Relativity in a Turn Based Reality- Step By Step
This is called "Relativity in a Turn Based Reality." It is effectively a new physical model for defining/measuring reality that accounts for the effects governing the very small, and building up from there without any new major changes to how that can be observed in large scales. It addresses what I feel are issues in explaining how light has a zero rest mass but an effective mass at the speed of light.
Imagine a world where time appeared fluid only because it was made up of functionally infinite instances of fixed infinitesimal components, proceeding in a consistent and fixed way. Like tiny gears, each of these instances progresses simultaneously, from our perspective. Once this is completed, one fundamental moment has passed, with enough of these subsequent moments forming into our understanding of time.
I had been primarily picturing a merging here of the reality by agreement scenario and the circular time pocket dimension scenario, the former of which I got as a sort of vision when I was manic for the first really notable time. In this, the four siblings from The Chronicles of Narnia were playing a game, each taking a turn one after the other to add or change a rule in reality, by order of age. Because Peter went first, his rules seemed to be the most tangible and the least shaken over time. Lucy would go last, but every round, like clockwork, she would pass. She would pass with joy, happy to observe. At first the others thought she might not understand the game, but eventually they just decided her reasons didn't matter and over many many turns forgot she was part of the game at all. Ultimately though, her lack of entanglement with the rules gave her a huge advantage that only started becoming clear toward the end, as she had not agreed to any rule, for she had not participated in the process. That, combined with her last position, meant she was not bound by these rules and wouldn't be until she actually made a move, and even then it would be based on where and how she entered the now well developed game, which was entirely up to her. Whereas everyone else was bound on a very deep level to the rules which went all the way back to turn one, when she joined it would likely be similar to a visitor with immense power to change things. At the time I think I felt that it was God who had told her to only pass, wanting her to realize her blessing as wisdom through patience, only fully seeing it when the proper time came.
So another image that first came to mind is the idea that pocket dimensions can have circular time when compared to time in our dimension. In this way we are afloat on pocket dimensions (or more likely sandwiched, possibly surrounded), each coming to its conclusion and presenting its result for each particular "turn" here. Since any intersection in its timeline is the same as any other from our current perspective, let's consider a pocket dimension where we intersect with its Omega time. In that dimension, the very last thing that happened would be the only thing we would "see." So it could be from that dimension's perspective the entire process take a second or thousands, millions, perhaps billions of years, but regardless, in our dimension this takes an infinitesimal amount of time, and we see a single result. As our time passes there by one moment, we may then provide some input back, at which point the cycle in that pocket dimension begins again. Since we are unaware of this, the inputs we provide are purely natural, which would generally be light getting inserted into the pocket dimension either passing through or generating a standing wave, which would then be returned to our universe a single moment later. In this way we are taking "turns" with each point in space, because each point in space is a pocket dimension, and so what we perceive as time is this turn based system, which only light interacts with directly.
As I started writing this another image came to mind, of the skateboarder zipping around the hourglass. This is an analogy for light entering a black hole at the exact right trajectory to very nearly orbit the singularity inside, but it is also another analogy for how time passes in our universe. Essentially the skateboarder represents our entire universe in the second analogy, and a single photon of light in the first. In the second, every time the skateboarder makes one full revolution, which happens nearly instantaneously, he moves down one infinitesimal amount toward the singularity. The motion down the hourglass is representative of the passage of time in our universe, more specifically one "turn," step by step time proceeds as the skateboarder descends. In that same analogy, our "gravity" here is purely centrifugal force, like those spinning rides at the carnival, as the "real" force of gravity is perpendicular to our own motion, and is being projected uniformly upward from the center of the hourglass.
I'm just now realizing this may be a path to a unified field theory, as our required force to remain "in orbit" would be based on the force of that perpendicular gravity and the shape of the hourglass; it would be generated by the motion of the skateboarder, so our apparent gravity seems like it might be any percentage of that true force of gravity depending on the geometry involved, but directly related to it in any case, which explains why apparent gravity is so much smaller than the rest of the forces, in observation.
Another aside, I once commented that Euler's equation, which I don't fully understand but felt immediately drawn to, really feels like a clock ticking to the power of a second degree imaginary circle with a radius of the square root of i, progressing in an imaginary circle, once I became familiar with how it looked. So while that circle from our perspective has its radius in a second degree imaginary plane from what I understand, the "progression" of the equation we perceive would be in imaginary space (complex space?), and the result of the equation itself is in real space (you could just as easily say e^(i*pi)=-1, as opposed to its normal form, though the equation loses some elegance that way, in my opinion). This feels like two degrees of perpendicular space, that if intersecting with ours in a single position and with each other in another position, could interact in a precise and consistently measurable way, and would act like a geared framework for our universe.
