Relative Quantum Charge Dyanamics

[IDMclean]

 

[math] c = ({B_{ve}r/B_{\overline{v}e}t}) = 299792458 r/t[/math]

[math]B_{ve}=B_{\overline{v}e}[/math]

 

Here's a better example of the Field Particle picture I posted earlier.

 

Here's the idea so far. When you have equal bodies of Magnetic Charge, the magnetic field lines (or something like that) are equally distributed within the system, this system is said to be Internally consistent.

 

When the System has an imbalance, as in the case of mass, the shape that is created is an imperfect sphere, there becomes "free" magnetic field(s) (or something like that), which can catch other "free" magnetic field(s), this creates a sort of "drag", which results in relative velocities. The system is said to be Internally inconsistent and Externally Dependent on Electric Equalibrium.

 

Gravity, though I have a hard time drawing it, is similar, except that each field contributes to the overall attraction/repulsion.

 

Most (if not all) bodies of mass have within them Internally Consistent Magnetic Charge Systems. These are known in the standard model as Gluons. You can think of Glouns like a Cage for extra magnetic charge. I imagine that they create exclusion zones around the extra magnetic charge, due to Pauli Exclusion.

 

More as I come up with this junk.

[IDMclean]

Psuedo-Scalar nature of Binary Mass formation.

It is interesting to note that with the redefinition of of mass as a product of psuedo-scalars comes interesting applications to the various equations which are mass-energy dependent.

 

If I had more familarity with tensor, perhaps I could express my theorm in regards to things such as Gravitiation and perhaps come up with some testable results.

 

It is also interesting to note, that if we give the pseudo-scalar Monopoles properties such as velocity for instance, we get interesting results.

 

As I understand it, if it is a Psuedo-scalar times a Psuedo-Scalar it is a scalar, and if it is a Psuedo-Scalar times a Psuedo-Scalar time a Psuedo-scalar then it is a Psuedo-Scalar once again.

 

Velocity is a scalar, if I am not mistaken.

So, postulating that there is a fundamental absolute distance which can not be less than 1 between interacting particles (or waves for that matter. Pun not intended), we can begin placing limits. Correct? Also with further postulation and some knowns we can play around with this concept.

 

Note: Our monopoles are, I believe treatable as either Particle or wave. If they are treated as wave it is important to note that they would be Longitudinal waves, not Traverse.

 

Hypothesis: Energy, which has been assumed to be exact balance of monopoles, will always be energy if the angle between it's component waves is 90*. That as it veries and becomes mass, the angle of the wave-plains will very within 0* and 360*.

 

If angle [math]\theta = (0^{\circ}, 90^{\circ}, 180^{\circ}, 270^{\circ} or 360^{\circ})[/math], then it is an energy pattern, and will have zero mass (or properly will be the lowest state, with an absolute mass-energy equivialant to 1).

 

If angle [math]0^{\circ}<\theta <360^{\circ}[/math], and [math]\theta\not{=} (0^{\circ}, 90^{\circ}, 180^{\circ}, 270^{\circ} or 360^{\circ})[/math] then the result will be mass.

 

I have been playing around with this for a while but I have no definite math for it yet.

 

Assuming that the bodies will move tangent to one another and that they are chiral, being Fermions, they will move as close as quantumly acceptable, filling lower acceptable orbits first and then will fall into orbit.

 

In line with the Heisenberg uncertainty priniciple, these units of magnetic field are Absolute, and therefore relative to opposing chiral bodies will have a mass index purportionate to the number of obeserving (interacting) chiral bodies.

 

The more you know about their charge, the less you know about their mass-energy. This can be expressed as a ratio, I just am drawing a blank as to how to show that properly. In formal mathematic language.

 

Also it should be noted that their is a decided bias indicated by the handedness of the monopoles and their hypothetical tendencies. I believe this bias can be further explored through the universal Proton-Electron ratio.

