Dear Terry Bollinger,

Thanks very much for taking the time to read and vote on my essay, and to provide useful feedback; I really appreciate it. I also greatly appreciate your voting pledge, and will strive to implement it myself more consistently.

Yes, the contest's question drew me in so I used it as an opportunity to explore some new ideas, and to understand issues surrounding...

view entire post

Dear Terry Bollinger,

Thanks very much for taking the time to read and vote on my essay, and to provide useful feedback; I really appreciate it. I also greatly appreciate your voting pledge, and will strive to implement it myself more consistently.

Yes, the contest's question drew me in so I used it as an opportunity to explore some new ideas, and to understand issues surrounding quantum gravity from a different perspective. Writing the essay has been very beneficial for me, and I'm really glad to hear that you enjoyed it and think it useful for the community.

In regards to the first two critical comments.... aaah yeah, these are fair---the stance I adopted in the essay was, indeed, to view the question from the perspective of mainstream physics, and my aim was to distil and make palpable the conditions that are being assumed as consensus in high-energy physics. So, it is rather status quo in that respect.

However, I did not mean to sound as though I actually advocate all these conditions myself (especially without further refinement and provision of their precise definitions, as required particularly for the conditions of naturalness, unification, and no-weirdness). I certainly do not want to side with mainstream high-energy physics just because it is mainstream. Nor am I a supporter of string theory, so I'm (very! haha) sorry if the essay comes across like that. I considered string theory because it is the only approach to more-fundamental physics (that I know of) that claims to be a ``final theory'' (or, rather, final framework).

Instead, I am a philosopher, and this is just the first step of a bigger project: what I really want to do, but could not here given the time and length constraints of the essay, is to now go on and more thoroughly examine each of these conditions. I want to better understand what they each mean, what their motivations are, and especially what their implications are, particularly when combined with other theoretical desiderata. I agree completely with what you say in your second comment, and believe that progress can be made by re-examining, and perhaps giving up some of the implicit, deeply-held assumptions that turn out to be not well-founded or useful. So, I'm very glad you pointed this out, and I regret that I wasn't able to do more justice to this fact in the essay itself.

In regards to your last point, yes, I see what you mean and also agree. Given the incredible success of the standard model, together with all the difficulties in trying to fit gravity into this framework, I agree that this seems unlikely to be the right way of going about it. Both the standard model and GR might emerge from a more-fundamental theory, without having to do so in the same way (this is one reason why I'd like to more deeply question the requirement of unification). In fact, there are compelling reasons for not treating gravity as a force at all, as Maudlin says (in On the Unification of Physics), ``Objects do not couple to the gravitational field, they merely exist in space-time.''

Also worth noting that most approaches to quantum gravity (apart from string theory) don't seek to fit gravity into the framework of QFT.

Thanks again, and also for your handy summary of the conditions! Even I'm finding it useful. I particularly like the alternative titles for 6 and 7, because they're a bit more evocative.

Just a couple of notes... firstly, I realised this from other comments, as well, that there are different uses of uniqueness: the stronger one is as you state it, but it may be too strong a constraint to be realistically implemented, so I only meant to refer to the weaker notion of a theory being unique, which is just that there be only one fundamental theory we have... not that we have to rule out the possibility of there being any other theories that could do the job (in other words, I don't know how to solve the problem of underdetermination!)

And secondly, I don't know about probabilistic in requirement 4. I just meant not reliant upon approximations. But it is interesting to ask now whether being non-proababilistic is also a requirement...! It seems like it could well be, actually.

Best,

Karen

view post as summary

Karen,

Thank you for your most gracious and informative response! I would have added this reply earlier, but I don’t seem to get any kind of notification from FQXi when someone replies on anything except my own essay thread. I had to search manually for my own name, essay by essay to find responses. Argh! I must be missing something?

You are very generous about my critique points,...

view entire post

Karen,

Thank you for your most gracious and informative response! I would have added this reply earlier, but I don’t seem to get any kind of notification from FQXi when someone replies on anything except my own essay thread. I had to search manually for my own name, essay by essay to find responses. Argh! I must be missing something?

You are very generous about my critique points, and I deeply appreciate that you used them as an opportunity to make positive, constructive suggestions. That to me is the heart of good science! I note that some of my favorite comments from one fellow essayists were the ones in which he did his best to point out holes in my argument. Delightful! The points were valid and made me both think carefully and explain myself better.

