Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[prodygi]

I'm trying to show how a subatomic particles' (an electron, photon, quarks, etc.) mass is dependent on the component of that particles motion in the dimension of time. It has not been proved yet that that is where these particles--actually where ALL objects get their mass ('weight'). One of the main open problems in subatomic physics is where this mass comes from. There have been a bunch of speculation on something called a Higgs-Field. But I think it's either the particles component of motion that is moving through time that simply gives it mass; or, just that the Higgs-Field lies in the fourth-dimension, meaning the time-dimension (We have three spatial dimensions and one time dimension)

If we said that along with the three spatial dimensions ( up/down, left/right, forward/backward) the fourth dimension, the time dimension, was also a spatial dimension, then we would have four spatial dimensions, which would mean that time is just motion through the fourth spatial dimension.
You can visualize this by imagining a few x,y type graphs, where the x-axis for the first graph corresponds to the left/right spatial dimension, and the y-axis for the same graph (the first one) represents the up/down spatial dimension.
Now the second graph, for the horizontal axis instead of using x, which could be confusing, I'll use z, and for the vertical axis, I'll call it t. So, let the z-axis (the horizontal axis) represent the forward/backward spatial dimension; and let the
t-axis (the vertical axes) represent the fourth spatial dimension which is the time dimension.

With these visual aids we can in a way 'see' how an object would behave while traveling through four spatial dimensions.
One thing to always keep in mind though is that we can only "SEE" in real life or in our heads three spatial dimensions at one time. The fourth spacial dimension is always perpendicular to each of the 'seen' three spatial dimensions.

If we say that a body is at rest with regard to the three (basic) spatial dimensions, all of the bodies motion must be through the fourth spatial dimension, the time dimension. The object must be traveling at the speed of light = 299,792,458 meters/second through the fourth spatial dimension, the time dimension.

Using the second Graph from above, the one that used the horizontal z-axis to represent the forward/backward spatial dimension, and the vertical t-axis to represent the time dimension, the fourth spatial dimension. When the object is at rest with respect to the three dimensional axises of x,y, and z, all of it's motion is through the vertical t-axis, the time dimension and fourth spatial dimension. So on the graph using the horizontal z-axis and the vertical t-axis, a line drawn directly up the t-axis line until it reaches 2 units long, where each unit corresponds to 1/2 the speed of light-or half c., and 2 units is equal to c, the speed of light.

Here we are with all the velocity being in the vertical t-axis (meaning that the object is not moving to someone looking at it from the perspective of the 3 spatial dimensions because all of its motion is in the time dimension, the fourth spatial dimension) there is a line drawn from the origin (0,0) to (0,2), so that's a line going from the origin up two units.

Now say we speed up this body in the forward direction-in the 'forward/back' spatial dimension-to one-half the speed of light. Now how will the graph look? Since the object can't have any more speed than the speed of light, and that is already being used in the time or fourth spatial dimension, what must happen is that the speed through the t-dimension must give up some speed to the z-dimension. And now the graph would show a line going from the origin (0,0) to (1,0); that would be the line going horizontal along the z-axis showing that it's velocity in the 'forward/back' spatial dimension is one half the velocity of light. And the other line would look like a line starting at the origin (0,0) to (0,1); the line would be going vertical along the t-axis showing the component of the motion left for motion through time.

And if the object sped on up to the speed of light in the forward direction of the 'forward/back' spatial dimension, there would be no component of motion left for motion through time. Just like when all the motion was through time, there was no component of motion left for motion in any of the three-spatial-dimensions.

A body is always in motion. All the components of a body's motion will always add together to give you the speed of light.
When a body is at rest with respect to the three usual spatial dimensions, all the components of the body's motion lie in the time dimension-the fourth spatial dimension. As a body speeds up in one of the other spatial dimensions, it's transfers some component of its motion from the time dimension to the spatial dimension or dimensions, that it is going to move through.

This is one easy way to see how the speed of light is an actual unbreakable speed limit. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. (or you could say that an object is always traveling at the speed of light when the components of its motion in all four spatial dimensions are taken into account.)

This is also a good way to visualize why time passes more and more slowly for an object as that object speeds up and up. The faster an object is traveling, the smaller is the component of motion that is in the time dimension. And when the object reaches Light speed, there is no longer any component of motion left that could be in the time dimension. So, in that case-traveling at the speed of light in a spatial dimension, all of the component of motion lies in the direction of the motion, and there will not be any component that could give it motion through the time dimension-fourth spatial dimension. So, for an object traveling at the speed of light, since the object can't go faster than the speed of light, it can't have any motion to move through the time-fourth-spatial-dimension, so time would stand still for that object.


