Resting Light Theory

[Wick]

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 ??

Because the important thing is not to model what has already been modeled, but to model nature. The missing things in Max' model are spin, charge chirality, and mass. We achieve these things when we model the 4-d particle moving in various ways through the surface of space. For instance, if we return to the idea of the loop spinning through Flatland, the loop could turn through Flatland like a wheel turning through space. One side would spin upward through the surface, the other side would spin down. The loop could also spin toward itself (like a snake, biting its tail and then rolling its body towards its center). It could do this to the left or to the right. The loop could also rotate on an axis, thus tracing a circle or circles through Flatland.

Now this is Flatland, I'm not sure how a 4-d object would look performing similar tricks through the surface of 3 space. But my gut tells me that if it were to perform such tricks we might come to call these motions spin, charge and chirality. Likewise, mass arises from the inertia of falling toward the future.

Structure is not enough. We need to know how the structure moves.

[Max™]

As I said, we're describing the same elephant, I've got a hold of an ear, you've got a hold of a trunk, neither of us is exactly right, but upon reflection, you can tell we're heading in the same direction conceptually.

[Wick]

I PM'd Antonio, Graybeard. Thanks for the suggestion. Hope he has time to come and scrutinize.

Best regards! and Goodnight!!

[Graybeard]

Sometimes Antonio is on quite a lot, and sometimes a week or two goes by. be patient.

greg

[AntonioLao]

Light is at rest

Newton's 1st law of motion stated clearly that things at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by a "force." Furthermore, he stated that things in uniform motion will remain so unless acted upon by a 'force." So the cause of motion is the existence of a force. There are 4 accepted fundamental (primary) forces: gravity, EM, weak, and strong with many other secondary forces such as atomic forces, molecular forces, van del Waal forces, and the forces of static and kinetic frictions, etc. Since light cannot be affected by any of these forces, light is truly at rest or at constant motion. On the other hand. light can interact with matter at the microscopic infinitesimal region of space-time in the theories of quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics and quantum field theories. In consideration geometric optical phenomena such as reflection, refraction, and diffraction of light can all be explained at the quantum level as done by Feynman and explained in layman terms in his book QED.

[Wick]

In consideration geometric optical phenomena such as reflection, refraction, and diffraction of light can all be explained at the quantum level as done by Feynman and explained in layman terms in his book QED.

Thanks for taking some time to come to Resting Light Theory, Antonio. I have read Feynman's book and found it very helpful. But I also found myself, rightly or wrongly, translating the book into my own terms. I found Feynman diagrams especially helpful for visualization particles in new ways. For instance, consider a quantum event in which a pair of particles (you choose which ones) collide, whereupon they transform into a photon, which travels for a ways before transforming into two particles again.

From my perspective, the two particles actually represent a single particle which is hyperspatially extended into 4-space. The particle intersects 3-space (the place in which we observe the activity) in two places which we describe as point particles. One simplistic, 3-dimensional way of looking at this interaction is to imagine a looped particle intersecting a plane. Observers in the plane see a pair of particles separated by some distance. But observers from space would not observe two separate things. They would see a single loop.

If the loop were turning in place through the plane or twisting through the plane like a screw, observers on the plane may or may not detect that motion. If they came to the conclusion that the point particles were not spatially extended, they would be forced (like us) to assume turning or twisting would not be possible. But they might detect properties associated with the motion and call those properties something (like charge, spin or chirality). But they would not understand that the properties were related to actual motions of a three dimensional particle.

If the loop were to rise up through the surface of the plane, observers in flatland might come to believe that the particles are attracted to one another for some reason. And if the loop were to rise from the plane sufficently that it intersected the plane only at a single point, the observers in the plane might believe that the two point particles fused together to become a particle with new properties.

Feynman's diagram became evidence for me that the many particles we theorize using his method, might in fact be connected in 4-space.

I also thought I found some evidence that fundamental matter is 4-d in nature when I considered particle collisions experiments. I looked at these experiments, which served as the foundation of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and was astonished to find that the evidense seems to indicate that when particles are smashed together at near relativistic speeds, they give rise to new particles which look in every way like regular quarks and electrons, but which are significantly more massive. I immediately assumed (rightly or wrongly) that perhaps what we are seeing is not a new particle at all. Instead we are seeing the original particle (or piece thereof) dragged through 4-space in one direction, and through surface of 3-space in another. The mass increases because we are coupling (essentially doubling) the combined velocities of each particle. If this is not the case, I imagined that perhaps during the collision, we are pulling more of the hyperspacially extended particle through the surface of space.

Does any of this make sense?