I’m glad you liked my two title suggestions, and that they were constructive.

Regarding your number 4 non-perturbative criterion, I must confess that was the only one I wasn’t quite sure of. Why? Well, there seems to be a deep “lumpiness” to both physics and our universe in general that lurks behind such powerful mathematical concepts as renormalization. Renormalization is not really as exotic or even as mathematical is it is in, say, Feynman’s QED theory. What it really amounts to is an assertion that our universe is, at many levels, “lumpy enough” that many objects (and processes) within it can be approximated when viewed from a distance. That “distance” may be real space or some other more abstract space, but the bottom line is that this sort of approximation option is a deep component of whatever is going on. I say that in part because we are ourselves as discrete, independently mobile entities are very much part of this lumpiness, as are the large, complex molecules that make up our bodies… as are the atoms that enable molecules… as are the nucleons that enable atoms… and as are the fundamental fermions that make up nucleons.

This approximation-at-a-distance even shows up in everyday life and cognition. For example, let’s say you need an AA battery. What do you think first? Probably you think “I need to go to the room where I keep my batteries.” But your navigation to that room begins as a room to room navigation. You don’t worry yet about exactly where in that room the batteries are, because that has no effect on how you navigate to the room. In short, you will approximate the location of the battery until you navigate closer to it.

The point is that the room is itself lumpy in a way that enables you to do this, but the process itself is clearly approximate. You could in principle super-optimize your walking path so that it minimizes your total effort to get to the battery, but such a super-optimization would be extremely costly in terms of the thinking and calculations needed, and yet would provide very little benefit. So, when the cost-benefit ratio grows too high, we approximate rather than super-optimize, because the lumpy structure of our universe makes such approximations much more cost-beneficial overall.

What happens after your reach the room? You change scale!

That is, you invoke a new model that tells you how to navigate the draws or containers in which you keep the AA batteries. This scale is physically smaller, and again is approximate, enabling tolerance for example of highly variable locations of the batteries within a drawer or container.

This works for the same reason that in Feynman’s QED is incredibly accurate and efficient for modeling an electron probabilistically. The electron-at-a-distance can be safely and very efficiently modeled as a point particle with a well-defined charge, even though that is not really correct. That is the room-to-room level. As you get closer to the electron, that model must be replace by a far more complex one that involves rapid creation and annihilation of charged virtual particle pairs that “blur” the charge of the electrons in strange and peculiar ways. That is the closer, smaller, dig-around-in-the-drawers-for-a-battery level of approximation. In both cases, the overall “lumpiness” of our universe makes these special forms of approximation both very accurate and computationally efficient.

At some deeper level, one could further postulate that this may be more than just a way to model reality. It is at least possible (I personally think it probable) that this is also how the universe actually works, even if we don’t quite understand how. I say that because it is always a bit dangerous to assume that just because we like to model space as a given and particles as points within it, those are in the end just models, ones that actually violate quantum mechanics in the sense of postulating points that cannot exist in real space due the quantum energy cost involved. A real point particle would require infinite energy to isolate, so a model that invokes such particles to estimate reality really should be viewed with a bit of caution as a “final” model.

So my bottom line: While formal formula (criterion 4) are great, our universe seems weirdly wired for at least some forms of approximation. I find that very counterintuitive, extremely fascinating, and likely important in some way that we flatly do not yet understand.

----------

Enough, I’m droning on again! Thanks again for your response, and I really like what you are doing. Your broader goals are great — please keep at them!

Cheers,

Terry

view post as summary

Karen,

My essay leads off with a discussion of causality, in which I refer to

1. J.B. Hartle, S.W. Hawking and T. Hertog, “The Classical Universes of the No-Boundary Quantum State” hep-th/0803.1663v1 March 2008. which formulates a causal particle (lacking QC/ED) and

2. N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Space/Time Non-Commutivity and Causality”,...

view entire post

Karen,

My essay leads off with a discussion of causality, in which I refer to

1. J.B. Hartle, S.W. Hawking and T. Hertog, “The Classical Universes of the No-Boundary Quantum State” hep-th/0803.1663v1 March 2008. which formulates a causal particle (lacking QC/ED) and

2. N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Space/Time Non-Commutivity and Causality”, hep-th/0005015v3, May 2000. which sets the criteria (which btw Std Model does not meet, thus the meekly stated criterion).

