26th December 2011 - 10:53 AM
To start new ToE from scratch, I would define absolute as two, real things:
1. Single quant of 3d space - like a road with stick every 100m
2. Single quant of distance, like a wire between each stick
These two absolutes are responsible for matter and wave propagation.
Consider single quant of space-distance.
We can have only one elementary particle here, because to make it stable and working system, it needs to be configured of several energies.
Single photon would not have mass, but would fill the distance thing while the space allows it to travel.
Single elementary particle with mass would fill the space while distance would allow to bind with other particles with mass, making stable atoms, which are sets of both elementary particles (mass and massless), so they can be stable.
From that it's also possible to redefine energy equalivence of single space-distance quant for stable particles like mass and photon.
Single quant of space-distance maximum possible energy is same if there is photon or mass or graviton, it's just different matter of energy configured in different way.
I can't say that energy of single quant is alwys the same or it can have only two energy levels.
As photons can't move faster, it's higher energy is converted to "distance", as very high energy massive particles become "mass", and sometimes it's heavier some times lighter.
27th December 2011 - 12:40 AM
Therefore we are only higher states of energy of what surrounds us.
27th December 2011 - 12:41 AM
QUOTE (Bryslon+Dec 27 2011, 12:40 AM)
Therefor we are only higher states of energy of what surrounds us.
27th December 2011 - 01:19 AM
IMHO it's better than string theory fundamental, that ALL is built of strings.
Current theories are deficient, they are all done within single absolute, filled with virtual particles and surrounded with dark matter, in space time, which is just mathematical abstraction, as time is just a consequece of change.
27th December 2011 - 01:25 AM
Hell. all this time I thought a "fundament" was the same thing as an "αss".
27th December 2011 - 12:54 PM
This is best approach because the fundamental principle talks about things which are real:
I can sense matter, I can see light, therefore mass and wave is something real.
This doesnt exclude space-time, but implies absolute time-mass and replace string theory with concept of absolute wave.
Space-time is not a real thing just like information itself.
Its something abstract and there needs to be clear line in between.
Many say that everyone has its own angle, thats also true, but each angle always relates to one real and another unreal thing, like space-time.
Space-ether is not a mathematical model. It is an principle which says that we are surrounded with medium made of two different energies, which each being part of elementary particles.
27th December 2011 - 04:27 PM
It's also the best explanation why light without mass behaves like both wave and particle.
It's becsuse of medium in which it propagates, which has both particle and wave nature.
And that's why I say that in single Planck length there can be only either light or massive particle.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here