Resting Light Theory

[Wick]

Sometimes very simple ideas change how we see everything. Here is my theory:

Light is at rest.

If we perceive light propogating at the velocity "c" in relation to all inertial frames of reference, must we then assume that light moves at that constant speed? Isn't the other option--that light is at rest and all inertial frames of reference are moving in relation to light--just as valid?

Copernicus showed us that the stars are not moving in circles but that we are! My theory is that light (the entire electromagnetic spectrum) is no different. It appears to move, but it is we who are moving.

COROLLORY OF TERMS AS THEY APPLY TO RESTING LIGHT THEORY:

Length: An axis of space describing a line upon which an observer can move either forward or backward;

Width: An axis of space which, when combined with length, describes a plane on which an observer can move forward, backward, left, right or any composite of these four directions;

Depth: An axis of space which when combined with length and width, describes a 3-space in which an observer can move forward, backward, left, right, up, down or any composite of these six directions;

Tempth: An axis of space which when combined with length, width and depth, describes a 4-space in which an observer can move forward, backward, left, right, up down, ord, entrop or any composite of these eight directions;

Ord: A spatial direction on the tempth axis from which 3-space moves;

Entrop: A spatial direction on the tempth axis into which 3-space moves;

4-space: A space of 4 dimensions filled with resting light and particles of fundamental matter; a place through which all 3-spaces move;

Light: Fundamental resting energy which fills 4-space; a 4-dimensional fluid or ether through which particles of 4-dimensional matter and all 3-spaces move;

Fundamental Particles of Matter: Basic and fundamental units of 4-dimensional matter which reside in 4-space and snag onto or intersect with moving 3-spaces;

Present Point: Our unique 3-space or observable universe, the space upon which all of us and the fundamental particles of matter associated with this universe ride through 4-space. This is a proper name for the universe so it is capitalized, it the same way that Earth is capitalized when referring to our planet;


Point Particles: 3-dimensional cross-sections of 4-dimensional fundamental particles of matter in the Present Point (3 quarks may represent 3 point particles, but only one fundamental particle of matter in 4-space);

Temporal Drag: The tendency of fundamental particles of matter to resist the dragging motion through 4-space upon the Present Point;

Mass: The property of matter associated with temporal drag;

Rotation through 3-space: 4-dimensional entities (either of energy or of matter) rotate through 3-spaces, revealing only a cross section of their 4-dimensional whole;

Gravity: An ordward stretching or warping of 3-space as particles of matter exert an ordward pull as the Present Point moves toward entrop;

Knotting: A knotting together of 4-dimensional fundamental matter which occurs under conditions of extreme gravity and energy, causing the fundamental particles to fuse into more complex forms of matter;

Unknotting: An unknotting of 4-dimensional fundmental matter which occurs over time when especially complex (heavy) knots of matter are removed from conditions of extreme gravity or energy;

Rippling of Space: Waves on the surface of space which arise as resting light vibrates particles of fundamental matter snagged on the surface of the Present Point;

Charge: The property that arises when fundamental particles of matter rotate through the Present Point (the portion of the cross-section that rotates in an ordward direction has an opposite charge from a portion of the cross-section that rotates in an entropward direction;

[Graybeard]

I don't see how that perception would change the laws of physics as they currently are. In other words, would the textbooks need to be re-written, or just a title change ? So while it can be considered a perception, I don't think it can be considered a theory.

Neither perception is necessarily valid.

My opinion only

cool bananas ... greg

[Wick]

I should say in advance that people who want to argue about the concept of time will have concerns with a theory like this. So let's add a couple of ground rules:

In this theory, there are four dimensions of space; and there is no dimension of time. Time is a property that arises inside a three-space (our observable universe) which is moving through a four-space.

I would like to move questions about time to a thread in the General Physics Forum called Does time = motion?

[Wick]

I don't see how that perception would change the laws of physics as they currently are. In other words, would the textbooks need to be re-written, or just a title change ? So while it can be considered a perception, I don't think it can be considered a theory.

Hi Graybeard,

It's a theory because it fundimentally changes what I think about when I think about myself and the things around me. Currently, when I see a person, I am inclined to focus on the matter associated with that person. I see a body or aspect of a body. But if I think to myself this body is not only moving through a stationary background of light, this body is enlivened by an organized and coherent mass of electromagnetic patterns. The matter associated with this body is in a constant state of change (moving at the velocity "c"). It is merely a physical and fleeting expression of the constant and conscious thing which is light.

This would be true not only of a person, but of a tree, or a fish, or a mountain range, or planet or star. The most real thing suddenly becomes the resting and unmoving arrangement of electromagnetic patterns, which serve as organizing principles upon whic fleeting matter take form.

There is more. But let's start with that. Consciousness is the first thing that arises from a theory where light is at rest. The next thing that arises is time.

[Wick]

Kaluza suggested that light is a four-dimensional phenomena. He nearly convinced Einstein that this was true. Unfortunately, after the math, four-dimensional light implied an electron more massive than electrons appeared to be.