 

Special note for HydrogenBond. Hypothetically, under my model the Proton does not have a true +1 charge value, but near to and the Neutron does not have a true zero charge value but near to. This is interesting and worthy of note because water is composed of mostly oxygen and hydrogen, hydrogen being composed of Proton-Electron pairs, in which under my hypothesis would have a significant higher negative charge than traditionally thought, without the Neutron to balance the equation. This bring up an interesting inequity in the nature of water and the role of the hydrogen bond.

[Erasmus00]

Velocity is a scalar, if I am not mistaken.

 

Velocity is a vector, not a scalar.

-Will

[IDMclean]

What's the difference. Also, while your at it, what's the relationship of a Tensor, Scalar, and vector?

[IDMclean]

 

Alright so what I am purposing is non-normal I think. In this picture, all angles add up to [math]270^{\circ}[/math] With time the angles will add up to [math]360^{\circ}[/math]. What I purpose is that the angles can be modified by imbalance of the contributing Lognitudal waves.

 

So the angle between z and y is not always equal to [math]90^{\circ}[/math]. It will deform based on the number of bodies/waves contributing to either particle/wave. I am not sure what this would look like, formally. I am further unsure what this would look like weather the angle would grow wider with a greater magnitude of either wave or weather it would shrink. I am not very good with mathematics as I have said before, I am however rather good at concepts.

 

I am interested to know what people think. This is essential non-euclidian geometry, but for three (or four) dimensional objects.

 

 

This is where the Idea originated.

 

Note: Monopoles, in my hypothesis are Longitudial. I have no real backing for that other than it feels right. Further it would seem logical because mass-energy is Traverse.

[Erasmus00]

What's the difference. Also, while your at it, what's the relationship of a Tensor, Scalar, and vector?

 

Vectors have rank 1 (and are rank 1 tensors). You need as many components to describe a vector as the dimensions of your space (3 for vectors in Euclidean space, 4 for a vector in Minkowski space,etc). Scalars have rank 0, they are just numbers. Energy is a scalar, velocity is a vector.

 

The formal deffinition of tensors has to do with transforming properly under rotations.

-Will

[IDMclean]

How about Psuedo-scalars. Where do they rank in, in all of this?

[Erasmus00]

How about Psuedo-scalars. Where do they rank in, in all of this?

 

Pseudo-scalars, vectors ,etc transform properly under pure rotations but pick up a sign when they are acted upon by reflections.

-Will

[IDMclean]

Ok, so here's something else which I wanted to note.

 

With a point, the dimensions are given as:

[math]1 = d^0[/math]

[math]1_{x} = d^1 [/math]

[math]1_{x,y} = d^2 [/math]

[math]1_{x,y,z} = d^3 [/math]

[math]1_{x,y,z,t} = d^4 [/math]

 

If we take the universe to be inheriently dualistic, then we can reasonably say that the dimensions are bi-directional. Which traditionally would be correct, I do believe.

 

so the value of d can be 2.

 

[math]1 = 2^0[/math] Zero Angle

[math]1_{x} = 2^1 [/math] Zero Angles

[math]1_{x,y} = 2^2 [/math] 1 Angles ([math]\theta_{xy}[/math])

[math]1_{x,y,z} = 2^3 [/math] 3 Angles ([math]\theta_{xy}[/math], [math]\theta_{xz}[/math], [math]\theta_{yz}[/math])

[math]1_{x,y,z,t} = 2^4 [/math] 6 angles ([math]\theta_{xy}[/math], [math]\theta_{xz}[/math], [math]\theta_{xt}[/math], [math]\theta_{yz}[/math], [math]\theta_{yt}[/math], [math]\theta_{zt}[/math])

 

What I see here, is a binary progression. Now, this wouldn't matter except that we have our point dimension. Our bit of information, if you will. In the holographic priniciple the fundamental form of matter must be binary.

 

Limit on information density

 

Entropy, if considered as information (see information entropy), can ultimately be measured in bits or nats. One bit is (ln 2) nats, and 1 nat corresponds to four Planck areas [3]. The total quantity of bits is related to the total degrees of freedom of matter/energy. The bits themselves would encode information about the states which that matter/energy are occupying.