So yes, I very much meant a particle theory mathematically consistent with GR. Not good news for SU(3)xU(2)xU(1), since the consistency criteria makes similar stipulations on the form of the particle |H> (representation algebra).

The criteria for consistency stems from 3. G. Takeuti, Proof Theory, Dover Publications, 1975. which requires that a particle be finite, and of course that there be no infinities in the theory. The reason that we renormalize is that the point-like approximation induces an infinity/infinity (that cannot be resolved by L'Hopitals theorem), which is removed by imposing a 'fudge factor' -actually several of them. { Of course I didn't call it that to Prof Gell-Mann when he came to OSU to pitch the SSC! ;}

String theory meets the finitary criteria, has a consistent mass formulation, but can't find QC/ED without a stiffness-induced quantum state MAP. {Just had to work the word map in there ;} There are several examples of finitary representation geometries being studied... I won't trouble to list more.

As far as replicating QC/ED (QFT) and GR, the criteria place a strict caveat on that as well, so don't expect your dad's GR to emerge. GR is the least affected since all that one needs is to correctly interpret the temporal curvature term as an imaginary quantity. The particle theory folks have to convert to a cross product of two wreath products as their representation algebra, to be sure they don't like it. Although it is a remarkably simple and beautiful algebra... which can and has been taught to HS students.

So insofar as you put it "the older theories should be derivable from the new one, under some relevant conditions", yes. But sadly for nearly everyone, NOT the reverse. Here I recommend you also read Sabine Hossenfelder's essay.

I discuss and present for consideration a foundational formula at the end of my essay, so perhaps read it from the end backward. I approached the topic as sort of a "deep dive" to reach most fundamental insight toward the end, with a fairly rapid ascent to address some old questions that are very much within bounds of the contest topic.

The "relevant conditions" mostly have to do with the space-time average SCALE. {to derive GR eqn, set time to "now +/- 100 years" the foundational QC/ED state algebra averages out, as is well-known ;}

Wayne

Invite me out for a seminar? I have an hour or two of abstract formal discussion on all mathematically related topics.

view post as summary

Dear Cristi,

Thank you!

Yes, for my own research on quantum gravity (which I don't necessarily interpret as a candidate final theory, though) I am very interested in understanding not just the form of the new theory (to what extent, and how, it retains features of GR and QFT), but what aspects of GR and QFT are to be ``recovered'' from it in the relevant domains, and how. So I am...

view entire post

Dear Cristi,

Thank you!

Yes, for my own research on quantum gravity (which I don't necessarily interpret as a candidate final theory, though) I am very interested in understanding not just the form of the new theory (to what extent, and how, it retains features of GR and QFT), but what aspects of GR and QFT are to be ``recovered'' from it in the relevant domains, and how. So I am happy to hear your thoughts on this.

It seems like most of your comments (except perhaps the last two) indicate how our current theories/frameworks, of QM, QFT and GR could each separately be replaced in the domains where they each currently apply. I gather then, that a more fundamental theory (in the sense of being one that describes the Planck scale), will then "recover" (reduce to) each of these (new) theories in the relevant domains (i.e., have them as approximations under the appropriate conditions). So I understand your suggestion as being that the key to finding a more fundamental theory is to first find the "true" formulations of our current theories? If so, I think it's really a groundbreaking approach. I had not considered going about it this way. It would seem to turn everything around and go in from the opposite direction, since at the moment, we tend to imagine that QG will reveal what aspects of current theories are wrong... and if my interpretation of your approach is correct, then you're saying that in order to discover QG, then its necessary to first correct what is wrong with current theories?

I have a couple of suggestions of further literature you may be interested in, as well. Firstly, in regards to your point QFT1, have you read the papers by Fraser and Wallace where they debate the suitability of axiomatic QFT versus conventional QFT for foundational/philosophical work? The debate raises many very interesting questions, I think, including whether or not the mathematical difficulties in conventional QFT are due to the neglect of higher-energy physics, and thus are, in a way, not only unavoidable features, but also "informative" ones.

Secondly, in regards to GR3/GR4, there is some work on this: papers by Callender & Huggett, Mattingly, and Wuthrich, that considers the necessity of quantising spacetime, with the upshot that, indeed, it is not necessary for a theory of QG. So you may be interested in reading these (particularly the Wuthrich paper, which I believe is available on his website or philsci archive).

