Resting Light Theory

[Max™]

See, that is exactly what I meant Wick.

There is an interesting trend to describe the universe as only configured in the present.

This is actually more common of an idea than you may think, I'd dare say it's even more common than Einsteins past/present/future existing idea.

Why?

Quantum Mechanics doesn't "do" time well, the way that it is currently described.

So, to fit quantum mechanics to relativity, there are two "clear" approaches.

Allow c to be a variable, or in your rather interesting case, paused, and only model the present.

or

Rotate the interactions described by quantum mechanics from an extended spatial probability state, to an extended temporal interaction state.

The problem with the former, is having a rather limited view of time.

The problem with the latter, is having a rather loose interpretation of causality.

Let's assume for a second that the past/present/future are real, simply out of sight.

That would imply that you have to give up free will, since the future already exists huh?

Unless causality wasn't an absolute rule, but more of a general guideline.

You don't have to give up free will to have a description like this, you just have to understand how weird time is to really see how choices you haven't yet made could exist already, and even be altered.

[Wick]

This view can be envisioned from Einsteins relativlty also. ??

No, I don't think so. Einstein's relativity would not permit light to have a frame of reference. In essence I submit that light is the only frame of reference against which the observable universe moves. We don't feel our motion, so the apparent velocity of light, gives the impression that it (rather than we) is moving.

In this post you refer to the ring as explaining all the problems of QM. I can understand the ring as an analogy .... but I don't understand it as a reality .. How do you deduce a ring ??

The ring is only an analogy invented to help one begin to understand how a three dimensional objects can be misunderstood by a two dimensional being. In RLT, fundamental particles of matter (which have 4 physical dimensions and intersect our 3-dimensional universe. We perceive these tiny 4-d structures as a cohesive swarm of point particles. To us they seem like many things rather than one thing. So an atom of hydrogen intersects the observable universe in 3 to seven places giving the mathematical impression of a tiny cloud of particles. It is actually one structure.

What's more, this tiny cloud of particles (which is really a single 4-d structure) moves in various ways through the surface of space (the observable universe). But we fail to observe this motion, because the motion occurs primarily outside of 3-space.

Further, the flatlanders cannot be very bright. As their 'flatland', travels down over the ring, or as the ring rises thru the surface of 'flatland' all they would have to do to conceive a third dimension, from their 2 dimensional viewpoint is to keep a record of the 'tide'. Totalling these records would give a 3 dimensional graphic ?? You might reply that flatlanders could not perceive the graphic because they are limited to 2d .. but that applies to us also relating to 4d?

Indeed it does. If you think about it the tide would be difficult for even the most brilliant flatlander to follow. Instead of a ring lets imagine an atom of hydrogen intersecting Flatland. The Flatlanders would perceive a cohesive cascade of particles arising and decaying in rapid succession as the elements of the nucleus jitter in and out of the surface of Flatland. We in 3-space would clearly know that there were only six quarks involved, but the Flatlanders, because they are dimensionally challenged, would see billions of particles flashing into and out of their world in rapid succession. They would also perceive at some distance from the nucleus, the continuous generation and anihilation of billions of particles in a roughly circular area. Sometimes these "outer" particles would slide through the surface of flatland tracing an arc. The electron would not look like one thing. It would look like many things. Such behavior would be most peculiar. Nothing about it would be obvious.

I believe this to be true because we intrinsically misunderstand fundamental matter for the same reason. Why? We describe what we see, but the evidence of what we see in partical accelerators may indicate that fundamental particles have more dimension than we imagine. I'll explain this more in a future post, but to describe it I need to download a couple of pictures to this site. Back in a few hours.

[Max™]

No, I don't think so. Einstein's relativity would not permit light to have a frame of reference. In essence I submit that light is the only frame of reference against which the observable universe moves. We don't feel our motion, so the apparent velocity of light, gives the impression that it (rather than we) is moving.

Ah, that is almost EXACTLY the same as my saying that light does not interact with time, and using light as the clock to measure the interaction of other particles with.


Plus, that description of particles appearing like point particle groups to us, but in reality being singular extended objects is very similar to the way I describe knots in space. The "kinks" and "folds" are quarks and whatnot.

As I read the different theories on the site, it seems that all of our views share more than they may seem too at first.

[Graybeard]

In RLT, fundamental particles of matter (which have 4 physical dimensions and intersect our 3-dimensional universe. We perceive these tiny 4-d structures as a cohesive swarm of point particles.

Plus, that description of particles appearing like point particle groups to us, but in reality being singular extended objects is very similar to the way I describe knots in space. The "kinks" and "folds" are quarks and whatnot.

Wick, Max ... I sorry if I'm being dense here. But these to me these are just descriptions. I don't think we perceive particles. We 'feel' them with the four forces, or at least three. How do these theories explain the forces ?

greg

[Max™]

See the way that the "faces" are oriented?