 

In a given volume, there is an upper limit to the density of information about the whereabouts of all the particles which compose matter in that volume, suggesting that matter itself cannot be subdivided infinitely many times; rather there must be an ultimate level of fundamental particles, i.e. were a particle composed of sub-particles, then the degrees of freedom of the particle would be the product of all the degrees of freedom of its sub-particles; were these sub-particles themselves also divided into sub-sub-particles, and so on indefinitely, then the degrees of freedom of the original particle must be infinite, violating the maximal limit of entropy density. The holographic principle thus implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information.

 

The most rigorous realization of the holographic principle is the AdS/CFT correspondence by Juan Maldacena.

 

Source: Holographic Priniciple

 

It is important, further to note, that if we treat the system as having only one force, and limiting energy to being the only form of matter which may have a true zero net charge down to a distance given, most likely determined by Pauli Exclusion, as our monopoles are Fermions, we must then readjust the assumed values for the Neutron, and therefore the charge of the proton. Which would be proper, given the hypothesis of Binary composition of the mass-energy properties.

 

I am unsure of the full implication of this, but I am sure it is worth at least looking into.

[IDMclean]

Alright, one of these days soon I am going to go through everything that I have just thrown up here and actually bring them together, addressing the questions asked in a more coherient form.

 

First things, first. I would like to apologize for my brashness towards those who would challenge my ideas. Without constructive critics, I would be lost and without a clue. I have this theorm, understanding, and perspective from the discussions I've had with people over the years and a little bit from the books I've read, though the questions which challenge have always pushed me to look deeper into my understanding and have always brought out the glaring paradoxes, and fallacies.

 

So Thanks Erasmus, Uncle AI, Arkain101, Tim Lou, Ewright, and Sebbystein for your critisms, suggestions, questions and insights.

 

With that said I am going to hop again. I apologize for the discontinuity of this, but it is a rather far reaching hypothesis.

 

It is indicated, to me, that if we define our fundamental matter as points, that is without spacial dimensions, then a number of things come from that.

 

The first and most important, is the obvious one. Space-time only exists relative to another body. Given that, I am brought to the conclusion, that space-time is not infact continious, so much as it is a bubble around matter, relative to other matter. therefore the quantum vacuum is not infact a thing seperate of matter, but is intimately tied to matter. Like holographic bubbles that surrounds everything.

 

Further given Space-time, being written formally as:

[math] S^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z ^2 - t^2[/math]

and given my definition of mass-energy and the material I have read regarding vacuum, I am brought to the conclusion that we define our local vacuum interms of energy.

 

*the below equation is a psuedo-equation, and subject to adjustment before being finalized, it is placed here both for comprehension purposes and for concideration of group discussion of possible final formulae.*

 

[math] M^2 = \ae_{\Heart}\ae_{\spade} + x_{\Heart}x_{\spade} + y_{\Heart}y_{\spade} + z_{\Heart}z_{\spade} - t_{\Heart}t_{\spade} - E^2[/math]

 

Where M is Matter or Mass-Energy

[math]\ae_{\Heart}[/math] is the number of polar particles of the positive chirality.

[math]\ae_{\spade}[/math] is the number of polar particles of the negative chirality.

The Space-Time coordinants are then of one relative to the other.

E is the energy expectation of the "vacuum". The product of each particle's interaction (interferance) with the other, creating the vacuum state. Mass is contained within E. Like Space is contained within Time.

 

The intent of the equation is to express in mathematical terms the synthesis of my definition of Mass-Energy and Space-time.

 

Each particle in the system is it's own (0, 0, 0) space set, with the time set being what it's relative to. Time is always relative. The values given for the equation would be of one particle to another. if we set the coordinants of our reference frame to be of a given particle of the system, then we would be taking the coordinants of the other particles relative to the zero position of our reference particle. If we likewise switch to another particle, then the coordinace would be realtive to that reference particle. our values then are the result of taking each particle and giving sets of coordinants for each other particle relative to each other. Time is the container (array?) for these sets. I do believe. I need to do a little research regarding Time's placement in this all. I had it in my notes, which like I've said before have been displaced.