Thanks again,

Karen

view post as summary

Dear Karen,

Thank you very much for the answers and comments, and for the references, which I didn't know and I think are relevant.

You said "So I understand your suggestion as being that the key to finding a more fundamental theory is to first find the "true" formulations of our current theories?"

Yes. I think we should extract the true lessons and to rethink the assumptions...

view entire post

Dear Karen,

Thank you very much for the answers and comments, and for the references, which I didn't know and I think are relevant.

You said "So I understand your suggestion as being that the key to finding a more fundamental theory is to first find the "true" formulations of our current theories?"

Yes. I think we should extract the true lessons and to rethink the assumptions we made. We understood physics in a certain historical path, and we used what we knew at that time to formulate and develop it. This may introduce problems and limitations. So if we extract the essence of each principle, we can generalize it. Then we can intersect the generalizations of different principles, e.g. distilled from GR and QM, and find the class of theories where they both apply. This may lead to an exhaustive search, but it is possible that once we get them better many options will be eliminated. For example, no-go theorems like Bell's eliminate a large class of models.

Another way to reduce the possibilities is to look for rigid models, which don't have replaceable parts. For example Clifford algebras are associated to the metric, and there's a Clifford algebra which includes a typical generation of leptons and quarks, with their exact symmetries. Because it is a simple algebra, it is difficult to change it. Without such a structure (although maybe not this one) there's too much freedom to choose the symmetry groups and the representations, hence the matter fields.

To accomplish this generalization, a very general framework may help. I think the most natural and general common framework for all theories in physics is a sheaf theoretic formulation. The sheaf framework applies to relativistic and nonrelativistic, continuous and discrete, classical and quantum, and in fact can go much beyond these options allowing us to use locales and topoi. All theories in physics can be cast in this framework and allow generalization, and generic proofs similar to those in category theory, which may allow discussions at a metaphysical and metatheoretical level without being committed to a particular model. At the same time, sheaves emphasize the need to take into account global and topological properties of the solutions, which I think is essential for the problems of quantum mechanics (one major interest I have in exploring the possibility of a single world no collapse quantum mechanics, the obstruction being that quantum measurements seem to impose inconsistent constraints on the solutions of the Schrödinger equation. Sheaves provide powerful tools to study the obstructions to extending the local solutions to global ones). I started developing this 10 years ago, and I wrote something. I didn't submit it to a journal because I wanted to develop it more, but then I moved to other things. One reason is that I think sheaf theory is too general and allows too many options for one person to explore, so I decided to try more direct ways while keeping the framework as a tool for thinking about those.

You said "it would seem to turn everything around and go in from the opposite direction". Yes, for example it is thought that QG will resolve the singularities, but the opposite is possible too, my (purely GR) treatment of singularities gave automatically several types of dimensional reduction proposed in other approaches in a rather ad-hoc way with the purpose to make quantum gravity renormalizable. So it was as you said, going in the opposite direction. But I am not satisfied enough with this, because I think it doesn't say what's the real theory behind. Every time there was real progress in fundamental physics, it was because of better understanding, better mathematics was revealed, a more rigid one, unifying different aspects.

I think much can be learned from researching the various mathematical structures involved. I think topology is essential (e.g. Wheeler's geometrodynamics, in particular "charge without charge", and even if spacetime is topologically trivial topology is relevant in many other ways). (topology may lead to the impression that we focus on the continuum and ignore the option that spacetime is discrete, but in fact the topology of manifolds was understood starting from Euler's polyhedral formula, and the simplicial complex approach to manifolds is still essential in the study of their topology.) The differential structure also may be important, see the work of Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga. The causal (or conformal) structure is also essential, in particular the Standard Model without the Higgs has conformal symmetry. Topology revealed connections between topological properties and curvature, I think this is a place to understand how matter unifies with gravity to see what's beyond the Einstein equation.

Thanks again for the discussion, and for the references. I also looked into your book's summary, I think it is great!

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica, Indra's net

view post as summary

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your comments. There is a lot in what you have said, and I can't fully respond to all of it, so I'll just make a few comments.

On the idea of potentially "compartmentalising" the theory into sections that deal with particular phenomena at different scales, in order to simplify its practical implementation. This is complicated, firstly, if we have a unified...

view entire post

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your comments. There is a lot in what you have said, and I can't fully respond to all of it, so I'll just make a few comments.

