I presented this idea before but not as a topic starter. The main premises are; the speed of light is the ground state or zero state of the universe. All departure from this ground state reference sets a potential with the ground state. All dynamics of the universe can be explained as the universe lowering potential, with the ground state, as it tries to return to the ground state. The reason the speed of light was chosen as the ground state, is C is the only absolute reference we know and is the same in all inertial references. There is no need for fudge factors because of relative references. I suppose C makes it harder to do science magic tricks. As examples of how these premises integrates everything easily, gravity causes space-time to contract, which move mass in the direction of the speed of light reference. The C reference is most closely approximated by the black hole. Gravity reflects the main path for mass to return to the ground state reference. Mass cannot go the speed of light based on special relativity. Gravity is an alternate path to C via space-time. Stars contract space-time toward the reference of C, but since they lack sufficient mass it go all the way, they make use of an alternate path back to C, which is fusion and mass burn back to C. The remaining forces if nature propagate at C, and all give off energy as they lower potential.
What does that even mean? That isn't a proper use of the terminology 'ground state'. In a system with many states the ground state is the lowest energy one. To define this you obviously have to have a construct involving states and have a way of assigning energy to them. So for quantum mechanics the states are the number and configuration of particles and ground states are those with minimal energy. Saying 'the speed of light is a ground state' is thus meaningless unless you're using 'ground state' to mean something completely different, in which case don't use it, call it something else. Except that particles in the universe don't tend towards the speed of light if left to their own devices. The speed of a photon is seen to be c by all inertial observers but it isn't 'absolute' in the sense aether proponents like to peddle. Different observers can't use the observation of the same photon to do something 'absolute'. If anything, the problem is if they change their inertial frames by some manoeuvre they still see the same photon speed. What do you mean 'science magic tricks'? Are you implying that is what some parts of current models do? 'Everything'? You haven't explained anything, either in terms of your idea or real world phenomena. General relativity doesn't say gravity causes space-time to contract when moving objects. An object falling towards the ground isn't 'sucked down' by a flow of space-time, it is 'sliding' down a potential slope. This is at best poorly explained and at worst gibberish. The potential objects move through via gravity in GR is not a potential related to the speed of light. The object moves through the space-time potential and this energy gets converted into kinect energy but the minimum of the potential is where the kinect energy is zero! In a broad sense the acceleration of an object is related to the gradient of the potential. When the potential is at a minimum the gradient is zero and thus the acceleration is zero. This is not defined by when the object is at the speed of light. If you're talking about GR then you're talking nonsense. If its some alternative of yours you're putting forth you have provided nothing to explain any of the conclusions you're making. If you're talking about some personal interpretation of GR then you're way off anything GR says. If you're putting forth your own ideas then this belongs in alternative theories, where I'm sending it now. If you're giving your own interpretation of GR then you need to justify it before this thread can come back to the main physics forum.
For example, the lowest energy electrons within an atom, or the 1S orbital electrons, have the highest velocity and therefore move closer to C in terms of velocity. They also gave off energy at C to get there. The hard part is getting used to seeing things using C as the floor. But it is much more compact, once you can. Velocity is only one way to return to C. If it give off energy; photon, we are part way there. Mass cannot move at C, so that path is blocked for mass. But there are alternate ways like mass burn. The photon moves at the speed of light but not all photons are in the C ground state, per se. The reason is the photon will move at C, but it also has a variable component that can be different in different references; wavelength-frequency can red and blue shift. The C reference ground state is a special case defined by special relativity. If we begin at the C reference, infinite distance will appear like a point. Infinite wavelength energy is the closest photon to the ground state, and is the direction of the universal red shift. The bottom line is, mass following the potential slope downward, is in the direction of contracting space-time. I understand this base reference is new, and everything is already build, so why change? It has to do with simplicity. Isn't the simplest solution the better solution?
Why not change to a gibberish solution - well that is rather obvious. A simple solution is fine, but a simple minded guess based on ignorance is not worth anything.
No, it is to do with you being incoherent and having no idea about the things of which you speak, ie quantum mechanics or relativity. Don't flatter yourself, incoherence is not insightful.
Let me make it easier by biting off only smaller pieces at a time. The speed of light is the only reference that is the same in all relative, finite and inertial references. I am not making this up. This is well accepted. Why is picking the only absolute reference, as the zero state, a problem? Picking an arbitrary reference like the earth will always lead to debate. Let me pose a question, which you should be able to answer. Say we have an atom, where an electron is in a higher energy level. The electron drops to lower energy level and gives off a photon of energy. The question is, what is the physical source for that energy output? If you look at the electron, charge is conserved. When the electrons gets closer to the nucleus, its velocity will go up, so it personal magnetic field strength will actually increase, since magnetism is charge in motion. The electron gains magnetic energy, due to higher velocity, as it approaches the nucleus. If we use C as the ground state this is expected, with increasing electron velocity, toward C, implicit of the need to lower atomic energy states and form larger and larger atoms. Building larger and larger atoms allows the electrons to go faster and faster.
Because it makes no sense. Very simply put, there is an attractive electrical force between an electron and a proton. To move the particles apart requires energy (a photon must be absorbed) alternatively when the particles move towards each other less energy is required (a photon is emitted). Why do you enjoy making stuff up so much?