 

I am naive regarding vacuum mechanics, admittedly, but the criteria of this is that the mass or free energy contained within the "vacuum" will have certain values depending on this state. Such that in our general vacuum state the speed of light is 299792458, but depending on our medium the speed of light can be greater than or less than that number. This would be in responce to my readings regarding the propagation of light through a medium, like mass or a casimir vacuum.

 

Now really funny things can happen with this all. Like for instance when you get a free propagating polar wave for instance, it has no conventional vacuum state, so it's velocity is hard to define. I expect there would be conditions in which a free propagating polar wave would interact with a lower vacuum state, though I can't say exactly what it would be. To me this once again points at Neutrinos as the prime canidate for free propagating polar waves.

 

This is what I have for now. My mind is very muddled but hopefully it can all get straightened out eventually. I would appreciate feedback, perferablly in the form of constructive critism.

 

Some References:

Surface dependent wave forms

Van Der Waals force

Casimir Effect

Holographic Principle

FTL: Casimir Vacuum

Difference of Relative frames

[IDMclean]

Oh also I would like to note that with our psuedo scalars, we have an interesting development.

 

They are point particles, two points together make a line, which has 1 dimension. Without the two together the body is without dimension.

 

[math]2^0 * 2^0 = 1^1 = (2^0)^2[/math] taken together with:

[math]1^1 * 1^1 = 1^2[/math] two dimensional.

 

Which lends to my assertion/assumeption that alone the monopoles would not define anything which classical physics has any corollary to. It is only in interaction that physics can make any sense of these bodies.

[arkain101]

Hey Kick ol pal.

 

__I havnt been keeping up with this very well but I scanned some of the posts today and combined it with the basic principles I believe I have developed which I mentioned around here before.

 

You mentioned that;

brought to the conclusion, that space-time is not infact continious

 

and,

 

therefore the quantum vacuum is not infact a thing seperate of matter, but is intimately tied to matter.

 

I felt that we have to ask ourselves a few questions aimed at the most basic contemplation of certain, already considered basics. What we do with these questions and the answers to them I do not know but I think they are very important in developing understanding.

 

__We have developed the process and/or description of dimensions to describe the observations we get from study. Time is preposed to be one of these dimensions. But the question I find here is; If time is a dimension in which we pass through, in a sense creating distance from the past, How is it possible that the leading fundamental 'particle/object/photon/wavefronts" are able to sustain their own existence without drawing from some kind of energy source.

If we consider there to be a fabric of the future,now, and past we can imagine all particles or space-time actions to be events that ride along the force or "waterslide" of time. Where time is the ultimate fundamental and contains all information for how the passing of the universe will pan out. Time is the containment of all events, and the events have no choice but to slide through this time slide at specific velocites depending on their 'drag', to imagine a fast moving object (nearing light speed) to become a sticky event in this fundamental time slide.

 

On the contrary,

If we consider the particles/object/events to be the fundamentals, that power their own existence, and time to be the outcome with a value determined by the action of these fundamental 'particles'. Then do we not end up with the passing of events to be unpredictable and unplanned or stored. Meaning time is not a dimension which can be moved through. And futher, ending up with particles that are capable to create or their own energy to be in existence or else possible capable to absorb energy from some unknown in order to develope a passing of events, of time.

 

To simpify this, the questions are.

A)Is all of reality a huge bank of information, the dimension of time that contains ALL that passes through us, vice versa, and us/events being like a pickup on a record player plucking the data along the time dimension.

 

or

 

:) Is all of reality a truly spacial place that is its own fundamental and with this it developes a 'passing of time'.

 

The significance of these questions I think is this;

 

In consideration of question A); The entire universe is NOT 3 dimensional. In fact everything would be considered 1 dimensional. 1 dimension that is stretchy in a sense and can change in energy value.