On the idea of potentially "compartmentalising" the theory into sections that deal with particular phenomena at different scales, in order to simplify its practical implementation. This is complicated, firstly, if we have a unified theory, where all interactions are described in the same way at the fundamental level. Secondly, even in non-unified theories, effective field theory has revealed that identifying the interactions in the fundamental theory that are going to make a difference at lower energy scales is often a non-trivial task, without using techniques like the renormalisation group flow. Additionally, symmetry breaking, for instance, can also profoundly alter the less-fundamental description of a system, compared to the fundamental one, in a way that may not obvious from looking only at the fundamental theory.

On the idea of a fundamental theory needing to explain how all the less-fundamental entities arise, or how to "construct the structures present at all other levels". This is a deep question that is of great interest to me, and I regret that I was not able to properly address the issues of emergence and reduction in my essay. I hope you will continue to research it, because it is certainly an area worthy of further study.

I am a bit confused, however, by your claims here,

This is very odd, since there is now (and has been for some time) adequate information in both observational information and also within the mathematical constructions of current theories to allow these things to be extrapolated and understood. It appears that this area has been purposely avoided.

Maybe you would like to elaborate more, especially about these "petty reasons" you cite, please? But, from my understanding, yes, of course much is known about GR and our QFTs, but there is also much that is not known, and still areas of active research. In some areas we are still trying to develop the right techniques, and in others, we may not have adequate computing power. Take, for instance, the low-energy limit of QCD, which is extremely difficult to solve.

Best,

Karen

view post as summary

Dear Karen,

In order to give you an idea of what can be extrapolated from current observational data and theories, I guess it would be best to start at the lowest most fundamental level of physical substance structuring and build up from there. If you look at E=MC^2 where E=energy, M=mass, and C=the speed of light, most who have much familiarity with it would understand that matter...

view entire post

Dear Karen,

In order to give you an idea of what can be extrapolated from current observational data and theories, I guess it would be best to start at the lowest most fundamental level of physical substance structuring and build up from there. If you look at E=MC^2 where E=energy, M=mass, and C=the speed of light, most who have much familiarity with it would understand that matter particles can be changed into energy photons and vice versa and, of course, it goes much deeper. Energy is not only expressed in the form of energy photons, but is expressed in the form of simple kinetic angular and linear motions, etc. Observational data shows that all of these forms of energy can be converted into each other. If each of them can be converted into any of the others, then each one must contain within it all of the basic substance that is contained within all of the others. This would indicate that one of them would likely be the most basic or fundamental form of this substance.

It is obvious that the simplest of these structures is the simple linear motion. It only possesses three internal information structures, which are its current position in space, its current direction of travel in space, and the amount of motion that it contains, which I call its motion amplitude. As an example, if two motions leave points on a line simultaneously and travel straight at ninety degrees to that line to another line that is parallel to the first line and one of them possesses twice the amount of motion amplitude that is contained in the other one, it will reach the other line when the other motion reaches the halfway point. You can, of course, choose a specific motion amplitude as a standard motion as man has done by breaking down the cyclical motion of the earth’s rotation on its axis, etc. to make it easier to compare different motions with each other, but I start this way to make it clear that motion amplitude is the property possessed by a motion without getting into the concept of time which is really just a relationship between motions as they travel through distances. I could cover more on that later.

If a basic linear motion is the most fundamental substance from which all other entities are composed, all other entities should be able to be constructed using just linear motions. Fields generally operate in a linear manner without expressing angular motions at angles from their direction of travel. They can, therefore, be constructed of individual simple linear motion particles.