Light doesn't give an absolute or universal reference frame. Every inertial frame sees light move at the same speed, that is one of the fundamental pieces of relativity and renders it impossible to use light in the way you're describing. Can two people observe the same photon but not each other (nor communicate in any other way) and use the observation to determine a common inertial frame? No, they cannot. If one of them changes their inertial frame using some means of propulsion then looks at the photon again nothing will have really changed, it doesn't help. The electromagnetic potential of the electron-nuclei interaction. Electrons don't orbit nuclei like planets orbit stars. Their behaviour is described by a wavefunction and in the case of a single orbital the wavefunction is stationary. Assigning velocity to the electron is a semi-classical concept and highly dubious in quantum mechanics. Orbital configurations and energies change if you use a muon rather than an electron. This has been done at CERN, creating a muonic version of Hydrogen by creating a proton-muon bound state. However, as said, the notion of velocity doesn't apply really in such systems. The ground state is the state of the system. The speed of a particle within the system partly defines the state but the notion of a ground state is about the lowest energy configuration of particles. If you were to view the electron as going around the nucleus like a planet goes around a star then you can assign a velocity to it but from this classical point of view the electron would radiate energy due to undergoing acceleration and the system would collapse. In atoms the orbitals are discrete, they can only take particular structures, which makes the energy quantised and this prevents the energy being radiated away as it would be in classical mechanics. Systems always try to move to the lowest energy configuration but in the case of quantum systems the lowest energy is often not zero, ie the zero point energy. In the case of something like Hydrogen the lowest energy is \(E_{0} = -E_{H}\), the Hartree energy. All others, for n>0, are \(E_{n} = \frac{1}{n^{2}}E_{0}\). The system will not go to a lower energy, it will not tend to a smaller radius (the Bohr radius) and even if you interpret the electron as having a velocity the system isn't trying to go to c.
I did not mean to suggest the electron goes to C. Rather I meant to say that as atoms get larger and larger, the average velocity of the electrons incrementally approaches the C ground state; lowering the potential with C. This is the same as saying that gravity cause mass to accumulate in a way that causes local space-time to contract, which is also in the direction of the C reference. If there is not enough mass, the system will fall short of the C reference. If we had more and more mass it will keep on approaching C. With the building of larger and larger atoms, after iron (Fe) the process becomes endothermic. This still forms and maintains atomic stability because this is allowing the electrons to approach the C reference; lowers the potential to C. You need these electrons to compensate for positive charge repulsion with higher V generating stronger magnetic fields. Let me change directions. Say we were traveling at C. If we plug C into SR, an infinite universe would appear as a point-instant. If we look at infinite wavelength energy, this is the only full wavelength energy that will appear to overlap the point universe, while its infinite period would appear to overlap the instant at C. Any wavelength smaller than infinite wavelength energy, cannot exist in the C reference, since these wavelengths will appear as fractions of a point and fractions of an instant. This is semantically impossible, since point is as small as you can go. This suggests that infinite wavelength energy has zero potential with the C ground state since it can overlap. Black holes generate infinite wavelength energy to return mass/energy back to the C reference. Wavelength less that infinite will have potential with C (separate from C) with the smallest wavelengths having the highest potential with the C reference. These are a fraction of a point in C reference and therefore cannot exist at the C reference. When the universe red shifts all energy wavelength this heads in the direction of the C reference. While the movement of heat from hotter to cooler also reflects the movement toward the C reference. In particles accelerators humans help return matter back to C. If we could figure out how to funnel mass/energy toward C, we would have an endless stream of potential. Let me make one comment about energy and the C reference. Although energy travels at C, the features of wavelength and frequency are inertial components, which are reference dependent. The ground state C reference is the same in all references. The inertial aspects of energy need to red shift and cool to approach full C.
Electrons in atoms don't have velocity. They don't orbit like planets around a sun. An "orbital" is just a probability function of where you might find an electron at any time. But a position and momentum/velocity can't be identified because they are too small and act more like waves at that scale than particles.
Emm, how can a 'speed' be anything ? The speed of a car for example, without the car, is just words - nothing more. So how can a speed, even of light, be anything without saying that light itself is .. whatever you're saying it is ?
After reading Wellwisher's proposed baseline of C (as a measurement of time), it occurred to me that any type of quantum event requires an certain amount of time. IOW, physical reality cannot manifest itself at greater than C. It is a functional constant which cannot be exceeded. I don't mean to make a nuisance of myself, but seems that my latest subject of interest is pertinent to almost all Planck scale discussions. Is anyone really familiar with David Bohm's work. http://www.quantumyoga.org/QuantumBrahman.html I am not stressing the spiritual aspects of Bohm's philosophy, but he was an eminent physicist and a close acquaintance of Einstein. I am focusing primarily on the concepts of Implicate (Potential) and Explicate (Reality) through pure physics.
In relativistic quantum chemistry, relativity is used to explain observations that cannot be explained using normal wave functions. From Wikipedia and relativistic quantum chemistry: There is an observed increase in electron relativistic mass and a contraction of the wave functions in heavy atoms that is not predicted with non-relativistic consideration. The need is based on observational anomalies, using the assumption of no relativity. If you use special relativity to correct the wave functions; Schrödinger equation, the results better match the observations in heavy atoms. The gold color of the metal gold, is due to a relativistic time shift of light that reflects off the gold. Gold is a relativistic metal. The unusual properties of lead, mercury and platinum, to name a few, are due to relativistic quantum chemistry. This state is connected to the pure C reference, which would be analogous to infinite wavelength energy; approximately zero energy. Infinite wavelength is the only full wavelength point at C. Say you were in the C reference, mass cannot exist at C, since SR says this would take infinite energy. In other words, the potential between mass and C, if any mass was to appear in C, would define infinite potential. If we separate C and mass, into C and C- references, the potential will become finite. From this separation mass cannot reverse back to C, directly, without infinite energy. By default mass has to go other way; in direction of lowering potential with C, via the four forces and entropy. It goes back to infinite wavelength energy inplicit of red shift and cooling. Using C as the ground state seems logical, since we have proven this is the same in all references. This tells us this is the best place to reference, since regardless of SR or GR reference, this is a universal standard. Why would nature create a universal standard if it was not supposed to be the used as the standard? It seems like common sense to me.