If we think about everything at its basics. We can reduce everything to a bunch of 'atoms'. The model of these atoms is not important, only the action and reactions that can be measured. Each minimal atom pumps out a pulse of energy and this pulse travels to all observers 1 dimensionally, to a multitude of other atoms. So in effect we can describe everything as being like a fire hose of 1 dimensions of data spraying into all observers. This traps you inside this fire hose. You can not get out of the time. but you can only communicate with this 1 dimensional time slide(fire hose) in some way to act independent of it to some extent. In this idea of 1 dimension, NO ANGLE is of importance. No matter where you look or where these 1 dimensional passings of energy are traveling it is always just the same thing.

 

I was using this thought to describe Pi. It is a constant. So if we look at a planet for example, a sphere. Can we not relate infinite 1 dimensional directions into a number that is constant? such as pi? Does constant relate to infinity? I do not have this very well thought out yet.

 

As for consideration of :shrug:;

We call the space-time place a thing, or a place. It is spacial. But it does not have a place, for it IS the place. It is 3 dimensional in observation. And in this consideration all events MUST be made of fundamental things that need some kind of outside of the box energy in order to BE.

 

One last note of what all this means,

 

It should describe whether ALLLL these things we find in nature -like forces, and electrons, and photons, and protons, and on and on and on- are the substance that makes up this reality fundamental and self creating or only the observations of GHOST like entities (not REALLY THERE)that are results/products from the 1 dimensional time flow. Alike the holographic theorim.

 

I feel like I over complicated all of this, but I suppose it is just so simple that you cant help but complicate it when you trying describe it. but I know it is profound.

 

Should not passing of time Be a force, or need a force, and should not particles considered fundamental need an energy and force to exist, to MAKE time.

[IDMclean]

Note on that front. Energy and Force require the dimensions of distance and time. My angle is that mass likewise requires the dimensions of distance and time. That Monopoles do not require these dimensions to be defined, as would be evident due to the failure to isolate monopoles, or to obsereve isolated monopoles.

 

My spin (forgive the pun, please) on it is that monopoles compose all that we can observe. That they are the fundemental component that makes up reality. That space-time is not seperate from them, but rather defined by and dependent on their configuration, their relative position to other fermionic longitudial wave forms. Scalars, as I understand it do not have innate direction. Speed is like velocity, except speed is a scalar and is without direction. Velocity implies a direction and a magnitude. I maybe mistaken but still.

 

I am saying reality as we know it is made up of a bunch of little points which have magnitude, but no innate direction. Or something like that. the reason why the afforemention 90 degree angles were restricted to energy like states is that at those junctures the two planes overlap and the resulting wave form is destructively interfering. in the case of light, when this happens the two wave forms destructively infer completely and it results in a phase shift.

 

In the case of Imbalance waveform with corresponding [math]90^{\circ}[/math] rotation(?) where there is 100% overlap, the phase shift will result in a monopole (or more) being released from binding from the other polars in the system.

 

I suspect this could be modelled with a number of processes, given proper implementation.

 

Just a few possibilities:

Radio-active decay (suspect spontanious phase transition, resulting in systematic state break down)

Spontanious Gamma ray splitting, in Electron-Posititron pair production

Fusion-Fission

Superconductors (not sure about this one, but it feels right of what I understand regarding them)

 

Essentially in my theorm a sphere results in a balanced state, Energy.

An elliposoid (or other more irregular volume) results in an imbalanced state, Mass.

 

This is all inter-related to one another, and is why this hypothesis is so far reaching. It extends into all realms of matter, which happens to by scope of this hypothesis be the whole of physics.

 

Time is the container of coordinants. Energy is the container of Matter. Matter defines the coordinants. Energy contains space-time, or rather defines space-time proper. Matter contains space-time, or rather defines space-time relative. Matter is fundamentally longitudial, Magnetic (perhaps not in the classically defined way but it's the most apt word I can think of), Binary, and self-propagating.

