light doesn't move as we think it does. Generally speaking, light is the standard of rest. Its a fools errand to say so, but I'll keep saying it. That's a fool's prerogative! Now I must go to bed!

Mainstream physicists (spacetime believers) agree that all events (in SR, events include: matter-energy and phenomena) propagate in a theoretical speed of light c.

Unfortunately, mainstreamers don't use terms like:
expansion [4D expansion](RascalPuff's theme) and
move [matter-energy move against the frame of light] (your theme).

Mainstreamers always reiterate just this term: "propagate" despite many of them agree that spacetime stores everything - all past matter-energy and phenomena were kept up to now.

Best Regards. Bottomlander