Here I go out on a limb.

What if the electron was also four-dimensional in nature. In fact, what if all the things we currently describe as having a dual nature (fields/particles) are objects of four physical dimensions. Most of these things (electrons, quarks, photons, etc) appear to be point particles (as described by the Standard Model) in a state of near constant jittering motion (when we observe their location) and as waves (when we observe other aspects). But in nature appearances deceive. The stars appear to move and yet it is the earth moving.

Now, imagine for a moment a loop of string. This string has length, width and depth, but I'm going to give this string another dimension which I will call tempth. My loop exists at rest in a four-space through which moves a a three-space (in much the same way that the two-space surface of the earth moves through the three-space of our solar system.) As the three-space moves through four-space, it snags my loop of thread and my loop of thread is pulled for the first time through four-space. Oddly, when observers in the moving three-space see my thread they are not able to perceive it as a whole. In fact, they fail to see its length, width or breadth. Why? Because they are unable to percieve the loops tempth at all. Consequently, the observers in the three-space sees an undulating point particle, which moves like fire along a fuse in a roughly circular path along the loops length. The observer misunderstands the nature of the four-dimensional thread. He sees the thread as a point particle and assesses that the point particle is in motion.

Does this make sense. I really can't go on until I can make this concept understood.

[Wick]

At least three possibilities:

1) The last post makes no sense but nobody wants to say so;
2) The last post makes perfect sense and all my readers understand;
3) There are no reader; Wick is alone in the dark.

Wick says to himself: "I don't think I really understand what I said. Perhaps I should try to say it another way.

Wick agrees.

[austintorn@aol.com]

I like it. It's another way that all can be entangled and interconnected, since the 4th touches the 3rd everywhere.

I went there once to turn a right-handed glove into a left-handed one.

Light looks tired here in 3D and takes a rest, but is active in 4D.

So, sound like it could be possible.

[Wick]

Lets say I had a thin hollow metal ring constructed in such a way that when I place the ring in water, it floats intersecting the water at two points along its circumverence with half of its body above the surface and half below the surface. Imagine an O with a line through it. The O is the ring and the line is the surface of the water.

Flatlanders living on the surface of the water are not able to see the O. Though we know the O is a single unit, the Flatlanders are convinced that what they are looking at is two disparate point particles (the intersections). If I were to spin the O in place through the surface of the water, the Flatlanders would likely detect NO motion in the particles. They may detect some alterations in the currents of the watery surface upon which they live, but they would not likely come to understand that the true cause of the current. If they were particularly ingenious, the Flatlanders might detect that there is an "upness" associated with one of the particles and a "downness" associated with the other and this would lead them to believe further that the two particles are not only separate and distinct, but that they are very different in nature. They might say that one of the particles, the one with "upness" perhaps, has a positive charge, and the other, the one with "downness", a negative charge.

If I were to rotate the O on an axis located at the intersection of the particle associated with "upness" (positive charge), such that the particle with "downness" (negative charge) was rotating in a circle around the "upness" particle, the Flatlanders might come to believe that the "upness" particle was somehow attracting the "downness" particle. But they would not be able to expain why a particle of negative charge would not immediately join with the positively charged particle to achieve neutrality.

So they would go about building a standard model to explain the two particles and the nature of their relationship, all the while misunderstanding that there were never two particles at all. They were always one thing.

If the O were to sink below the surface such that only a single point of its apex was spinning on the surface, or if it were to rise above the surface such that it floated on the surface of the water on a single point, the flatlanders would be further confused. They would come to believe that the "two" point particles had somehow combined to form a single something with strangely new properties. But they would never come to understand the true nature of the O.

Now read the 5th posting here and see if it makes any more sense. The only difference between the two scenarios is that in posting #5, we try to place explain something in four dimensions, and in this posting we return to the familiar 3 dimensions.

"Does that help?" Wick asks

Wick, looking perplexed, drums his fingers on the table. He thinks he understands, but he still remains a bit unsure about what this has to do with real life. "Why is it that we're talking about loops of string and hollow rings of metal?"

Wick rolls his eyes and trys to think of another way to explain what's on his mind.

[Wick]

I like it. It's another way that all can be entangled and interconnected, since the 4th touches the 3rd everywhere.

I went there once to turn a right-handed glove into a left-handed one.

Light looks tired here in 3D and takes a rest, but is active in 4D.

So, sound like it could be possible.

Austintorn!! A person. Thanks. Could you please look at the subsequent post (the one after yours) and see if it sheds any further light. This concept is critical to my TOE so I'm going to explain it as many different ways as I can.

Bottom line: The Standard Model of Particle Physics is suspect.

Are there any others out there who can tell me whether these two thought experiments make any sense?

[austintorn@aol.com]

There has always been talk of a 'hypersphere', started just after Einstein's time, maybe, upon which electromagnetic waves traveled or something like that.

Could two seemingly separated 'particles' produced as a pair really still be the same 'particle' in a deeper reality such as the 4th dimension? That would explain why their properties are seen to be correlated.