I also wrote at one point, when puzzled how light could have no rest mass but could have an effective mass when moving at the speed of light, that mass must be a derived concept, rather than an intrinsic one. This is the only way I can think of for the mass of light to go from "0" to "1" in this way- there must be an embedded rule tying the speed of light, to light, to mass. The thing is, this would negate any other kind of mass existing, so all mass would then need to be entirely based off of light's effective mass. So tying this into pocket dimensions, what we define as matter would be an amount of light entangled into a standing wave form in a pocket dimension. Most likely the equation for determining the minimum length of time in our reality, a "moment," would useful for finding out how many times light would need to add its effective mass in a single place (pocket dimension intersection point) for it to have the mass of an electron. I'm not sure if the best method of this would be to measure the electron moving at natural speeds or to try to measure it "at rest" but essentially these moments would add up a large number of times until they would register from our perspective as have the mass of an electron. From our perspective this would "be" an electron. I imagine you could do the same for protons and neutrons, actually I imagine quarks may really be the only things you'd need to do this with, as after these fundamental standing waves of light are established, it seems that explaining the rest of the mass in the universe would just be an additive type function, using these very tiny legos. In retrospect here though, it feels like quarks are as entangled as they are because they are individual and simultaneous expressions of the same standing wave. This is interesting because it means stable standing waves here can only be accomplished by three simultaneous standing waves (except in the case of electrons and possibly other similar particles), so this would provide some insight into the geometry occurring behind the scenes.
As far as a "turn by turn based reality" I am now trying to picture what happens when an electron zips along. So if the election is simply entangled light, with most of its motion occurring in the pocket dimensions it is passing through, then it would be taking x "turns" in each pocket dimension/point in space. x would be significantly larger than if light were simply passing through the same space. It could be that light only passes through one pocket dimension in each position, but I am just considering wavelength and frequency, which likely represents how light is passing through these pocket dimensions. It feels almost as if light passes through more than one pocket dimension at each point, which generates this wibbly wobbly effect, this waveform, that we always see light in. This allows light to take all manner of forms from radio to gamma, while still moving at one consistent speed here. One set of pocket dimensions may be sufficient to describe it though, so this process might be described as taking one "turn" in each place, but the path light is taking through each pocket is materially different, and so it is measurably different as well.
I was just thinking that this model might be provable, or at least easily observable in the mathematical sense. I am considering the particle/anti particle pairs that are constantly showing up and annihilating; my understanding is that currently this does not have a logical reason behind it, it strictly has a mathematical explanation for why it is valid. While the equation itself is balanced, it feels like there is something missing, especially when such interactions happen at the edge of black holes. As pointed out by Stephen Hawking, in those locations, it is as if the black hole is emanating heat, when in reality it is these particle pairs being separated at the event horizon. Now while I have heard, admittedly as an oversimplified explanation and perhaps not from experts, that the laws of physics at least for our universe, do not apply past an event horizon, if that is the explanation then it feels like conservation is violated at these junctures. If the equation for these pairings balances out most places, but does not balance under a special set of conditions, it feels like the underlying mechanism for what is being done needs review, because the black hole itself cannot be interacting directly in this way with the rest of reality, and even in the explanation I've heard it is a transaction that occurs half inside and half outside the limits of the black hole. Even as I write this section, I realize this is more about not understanding what happens inside a black hole than a break from actual conversation laws or the laws of our universe. Saying that something is "outside" our universal laws may just be an indirect acknowledgement to an ignorance of how it is governed by our universal laws, at which point there is no symmetry break, just a lack of symmetry understanding, when particle pairs form at the edge of the black hole. Still, I feel that using the model of these particles being entangled light provides more clarity to what is happening, and could be proven.
So the particle/anti-particle pairs would basically happen at locations where the cosmic background radiation somehow went from traveling at a single turn rate to being entangled in a pocket dimension for multiple turns. Picturing the process is making me feel like the universe itself is almost like a mirror, as the fact that this would happen in each case evenly in pairs is interesting (I know this is due to conservation laws, but I'm considering the why behind it). Also, I am curious regarding quarks here, because it is not quarks that we see forming alone, but always in threes and, here with electron/positron pairs, we see formation in pairs. So light must form at least two things at once in these instances, in order to form anything at all. This feels like it would require at least a second set of pocket dimensions, or a path between these pocket dimensions that is available entirely outside of our dimensions, therefore ungoverned by our dimension of time, in order for these standing waves to be formed simultaneously, which would be required for the formation of matter.