Energy photons contain a linear motion that travels at the speed of light, but they also contain an angular motion that travels at ninety degrees to its direction of travel in a cyclical back and forth pattern. One way this can be constructed using only linear motion is to consider that the speed of light is a threshold level, such that if you try to add motion to a field particle to get it to travel faster than the speed of light, the excess motion over the speed of light is instead transferred into a small fourth dimension. This dimension connects to the other lower three dimensions at ninety degrees in the same way that they connect to each other with each position in the fourth dimension connected to all points of the other dimensions. The fourth dimension is very small and contains only three positions within it. The center position is connected to our dimensional structure and the two end positions are located outside of our dimensional structure. When a motion enters this dimension it travels back and forth between the ends of the dimension. It bounces off of the ends and, thus travels in a cyclical back and forth pattern. The greater the amount of motion that it contains, the faster it can travel one complete back and forth cycle, which increases its frequency. Since it is still travelling at the speed of light in its linear direction of travel, it will not travel as far in that direction during the faster fourth dimensional motion cycle, which will decrease its wavelength. The greater amount of motion that is contained in its cyclical back and forth motion will allow it to transfer more motion during an interaction with another entity, which gives it a greater dynamic mass effect. If that motion is at an end of the fourth dimension when an interaction occurs, it cannot transfer any of its motion to the interaction because it is located outside of our dimensional system. As it travels from an end, it begins to enter our dimensional system and the farther it is into our system when an interaction happens; the greater is the amount of its motion that can be transferred during that interaction. Its greatest dynamic mass effect occurs when it is completely within our system. As it continues to travel past that point, it begins to move out of our system again on the other side, so its mass effect decreases to zero again at the opposite side of the fourth dimension at which point it bounces off of the end and begins to travel back the other way. The same thing happens again during this half of its cyclical motion flow except interaction effects are in the opposite direction. This is a model of an energy photon composed of only two linear motions.

A matter particle can exist in a stationary form relative to other matter particles. When it is stationary or not moving in relation to other matter particles, it still possesses a mass effect called its static or rest mass. It can also move up to close to the speed of light. In an interaction, its motion increases its mass effect. During an interaction, it can demonstrate an angular motion effect with several different interaction outcomes each of which occurs at its own specific probability of occurrence. This is a dead giveaway that it contains an internal motion structure. In order to contain internal motions, it cannot be a point particle, since there is nowhere within a point particle for a motion to move. The idea that matter particles can be point objects and can spin is nonsense. A point object contains a point about which a spin could occur, but has no extension to spin about that point. In any real world spinning object, such as the earth, the greatest motion amplitude occurs at the point that is farthest from the central axis, such as the equator on the earth. As you move toward one of the axis poles, your motion amplitude (speed) decreases and it reaches zero at the center of the axis of rotation. This idea of point particle spin is one of the greatest errors in man’s current theory. Once you realize that matter particles are extended objects that contain internal motions, the next step is to try to understand how they can be constructed using only simple linear motions.

First, consider that there is a fifth dimension and a threshold fourth dimensional motion level that must be reached to allow motion to travel from the fourth dimension into the fifth dimension, such that an energy photon must contain a great enough fourth dimensional motion to at least make the lowest mass matter particle to allow a motion transfer to the fifth dimension. Once this condition is met, the energy photon must also come into contact with an angular motion, such as when it travels through the field of an atom near its nucleus. Some of its fourth dimensional motion is then transferred from the fourth dimension into the fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is structured, such that the motion that it contains is then transferred into the lower three dimensions in a cyclical way, such that it begins to transfer motion into dimension one increasing linearly from the zero level to a maximum level and then back to a zero level in a linear pattern. As the motion level reaches the maximum level in dimension one, it begins to enter into dimension two in the same way. The motion level in dimension one reaches the zero level at the same time that the motion level in dimension two reaches the maximum level. At this point motion begins to enter dimension three in the same way. As the motion level in dimension two reaches the zero level, the motion level in dimension three reaches the maximum level. At this point motion starts to enter into dimension one again. This is only an example and does not represent the complete motion flow cycle because it is for man to figure that out in detail. When the motion enters into the lower three dimensions from the fifth dimension, it would cause the energy photon to travel faster than the speed of light, but the excess motion over the level of the speed of light is transferred into the fourth dimension. Only the angular component of the motion remains in the lower three dimensions, which causes the photon to travel in a curved path that encloses back upon itself to create a three dimensional cyclical enclosed path structure in which it continues to travel. If the photon’s wavelength fits properly into the enclosed path, the angular motion component is present to allow the motion to travel from the fourth dimension back into the fifth dimension and the inter-dimensional motion flow cycle is complete and the matter particle is stable. If it doesn’t fit properly, the matter particle is not stable and the motion cannot travel back into the fifth dimension. The motion drains out of the fifth dimension and the curvature that it generated disappears causing the matter particle to become a photon again. The great angular motion in the matter particle generates its static or rest mass effect. You can see that when two matter particles interact, various outcome results can occur depending on the positioning and direction of travel, etc. of the photons within the matter particles at the point of interaction.