[IDMclean]

This doesn't MEAN anything. You have defined a bunch of stuff, but given no method for finding [math]q_B, q_E, n_x,n,[/math] etc. Also, classical e/m shows us that electric and magnetic properties are intimately related. What justification do you have for seperating them?

-Will

 

Sorry, Will. I really don't have a method for counting the number of bits in a volume of mass-energy. If I did, I would have exposed my secret long ago. I lack the capabilities to examine an atom, emperically. I do not have a neutrino detector, nor do I have an atom collieder or a MRI. I lack utter the capabilities to test my hypothesis/theorm.

 

Now, have I shown why it is that Electric and Magnetic are seperate, though inter-related properties? Have I given probable cause for the seperation, if not how so?

[IDMclean]

Alright. So I read over this thread, front to back and I realize how arrogant and completely muddled I am. I apologize for the fiasco that is this thread and am striving towards getting this thing more orderly. I am almost ready to start my second draft.

 

I hope I haven't scared off everyone.

[IDMclean]

Ok, so I am going to try and put into plain english my basics. Things which you people need to know to understand what I am getting at here.

 

First things first. The driving questions.

 

What is Mass?

What is Energy?

What is Matter?

What is Charge?

What is Force?

What is their relationship to one another?

 

The basic assumptions:

 

Mass is derived from energy.

 

The gram is then, not a fundamental unit but instead defined in terms of something else.

 

Energy is derived from Absolute Charge distance over opposed Absolute Charge time.

 

c assumes the value of absolute charge and it's anti to be exactly equal and thereby cancel-able.

 

All forces are derived from one force. (unified force)

 

No body has an absolute charge of zero. All matter has absolute charge.

 

Classical charge is relative charge, or summed charge, and therefore not absolute.

 

Charge is quantized, though this quanta is as of yet unknown.

 

All things are quantized. At the fundamental limit, all things reduce to a minimum of 1. It is likely that there is a threshold limit also, by which no value can grow larger than, without shifting outside of our observable limits.

 

These are some of the more basic, though not truly fundamental ideas that have driven paradigm design. These assumptions brought about and were brought about by some other key ideas from systematic study of various phenomena through out my references.

 

It is by virtue of the assertion that if all forces reduce to one force, then all phenomena must then derive from the same substance. Logical choice to me was the one we have best defined. Electro-magnetic in origin, and characteristic of both wave and particle properties.

 

The photon, being thought of as a zero mass body of matter was a prime candidate for my fundamental, but it had a few issues with it. The Chief one being the question of it's divisibility. Most are not concerned with it, the general consensus is that a photon's Electric and Magnetic fields can not be separated and could not propagate alone. Something about field regeneration.

 

However I couldn't ignore the intimate relationship that the photon shared with mass and space-time. So I considered other phenomena which might give some insight into my investigations.

 

That's when I hit upon Monopoles. The issue of observing free monopoles has been so far, that in division of a magnet dipole, you end up with a magnet dipole. My considerations were many. Of which was the question: "What happens if you split a photon?" I had something of an answer.

 

I would bet the result of splitting a photon, neglecting the details on how that would happen for now, would be a monopole. because what would result would undoubtedly be irreducible. Which then hit on another dilemma. How do observe that which is not mass or energy? The answer was in simple terms, you don't without tainting the purity of the body being observed. Heisenberg Uncertainty and Dependent Observation.

 

So it seemed evident to me, from careful deductions, that monopoles would ultimately have to make up Matter and Energy.

 

I'll sleep on this and maybe add more in the morning.

[IDMclean]

Alright, I've reviewed a few times and I understand where the lack of focus and the conceptual issues arise from.

 

I need to ask that my previous terminology be forgotten for now. It's back to basics.

 

Alright. Albert Einstein released a paper on the nature of energy, mass, space and time. In it he showed a geometric view of the universe, and of gravity. He related how one can manipulate time by simply manipulating distanced traveled. That time and space are one in the same. He also related energy to mass, and a relationship of mass-energy to space-time. What I purpose, and what Einstein apparently didn't see, is that space-time and Mass-energy are all of the same fundamental blox. Matter.