[AntonioLao]

Feynman diagram is just a tip of the iceberg of something too complicated for me to describe: infinite configuration space, path integrals, etc. which are based on the exponential Lagrangian of the phase factor of a complex quantum variable. I have given up efforts of reading them. On the other hand, the diagrams are oversimplification of particle interactions in the complex plane of space-time. The vertical axis is for time the horizontal axis for 1D space. Therefore, a vertical line in a Feynman space-time diagram would suggest something that is completely at rest while a horizontal line would suggest something moving uniformly in space but not changing in time. So an infinitely extended horizontal line would suggest that there is a connection between 0 and infinity at no time at all!

[Wick]

Feynman diagram is just a tip of the iceberg of something too complicated for me to describe: infinite configuration space, path integrals, etc. which are based on the exponential Lagrangian of the phase factor of a complex quantum variable. I have given up efforts of reading them. On the other hand, the diagrams are oversimplification of particle interactions in the complex plane of space-time. The vertical axis is for time the horizontal axis for 1D space. Therefore, a vertical line in a Feynman space-time diagram would suggest something that is completely at rest while a horizontal line would suggest something moving uniformly in space but not changing in time. So an infinitely extended horizontal line would suggest that there is a connection between 0 and infinity at no time at all!

I vaguely understand the limitations of Feynman diagrams, but in order to understand the things I'm saying your going to have to scrape space-time as a construct. I'm not saying that space time is invalid. I'm only saying that might be. It might, therefore, be valuable to model four spatial dimensions WITH NO dimension of time. I know Max hates this aspect of my theory, but please, Max, humor me while in this thread. I'm not sure how you feel about modeling the universe without time, Antonio, but I'm told you might be able to manage the mathematical problems that face Resting Light Theory. And its not that time doesn't exist, its only that time is not a dimension, but a property that arises when 3-space moves through 4-space.

Let me reiterate some of the things already stated earlier in this thread:

1) The greater universe is a 4-space which is filled with resting light which serves as a kind of ether.

2) The observable universe (our 3-space) moves through 4-space and the resting light at a constant velocity. We perceive the light moving past us, but it is we, not the light who are moving. (NOTE: 3-space moves through 4-space in a direction we call the future and from the direction we call the past, but the future and past are not a universal collection of all events. See previous threads.)

3) Tiny fundamental particles of matter, also 4-dimensional in nature, are snagged on the 3-space and pulled along with it.

4) As fundamental particles of matter are dragged through 4-space, they acquire the thing we call mass. They also begin to interact with the light through which they are dragged.

5) As fundamental particles of matter move through the surface of 3-space in various ways, they give rise to properties like charge, chirality, spin, etc.

6) Gravity arises in space as fundamental matter, which extends into 4-space, drags upon the 3-d surface of space. This drag cause space to stretch in places where fundamental matter accumulates.

7) As fundamental matter is dragged along through 4-space it reconfigures. This occurs because the fundamental particles begin to interact with one another, with the warping of space, and with the light through which they are dragged. These interactions lead to a new property in space--time.

The point is that with these strange rules, space-time, feynman diagrams and the standard model begin to loose their meaning. We are imagining the universe from the outside looking in rather than merely from the inside.

Wick

[Wick]

Feynman diagram is just a tip of the iceberg of something too complicated for me to describe: infinite configuration space, path integrals, etc. which are based on the exponential Lagrangian of the phase factor of a complex quantum variable.

I guess what I'm saying Antonio, is that I expect (and I may be mistaken) that the TOE is going to be simple, not complicated. Ptolemaic physics began to get very complicated, especially when scientists began to document the tortuous epicycles, equants and quadrants needed to describe planetary motion. They were comfortable with the motion of the stars, but the retrograde motion of the planets perplexed them.

Today we find ourselves in a very different, but at the same time, similar situation. Having moved from the extreme of geocentricity, we have assumed a perspective that permits any point in the universe to be central and stationary (in space-time). And we are pretty comfortable with the motion of light from a relativity perspective, but the bizarre "motion" of the quanta perplex us. Why do they appear in our mathematical constructs to eddy forward or backward in time? Why do they sometimes disappear from the universe all together, then suddenly reappear? Why do they seem to respond to the very act of human observation? Why do they act like waves one minute, and like particles the next? The list goes on...

Copernicus helped resolve the problems of retrograde motion by showing us that earth moves--not the stars. Perhaps we can resolve the problem of quantum strangeness by showing that the universe moves--not the light.

But we can't do it from a space-time perspective. We have to do what Copernicus did. Copernicus tried to see his universe from the outside. Thereby he came to the conclusion that stars are at relative rest, while the earth moves. If we try to look at our universe from the outside, I believe we'll come to the conclusion that light is at relative rest, while the universe moves--and potentially pave the way to a much simpler and saner TOE.

Wick

[Max™]

Dunno about simpler, if just because it still postulates an unobserved aspect of reality, the hyperspace.