The orientation of the faces and the interaction with other particles with the same/different orientation, is electromagnetism.

The overlap in the middle represents the handedness involved in particle decay, and more clearly seen in my drawing of the neutron, the tendency that the knots have to untie themselves, which is the Weak force.

The sharp folds at the end of the lobes is a "quark", and the lengths between the "quarks" represent the "gluons", though those are just approximations of the spacetime topography/chemistry in my model.

The length of the folded lobes is hard to properly represent in a drawing, but it is literally folded distance, knotted space. As such, they distort the local fabric of space around them, stretching it. This is equivalent to the stress energy tensor of GR.

[austintorn@aol.com]

A TOE of how our reality functions will eventually become apparent, I hope. In T-O-T T-O-O thread we are after the ultimate TOE, being that of how our reality could have been generated. More investigation into either 'TOE' should help each towards completion, a feedback spiral of synergy.

On the topic of crime and bad behavior, if one is fortunate enough to seek learning, then one may made decisions [better] tomorrow that would be different than those made today. It gets down to that propensity for learning being there.

It may be as hard to forget how to ride as bike as to forget how to be bad, but, of course, I don't have this example quite right since biking is a lot of muscle memory, but, given a willingness to unlearn, it seems possible. This willingness doesn't seem innate, since all cannot do it.

[Wick]

Wick, Max ... I sorry if I'm being dense here. But these to me these are just descriptions. I don't think we perceive particles. We 'feel' them with the four forces, or at least three. How do these theories explain the forces ?

You are definitely not dense graybeard. I'm grateful you've come to help me out with this thread. But my thought is this, isn't the premise of the strong force just a description? It may have a great deal more mathematical rigor than my musings, but then again its had lot's of mathematicians to put it through its paces.

That said, the carrier of the strong force--the gluon--has never been observed, making the gluon a supposition. Yet we speak about gluons and the strong force as though they are real.

We don't feel or perceive gluons, nor do we feel or perceive their opined force. In fact, we didn't even know we needed gluons and a strong force until we learned that there was no good reason for the nucleus of an atom--and quarks imparticular--to stay together. So we assumed a phyical need for a force that somehow kept these disparate "point particles" together. After that we invented a plausible mathematical/physical description of how the nucleus might stay together through force exchanging particles. Still the gluon has never been observed.

My description requires no strong force. Why? Because the three quarks of a proton, for instance, are not the three things we thought they were. What we have described in the Standard Model as individual point particles in 3-space are actually bound together as a single unit in 4-space. We don't see the connections here in 3-space and so find it necessary to devise a plausible reason why these particles stay together. But no reason is needed. "They" stay together because they are one thing, not several things.

Likewise the weak force is not something we feel. The impetus for us to explain the weak force arose from a need to describe why atomic nucliei sometimes break down into other elements during radio-active decay. Again, we came to this conclusion because we couldn't "see" what was going on in 4-space. We only imagined the point particles that were poking through into 3-space. Had we been able to observe the decay from 4-space, we would have noticed that the knots that bind an atom together simply unraveled (especially when an element is overly knotted, heavy or unstable). The unraveling of the element in 4-space looks perfectly normal. But in 3-space it looks mysterious. Again no weak force is needed.

The key is this: Because fundamental matter is spatially extended into 4-space, it stays together (strong force) or comes apart (weak force) largely in 4-space. Such matter may seem like a swarm of particles staying together or transforming into something else in 3-space, but our observation remains incomplete. We don't have access to all the data.

[Wick]

See the way that the "faces" are oriented?

The orientation of the faces and the interaction with other particles with the same/different orientation, is electromagnetism.

The overlap in the middle represents the handedness involved in particle decay, and more clearly seen in my drawing of the neutron, the tendency that the knots have to untie themselves, which is the Weak force.

The sharp folds at the end of the lobes is a "quark", and the lengths between the "quarks" represent the "gluons", though those are just approximations of the spacetime topography/chemistry in my model.

The length of the folded lobes is hard to properly represent in a drawing, but it is literally folded distance, knotted space. As such, they distort the local fabric of space around them, stretching it. This is equivalent to the stress energy tensor of GR.

I like your model, Max. It looks like an adapted trefoil structure, even a little like the trefoil knot we often see in topography. I envision matter in the same way. But your complex description of what part of the structure equals each particle from the standard model is not in keeping with RLT (which is what this thread is about).

In resting light theory the hyperspatially extended knot intersects 3-space in 3 places, giving the appearance in 3-space of 3 point particles. But there are no quarks in the structure, the structure is a whole and complete thing--a proton. No gluons are required to hold the nonexistent quarks together. The proton is one thing. It just looks like three things to observers in 3-space.

There is no need for a strong force in such a structure.