 

The concepts of Mass and energy are neglected in objective analysis of physics. They are terms which are used frequently, without respect to the fact that they are unexamined. The best answer you can get when asking what they are is that they are substance. That they are matter. When you ask what is matter, you get definite "we don't know.", after long hours and much pestering of those who are so sure of what they already know.

 

This for a scientist, is admit of defeat. Doubly so for an engineer.

 

So, please heed what I have to say, and bare with it. Accept it, sample it, test it, then reject it.

 

I have asked before, here and else where. What are boundaries, and how are they defined? When I bounce a ball, what keeps it from going through the ground? When I attempt to leave the atmosphere what keeps me from doing so? What holds me here?

 

Both of these are boundaries, and are things which are not looked at objectively in physics. Mostly traditional thoughts reign supreame in the discussion of such things.

 

Now Einstein shook the traditions to the core when he proposed non-Euclidean geometrics and curved space-time. Even to date, many people who say they get it obviously don't. His ideas even now are widely contested.

 

So I ask, what defines the boundaries of space-time? Are the boundaries of space-time different from the boundaries of mass-energy and matter? My only possible answer, is very simply "No, the boundaries are not different."

 

My reasoning is actually fairly simple. Einstein proposed what is called "The Equivalence Principle". If there are boundaries that hold me to the surface of a solid, and boundaries that keep me from falling through that same surface, and they both describe the same phenomena, except for direction, then it would seem that they are the same.

 

Here's what I think Einstein missed. He allowed boundaries to exist, but he failed, as many scientist do, to explain what the boundaries are made up of. Now there are many explanations but few which fit the criteria of science. So I would have to guess that the boundaries of the system, of the visible universe would have to be none other than matter, or substance. This would be rather consistent I think with a number of concepts. The Dirac sea comes to mind in addition to space-time continuum.

 

Furthermore, it would seem intuitively wrong that these things should all be made up of different fundamental forms with different attributes, if they all interact. If they are all matter, then they all have the same common elemental properties.

 

Here's the thing and this is the brain buster for me. Mass-energy, Space-time, Charge-Spin, the various flavors, the four forces and all of that would then be all based on one axiomatic object. Matter. They are all properties of this axiom.

 

It becomes relevant then to talk about what is the fundamental, the smallest constituent of aggregate matter? Atoms are not it. Photons are dual natured and virtual. Leptons would be a good place to look, it would seem. However, quarks make this interesting. If all matter is homogeneous, then would it not follow that the matter that makes up an electron would be the same matter that makes up a proton?

 

I would think so. In fact, I would think that the splitting of the atom and the decay of the neutron, as well as many other well documented phenomena would indicate this to be true. Most of all, the idea of universal energy exchange, in quantized packets called photons.

 

So, let's now shift a bit. We'll talk a little bit about geometry, computer science, and graphic arts. In geometry, we talk about these interesting constructs called points, lines, and angles. In graphic arts, we would be more concerned with vertices, lines, polygons, angles, and key frames. In computer science, we wouldn't be so concerned with those, as we would be with arrays, vectors, matrices, sets, and strings.

 

This is all relevant to the subject of the thread because these concepts are geometric constructs. We might call this boundary analysis or topology. In my understanding, what defines a polygon is not the lines making up the polygon, but the points that make up the line.

 

Taken into the context of Mass-energy, Charge-spin, and Space-time, this concept would be the question. What is the line and what is the point? My answer would be simple. Matter is the point; mass-energy, would be the line and space-time would be the boundary the line resides in.

 

Space-time and Mass-energy are really one in the same, they are both properties of matter interactions, that is point-to-point interactions.

 

Obviously, there are very certain rules to it all, that grow more complex as you examine the data and generate information about the interactions. However, the elements remain the same. The only thing that differs in any given observation is the properties of the matter-matter interactions.

 

It is on this that I base my theory.

 

Next: Neutrinos, Massless?

 

Related Threads:

DoctorDick's A simple geometric proof with profound consequences