My initial speculations centered on the idea of how do objects get mass. I'm trying to show that an object getts mass as a result of how large of a component of the objects absolute velocity, with respect to the speed of light, that lies in the fourth spatial dimension, the time dimension. (The faster an object moves in one of the 3 normal spatial dimensions, the component of it's velocity through the time dimension will decrease for every acceleration in any of the regular spatial dimensions. (Point of interest--the greater the velocity of an object in one of the 3-non-time spatial dimensions, the component of motion in the time-spatial-dimension will be less and less, and this is manifested by time passing slower when objects are traveling at high speeds. And onother way of looking at it to help get one last grasp of what I'm trying to really get at. We know that there is a limit on acceleration, and that the speed of light is the top-speed limit. But imagine that at all moments we are always traveling at the speed of light. If we were at rest relative to the three-non-time-spatial-dimensionsf, then we are moving throught the 4th-time-spacial-dimension at the speed of light. As a body starts accelerating in one or more of the 3-non-time-spatial dimensions, to accelerate in these dimensions it must use more of the component of velocity from the fourth-time-dimension, causing a proportianal decrease in the body's velocity through the time-spatial dimension, so the body is now passing through time at a slower rate, and time will pass more slowly.And I'm hypothesising that mass is a manifestation of the constantly changing rate of motion through the time-spatial-dimension. Each time a body changes velocities, directions, etc. he is causing an acceleration, and acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, and all these phenomena come together, the amount of gravity produeced during accelration, the amount of gravity produced from changing directions, along with some other variables is the why objects have mass. (Point to ponder: as an object accelerates to half the speed of light or more, that objects mass also increases. And remember that increasing speed, or accelerating, in one of the non time spatial dimensions, and that acceleration is, again, indistinguishable from gravity. And what kinds of thing have gravity? Things with mass, things with mass 'seem' to attract other particles with mass, and that is gravity. If you understand all that, can you now see that perhaps Gravity may be nothing more than an objects accelerating in a higher spatial dimension, much like the time-spacial-dimension, in a higher dimension that is perpendicular to all points in each of the 3 regular spacial dimensions. Lets see how that would work for producing Earths Gravity. Since the earth is continually changing directions as it proceeds on it's orbit of the Sun. And a change in direction is an acceleration that is indistinguishable from Gravity. Each change in acceleration will cause the components of the total available speed (ie the speed of light) to be continually changing the component values in each of the dimensions that have part of the world in it. And as these very slight but extremely numerous component adustments are happening (and they are happening continually), one dimension needs to be given a little extra scrutiny: the fourth-spatial-time-generation. While the earth is traveling around the Sun on it's orbit, everytime an acceleration or decelreation happens, the component motion through the fourth-spacial-time dimension will be continually and by the smallest change possible--The component of motion in the fourth-spacial-time-dimension is in a way performing continual slight 'course corrections' during the orbit by releasing and collecting small changes in velocity to each three non-time spatial dimensions, as earth changes directions . And while the component of motion through the fourth-spatial-time-dimension, is continually changing, it is steadily creating an acceleration for itself (for the Earth) in the fourth-time-spatial-dimension only (but not a linear acceleration. it will probably be something like acceleration of .1 (I'm going to leave units off, I'm only using intergers here to show this idea) that lasts for .003 seconds, then it changes to an acceleration of .15, for .027 seconds. and own and own, this happening continually. Since the fourth dimension is perpendicular to the regular 3 spatial dimensions (the up/down dimension, the left/right dimension, and the foreward/ backward dimension) the acceleration of the Earth will be completely in the the in the fourth- spatial-dimension, the time dimension. Remember that acceleration manifests itself as gravity. So with all the acceleration contained in the time dimension, and al.the accelerations being very week and very short, the accelerations are fast changing, leads to a very strong manifestation of the continual acceleration-Gravity-Planet Wide Gravity-and because the 4th spatial and time dimension is perpendicular to each of the common 3 spatial dimensions, and perpindicular to every point in those three spatial dimensions, the manifestation of the constantly changing values for the component of motion in the 4th-spatial-time-dimension, that manifest-ation being indistinguishable from gravity (and if it's indistinguishable from Gravity, it's probably Gravity.) will affect every point in these three dimensions that corresponds with the way gravity does indeed interact in the 3 'everyday' spatial dimensions.

And so that's the state of my hypothesis of how if we allow a particles mass (remember,we are alway travieling at the speed of light, with our actual speed through one of the 3 spatial dimensions being the value of the component of speed in that dimension) to be the manifestation of the distribution of all the velocity dimensional comoponents. It isn't much of a jump from here to see a mechanism for creating Gravity also.

[BubbaD0g]

Allow me to preface this by saying that I am, at best, an armchair physicist, having only two semesters of college-level physics education. That said, I have discussed these matters with actual physicists, who have been patient enough to explain some of these matters to me (often more than once) in conceptual terms. Thus, I do have just enough information to pose what I hope are some intelligent questions/insights.