Given conservation of momentum, there is no reason for cosmic background radiation to become particles, unless the shape of the pocket dimensions they were encountering was different than the shape of those they were coming from. Essentially I am picturing space itself, specifically the pocket dimensions underlying space, wobbling like jello based on the effects of gravity. While the explanation could be something more like space is textured, so despite gravity being measurably consistent on a macro level, each pocket dimension would bring its own unique gravity to the table, with a maximum variation in values being far less than what we could measure currently, this feels like it would lead to particle pairs forming consistently in the same locations (unless points in space were also zipping around in some way, but I can't even begin to fathom how that motion would be governed or maintained so that our universe doed not pull apart or become measurably inconsistent even by today's methods). Having the pocket dimensions wobble and morph slightly feels more correct than having them be consistently textured individually, as their shapes feel like they would be in a consistently slight flux from our perspective, likely in a consistent repeating pattern based on the force of gravity. When light interacts with one of these pocket dimensions, in that moment arranged in a particular way, the light naturally moves into a standing wave pattern, its motion still consistent, but the space around it having changed. I am now realizing that while this effect would be required to create standing waves, it would generally have to be mild enough not to destroy them. Although now I am also realizing this pocket dimension wobble, combined with the geometry of larger particles and the forces governing their interactions, might be able to explain particle decay as well. Anyway, this change in light's apparent motion from our perspective causes the formation of the particle and anti particle pair, which then create and destroy due to other forces, returning to light but perhaps in a new direction. I haven't fully looked into how the motion of light before the formation and the motion of light after the annihilation compare, but if they are different, I imagine this would not fit current conservation models, whereas if one were to look at light as having been redirected by the shape of pocket dimensions as I describe, then conservation in the complex set of dimensions would hold for the whole transaction.
I am now thinking that when I look at the accumulated details of this model, the concept of relativity in a turn based reality makes sense. On an underlying level these "turns" remain consistent, but if you tried to move a massive object, especially as you approach the speed of light, a lag would occur. This lag would be based on the number of turns it is taking for light to repeat all required standing waves before moving to the next pocket dimension/set of pocket dimensions. The higher the mass, the larger number of turns required to accomplish one step. If you consider a path that would take light itself 10 turns to cross, crossing the same distance as an electron would take 10x, where x is the number of turns it takes light to complete the standing wave pattern at each position before moving on. I realize this is different than how quantum physics describes electron motion, it is definitely a simplification, but I feel the overall structure is sound, it is simply that an electron's "standing wave" pattern is much looser than that of larger particles when unobserved, so it can be described more easily as being many possible places at once, until observed (the observation being a pulling together of the standing wave into a particular location by changing the information/dimensional shape in that location). While the motion in what we call "time" might be adjusted by accelerating an object, the number of "turns" required would remain consistent, as light's speed remains consistent as well as the paths taken to appear as a certain thing here. I imagine you could determine the number of "turns" it takes to be or appear as certain things (electrons, protons, etc.), by using the already established measurements in relativity, and applying them to the motion of very small objects. This should accomplish the goal of marrying the laws governing the very large and very small, by turning our measurement of time into a derived concept based on turns, adding in the fact that it takes a fixed number of turns to observe something using light, but the time it takes might vary based on other factors. Also notable, this may change the definition of gravity as it may be a function of motion (skateboarder) in a complex space (hourglass).
I am realizing that a lot of my areas of thought pertaining to physics have to do with where it feels like it "doesn't make sense." This isn't to say that I simply don't understand something, there are plenty of areas like that, I'm referencing the areas where I feel like I understand the underlying logic of an assumption, but it feels like there is a gap or a cheat embedded into the same assumption. So far in this post such areas that I reference are the effective mass of light at the speed of light vs. light having no rest mass, and the idea that while mathematically it seems an explanation has been provided for why this assumption works, there is no logical reason given for how this mass jump is possible. Another example is the lack of a provided reason behind particle/anti-particle pair formation- mathematically it makes sense that this can occur, but as of yet I am aware of no reasonable explanation as to why it does. Areas such as these are deeply exciting to me, because I feel like they point out actual gaps in the current model to describe reality, clues really, which once identified are really the only reasonable way to close said gaps. I feel like sometimes in figuring out how to close them something amazing is discovered that has a scope far beyond the narrow gap that was examined.
Comments
Post a Comment