[Graybeard]

But my thought is this, isn't the premise of the strong force just a description? It may have a great deal more mathematical rigor than my musings, but then again its had lot's of mathematicians to put it through its paces.

That said, the carrier of the strong force--the gluon--has never been observed, making the gluon a supposition. Yet we speak about gluons and the strong force as though they are real.

Something causes confinement ... this at least has been experimentally proved. No free quarks have ever been found. As well studies (earlier) of inelastic scattering point to the same thing. But I can see your point ... I would just point out that nearly all particles suffer from the same birth pains ... they are mathematical constructs at the end of the day.

This is why I see your theory as being correct .. inasmuch as it posits the same constructs with a different perception/concept.

We don't feel or perceive gluons, nor do we feel or perceive their opined force. In fact, we didn't even know we needed gluons and a strong force until we learned that there was no good reason for the nucleus of an atom--and quarks imparticular--to stay together. So we assumed a phyical need for a force that somehow kept these disparate "point particles" together. After that we invented a plausible mathematical/physical description of how the nucleus might stay together through force exchanging particles. Still the gluon has never been observed.

Yes ... but this is what we do for most things in QM. I feel that you are doing the same with your construct. You need to tie the quarks together, ergo: a single piece

My description requires no strong force. Why? Because the three quarks of a proton, for instance, are not the three things we thought they were. What we have described in the Standard Model as individual point particles in 3-space are actually bound together as a single unit in 4-space. We don't see the connections here in 3-space and so find it necessary to devise a plausible reason why these particles stay together. But no reason is needed. "They" stay together because they are one thing, not several things.

Yes ... I do see your picture ... but let me ask you this. If Max's diagram below were to be layed over three quarks so that their locations were on the three apexes. Then what difference is it to say that the joining arms to each apex is the path of the gluon ??



In other words your single construct in 4d is the standard theory's quark/gluon model in 3d. Why posit the fourth D ?

Wick ... It obvious that you know at least as much, most probably more, than me in this area. I suggest that you attempt to encourage Antonio Lao to review this thread. He totally understands the maths involved and is an easy going guy. Perhaps he can help us both to a better understanding.

By the way, from what I know, I can see no problem with your theory, i just don't see where it differs.

greg

[Wick]

Its not enough to say that gravity arises when 3d-space and 3d-matter snag on 4d-space. Nor to say that mass is simple, a natural resistance applied on 3d-space by 4d-space.

It may be true or false, but it is not an explanation, just a statement. You would need to say why this happens ... not just that it is an interpretation of how you see it.

First let me clarify: Both light and fundamental particles of matter enjoy a 4-dimensional nature. As a 3-space moves through the 4-space (like a planet moving though space only 1 dimension higher) two things happen: The 3-space drags the 4-d particles of fundamental matter snagged on its "surface" through 4-space and it passes through the "sea" of resting light.

4-d light piercing the vacuum areas of 3-space pass through the surface of 3-space almost inertly creating a vast field that fills the whole of the 3-space. In areas where interactions with matter occur, this field becomes stronger because the 4-d particles of fundamental matter interact with the light giving rise to electromagnetic interactions which cause more of the light to enter into the 3-space. This is only a "description", I know. But that in a nutshell is the beginning of an explanation for the electromagnetic force. Once again it is not a force. It is simply the result of a 3-space moving through a resting background of light.

4-d particles of matter, because they extend into the 4-space and interact with the light, drag on the 3d surface of space causing it to warp in those areas where matter accumulates in greater abundance. Warping occurs in the direction of the past as space falls into the direction of the future. (Remember that past and future are merely directions in 4-space, they in no way represent places or containers of events). Thus gravity is not a force requiring a force carrier (the graviton). Gravity is a geometric relationship between a 3-space dragging 4-d particles through a 4-space. It seems a good mathematician should be able to model such a relationship, but I am a very poor mathematician. The same mathematician might be able to model the electromagnetic interactions described in the paragraph above.

Once again, you would need to explain the mechanism, not just say that pressures are exerted on them.

I have explained the mechanism, but perhaps I have not done so clearly. Maybe you can help me. Please continue to ask questions until I have made myself a) clear or b) a fool. Thanks for your patience, Greg.

[QUOTE'I think that you cross too freely between QM and relativity in some of your analogies.[/QUOTE]

I apologize for this. It come from a lack of proper education. I was never a good physicist or mathematician. That's why I studied English and Languages instead. Yet, I for the life of me can't see any significant difference between the world of the small and the world of the great. They are the same. Nature has made them the same, and it would seem that the way nature has indoctrinated me (raw as it may be), I have come to the conclusion that both QM and GR are wrong...that the only way to blend the great and the small is if we set the observable universe in motion through a larger universe of resting light. I'll keep trying to explain it in better terms. I know what I mean, I just need to learn how to make it clear. Thanks for taking the time to listen and suggest ways for me to improve my thoughts.

Wick