First, this is a fascinating attempt to translate relativity to the quantum level, and is very similar to some thoughts I myself had several years ago. I abandoned them, though for the life of me I can't recall why.

Second, and this is a point about relativity theory in general more than your model in particular, though it seems to apply here as well, the theory seems to assume what I call "absolute space;" that is, it assumes a fixed matrix (either spatial or superspatial) which grounds all motion, elsewise, the notion of an absolute upward limit on velocity seems not to make sense. Is this a fair assessment, do you think?

Third, regarding the hypothetical boson field, it is my understanding that fields (in particular, quantum information fields, of which I believe this is an example) are not spatially located. For want of a better word, they are omnipresent, or so I'm led to believe.

Fourth, if mass is a function of velocity in the way you describe, wouldn't photons have nearly infinite mass? (Which I'm told they don't.)

Fifth, given that temperature is a function of motion, under your model wouldn't a Bose-Einstein condensate be nearly massless? (Which, again, I'm told they aren't.)

Sixth, your entire model assumes that time is a spatial or quasispatial dimension; have you considered the possibility that time is a function of consciousness, rather than objective reality (as Kant claimed, and many contemporary philosophers of science, whose arguments are beyond my ken, I fear, have compellingly argued)?

Seventh, your model assumes the existence of four spatial dimensions; how would it be affected if, as string theory claims, there are in fact eleven such dimensions? More generally, what are your thoughts on string theory?

Thank you in advance for your patience in considering these notes, and I am interested to hear your further thoughts.

[Gregorygregg1]

Can we agree that nothing traveling at the speed of light is subject to change? A photon from A. Centuri carries the same information it had when it left its source? Is time a product of our perception of change. If nothing changed, would there be time?
From this point of view, perhaps Bubbad0g is right to question whether time might not exist apart from consciousness. Though I suppose the same might be said of any perceived dimension.
I liked prodygi's visual imagery of the four dimensional framework to distribute the speed of light into matter and space while preserving the absolute energy. It smacks of conservation of energy. Besides I like thinking of myself as a being of light.
How does your theory fit with this:
Consider that the real substance, fabric if you will, of the universe is space, but that space is not uniform. Where there is less space, there is matter. Matter then would be a product of the stretching of space. And what stretches space? I think Einstein would have us think matter stretches space. This leads to a steady state theory. Where matter becomes more densely packed due to gravity, space becomes thinner, more stretched. Eventually, where matter becomes so densely packed that space is excluded, as in a black hole, matter ceases to exist. The denseness of the nearly spaceless matter surrounding the nothingness is so intense that it continually stretches the nearby space creating new matter to feed the nothingness. I suppose there could be a quantum analysis of this concept, but this neuron is not qualified for that.

[BubbaD0g]

Okay, let me see if I follow you here:

1. Space can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without space.

2. Matter distends/stretches/shreds space whenever it congregates in one "place."

3. This distension of space is what causes matter to cluster together--it is what causes gravity. (This was also Einstein's claim, though I have some difficulty with it.)

4. Black holes are areas containing neither space nor matter; they are loci wherein space has been nihilated by an excess of matter so that now neither exist there. (But if space no longer exists there, is there a "there" there in the first place, which is to say that if black holes are extraspatial, how can they be located in space? Or have I misunderstood?)

5. You write: "Where there is less space, there is matter." Does the dimunition of space cause matter to come into being, or does matter preexist and its presence cause the dimunition of space?

6. We cannot "agree that nothing traveling at the speed of light is subject to change," if for no other reason than that its position and momentum (two of the very few properties fundamental particles like photons have) do change. It may be that particles moving at the speed of light are not subject to phenomena like decay, I don't know; it may also be that only photons can move at this speed. In that sense, we can say that the photon has not changed with respect to itself--it's still the same photon (or is it? I mean really, apart from position and momentum, how can one tell photons apart?)--but it's now elsewhere, moving on a different trajectory at (possibly) a different velocity. Or it's smashed into something unyielding and triggered the release of a "new" particle and/or wave.

7. With regard to the light from Alpha Centauri bearing information, my understanding of the matter is that the information is not immanent in any of the individual photons, but in the structure of their aggregate (much as the "information" your computer is showing you is not encoded into each or any individual pixel, but rather is a function of how all of them are arranged relative to one another and to you), or else it is inherent in a quantum field, and thus has neither location nor corporeal bearer. If this is a correct understanding of information (which I hasten to add that it may well not be and would love to know what else the word might mean in this context), then it does change between its point of origin and here, hence the "red shift" wherefrom we infer that the universe is expanding.