Matter particles also generate their own field structures. The motion flow of the photon in the matter particle around its enclosed three dimensional path entrains field particles (I call them sub-energy particles because they hold the position in the hierarchical structure of the universe that is just below that of the energy photon.) to travel through the matter particle in a dense packed stream. This creates an input and output for the sub-energy flow on opposite sides of the enclosed path. These travel around on the surface of the particle’s path along with the motion of the photon as it travels along that path. This is the internal field structure of the matter particle and it keeps the internal photon motions from interacting between the matter particles within an atomic nucleus. The internal and, therefore, also the external flow of this field is modulated by the frequency/wavelength fourth dimensional motion of the photon within the matter particle to vary the flow from a zero level linearly to a maximum flow rate and then back down to the zero level in a cyclical pattern that produces a series of concentric sub-energy field spheres around the matter particle that vary from a flow rate (particle density) of zero to a maximum flow rate and then back down to the zero rate in a linear manner. The sub-energy flow within each sphere is in all directions around the sphere from the particle’s sub-energy internal field output to its input creating a flow that operates at ninety degrees to the direction towards the particle in any direction. The inner most high density sphere contains the matter particles of an atom within it. The outer spheres bind the electrons to the atom. As an electron approaches an atom, it is attracted to its external sub-energy field. As it travels through the sub-energy spheres, it is also attracted in the opposite direction to the spheres that it has already traveled through. When it reaches a point that the attraction of the spheres is equal in both directions for its mass, etc., it will come to rest in the low density area between two high density field spheres. Its motion around the nucleus will be controlled by the motion of the adjacent high density sub-energy spheres in a three dimensional motion pattern. This gives a basic conceptual model view of how matter particles are structured out of basic linear motions and how they function, etc. This completes the description of the lowest hierarchical levels of existent entity construction of the universe starting with its most fundamental basic material substance, which is motion and progressing through to the level of atoms. I hope this gives you adequate information to get a good basic conceptual understanding of how it all works. I have, of course, left out many details and this comment has still grown large as the range of man’s comments generally goes, so I will end this comment and leave the other issues for a possible later comment.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Karen

Here is a fuller detail regarding QM and GR being centered on study of a singular device, clocks. Just in case it interests you

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, two fundamental theories of one world. However QM and GR have clocks in common, in terms of clocks being a study in QM (made of QM), and GR being a study of clocks (time dilation). Two fundamental theories,...

view entire post

Karen

Here is a fuller detail regarding QM and GR being centered on study of a singular device, clocks. Just in case it interests you

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, two fundamental theories of one world. However QM and GR have clocks in common, in terms of clocks being a study in QM (made of QM), and GR being a study of clocks (time dilation). Two fundamental theories, servicing one world and now one device? QM might be surmised, a study of forces. GR might be surmised, a study of time.

Clocks can be thought of as possessing a split personality. They possess a back end mechanical spring, the study of which might be termed QM force. They possess front end hands considered a measure of GR effects time dilation. These split personalities however are connected via a shaft, which makes their respective studies of force and time an equivalent. Which makes perfect sense in terms of the spring drives the clocks function. My earlier message coined the term “force dilation” which represents this property of the spring, which stands equivalent to the term “time dilation”.

Force dilation a quantity which is entirely equivalent to effect of time dilation? Which term is more fundamental, or carries more useful meanings? Force dilation is a property of the spring which drives the clock, so that places it at the heart by virtue of being attached to cause. It causes the clocks function, the clock hands but follow. The front end of the clock is superfluous in terms of cause, like a puppet dictated to by a puppeteer. Time, a puppeteers puppet? Not flattering I know, but it makes my intended meanings clear.

Substitute the term of time dilation for the equivalent term of force dilation, then General Relativities effect is translatable as Quantum Mechanical effect. Theory can then be summarized in terms of, Clocks are QM devices (made of QM) which measure variable QM behaviour (force dilation) in relative motions and relative gravitational environments. One fundamental theory of the world, one fundamental theory that describes all behaviours exhibited by clocks.

QM is a study of forces, and relativity is redressed as a QM study of forces of bodies in relative motions and relative gravitational environments.

Relativity boils down to being merely the study of the modulation of QM forces.

Steve

view post as summary