Relative Quantum Charge Dyanamics

[IDMclean]

I know I promised Neutrinos, however I realize that I have to cover some more basic portions.

 

Matter must have null mass-energy. When considered alone, a single body of matter can not have any meaningful properties like mass-energy or space-time.

 

These properties only become meaning when they diverge from uncertain to certain. That is when we add more bodies of matter to the considered system. alone a point is nothing. However you place them in relation to one another, and they gain properties from their positional relationships alone.

 

Take for instance the old Geometric expression. [math]d^2 = \sqrt(\Delta x^2+\Delta y^2)[/math]. Energy is intimately tied to this expression. [Latex] E = mc^2[/math] can be expressed as [math] \frac{Energy}{mass}=\frac{distance^2}{time^2}[/math].

 

If we consider the elementary matter that makes up the mass, it becomes apparent that we are talking about aggregate matter seperated by what we call distance. Due to our universe's dynamic nature, they are also seperated by what we generally refer to as time.

 

When we talk about energy we are talking about potential change for geometric shape, and from moment to moment there are very exact legal transformations that can be made to a shape. I don't know how to express it but Mass-Energy to me seems to be related to the maximum potential legal states that an aggregate body of matter can take from moment to moment.

 

One of the interesting facets of this, is that the universe is self-contained by this. As we no longer bound matter by space but rather bound space by matter.

 

I like to conceptualize a graph, like so.

 

Then ask myself, if I limit the positions that a point can occupy to interger values, what is space? Space is what is not possible locations on the grid.

 

So from our points we find lines, from 1D lines we find 2D shapes, from 2D shapes we find 3D shapes. We add in transformations, and we end up with 4D shapes, as they now change shape from frame to frame, due to transformations.

 

That is to say that Matter is zero-dimensional. [math]2^0 = 1[/math]. From this zero dimensional, point fundamental we can find things like distance. From distance, we find time. From that many other things become findable. The puzzling thing is when you start considering these bodies of aggregate matter from far out (relative) distances, and in interactions between such bodies seperated by such distances.

 

There are many centers of matter and they are all off setting one another, in constant transformation. Between the seperate bodies of matter, say a planet and a sun, you may treat (more or less) each body as if it were a point.

 

Treat it as an element in an matrice. This I think is where gravity and space-time bend comes about, is in the non-pointlike treatment of aggeragate matter, because it arises that there is a difference of distances between seperate bodies of matter.

 

1 unit of distance between two points of matter may not be a common 1 unit of distance between one of the former points and another. They may still be one unit of distance apart, but have "greater" space between them, or lesser even.

 

These seperate bodies of matter I would refer to as seperate frames of reference.

 

This model leads to many such interesting perspectives. For instance when combined with a certain paper regarding the speed of light through a casimir vacuum, one finds that it would seem possible, even reasonable that propagation (signal speed) is independent of distance between two or more bodies of matter. That one finds bell's inequity just from that.

 

Faster-than-c signals, special relativity, and causality

[IDMclean]

Predicted properties of fundamental matter.

 

Fermion, Lepton (Obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics, and Pauli Exclusion as a result)

Massless (mass-variant, based on aggregate matter field or the "medium")

Pseudo-scalar (Zero Dimensional alone. 1+ dimensional in aggregate)

Binary (Positive, and Negative)

 

Now when I say massless, I don't mean you can't measure mass in relation to the fundamentals, but that to do so is to invite mostly meaningless data. It should make sense, when placed into the context that mass is a property of matter, and not the otherway around. It is only in talking about matter in relation to other matter does the property of mass become meaningful. In relation to itself, matter is without the property of mass.

 

This is what I meant by "Mass at this scale (below planck's length) has little to no meaning."

[IDMclean]

So from this I want you, the reader to contemplate something.

 

Law of the Limitation of Empirical Measurements:
Any measurement involves two or more fundamental elements.
No measurement will ever result in a singular fundamental element.
No measurement can measure a true fundamental.

 

Therefore we can conclude from this that there does not exist a truely fundamental empirical measurement.