8. Finally, I have been toying with my own theory of gravity based on my understanding of string theory: both matter and energy are excitations in the structure of space--space resonates at one frequency, a photon is the result; at another, a muon, and so on. This resonance/excitation/vibration/whaterer the heck we want to call it is not without cost--like the flame of a candle drawing wax in through the wick and sublimating it, matter (and, to a lesser degree, energy) draws in the surrounding space to fuel its existence. And since matter and energy are just areas of space behaving in a certain way, when space is sucked in by a massive object, the matter and energy in the vicinity will appear to move towards it because the space whereto they are anchored is being drawn towards it. This makes much more sense to me than does attributing gravity to the curvature of spacetime, which has always struck me as circular.

I'm sure I've grossly mischaracterized or misunderstood at least something here; tell me, what do you think?

[Gregorygregg1]

1. Space can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without space.

Space is infinite because it cannot be contained, but there is no infinity that doesn’t contain nothing. Black holes are the nothing. Around them the space is stretched and torn, creating matter. But black holes devour matter to exclude space.

2. Matter distends/stretches/shreds space whenever it congregates in one "place."

Matter condenses around the black hole through the stretching and shredding of space. You may look at as that matter stretches space, or that matter is the stretching of space.

3. This distension of space is what causes matter to cluster together--it is what causes gravity. (This was also Einstein's claim, though I have some difficulty with it.)

Space is elastic. Wherever it is stretched it wants to rebound, that is gravity. It is the rebound of space to matter, the stretching of space. It pulls space with less matter toward areas of greater matter.

4. Black holes are areas containing neither space nor matter; they are loci wherein space has been nihilated by an excess of matter so that now neither exist there. (But if space no longer exists there, is there a "there" there in the first place, which is to say that if black holes are extraspatial, how can they be located in space? Or have I misunderstood?)

Mathematically this might be understood as an equation who’s solution is both infinity and nothing. Nothing exists all around infinity and infinity exists all around nothing.

5. You write: "Where there is less space, there is matter." Does the dimunition of space cause matter to come into being, or does matter preexist and its presence cause the dimunition of space?

There are several ways of thinking about this, If matter were the original creation, space would have had to be instantly infinite to contain it. If Space were the original creation, It was created according to mathematical rules that make it unstable because the infinite includes nothing. The nothing creates matter in order to exclude space.

Lets take 6 and 7 together,

6. We cannot "agree that nothing traveling at the speed of light is subject to change," if for no other reason than that its position and momentum (two of the very few properties fundamental particles like photons have) do change. It may be that particles moving at the speed of light are not subject to phenomena like decay, I don't know; it may also be that only photons can move at this speed. In that sense, we can say that the photon has not changed with respect to itself--it's still the same photon (or is it? I mean really, apart from position and momentum, how can one tell photons apart?)--but it's now elsewhere, moving on a different trajectory at (possibly) a different velocity. Or it's smashed into something unyielding and triggered the release of a "new" particle and/or wave.

7. With regard to the light from Alpha Centauri bearing information, my understanding of the matter is that the information is not immanent in any of the individual photons, but in the structure of their aggregate (much as the "information" your computer is showing you is not encoded into each or any individual pixel, but rather is a function of how all of them are arranged relative to one another and to you), or else it is inherent in a quantum field, and thus has neither location nor corporeal bearer. If this is a correct understanding of information (which I hasten to add that it may well not be and would love to know what else the word might mean in this context), then it does change between its point of origin and here, hence the "red shift" wherefrom we infer that the universe is expanding.

Good point, I was operating from a naïve image without considering the effects of matter on light. I intended a cohesive image, originating in alpha C. and being observed here. Assuming the information it contained was a traveler moving at light speed. If he traveled the entire distance at light speed, he will have experienced no time, His heart would not have beaten once.

8. Finally, I have been toying with my own theory of gravity based on my understanding of string theory: both matter and energy are excitations in the structure of space--space resonates at one frequency, a photon is the result; at another, a muon, and so on. This resonance/excitation/vibration/whaterer the heck we want to call it is not without cost--like the flame of a candle drawing wax in through the wick and sublimating it, matter (and, to a lesser degree, energy) draws in the surrounding space to fuel its existence. And since matter and energy are just areas of space behaving in a certain way, when space is sucked in by a massive object, the matter and energy in the vicinity will appear to move towards it because the space whereto they are anchored is being drawn towards it. This makes much more sense to me than does attributing gravity to the curvature of spacetime, which has always struck me as circular.

I like the counterintuitive sound of this, that photons are the product of vibrations in space. I can envision the space immediately around matter. From what I understand, with subatomic particles moving at near light speed, there must be quite a bit of vibration. And without space, there would be no place for that to happen. And since space has no resistance, energy must flow freely outward through it. I can see space as taking an active part in the creation of energy.

Thanks for the discussion.