An inspiration occurred to me after participating in a few real science threads here that completely clear the way for an alternative explanation of relativistic space that does not depend on any of the artifacts of geometry of Ancient Greece (Static Euclidean Space), while at the same time providing the underpinnings of understanding both inertia and mass in a manner Newton and Galileo could have only dreamt of, and Einstein was only beginning to understand. Your opinions (positive and negative) are solicited. Think first of NOTHING. No mass, no energy, no inertia, nothing you could identify as "space" in the Hilbert sense. The first players in this universe would be virtual energy, and by that I mean, pair production of virtual photons of various energies being produced from a single point in this space. The virtual photons travel in opposite directions at relative speeds of +/- c. This generates three inertial reference frames; one traveling at c in one direction, one traveling at c in the opposite direction, and one that is by definition "at rest". Anywhere along the path of propagation of this primordial pair of virtual photons, other pairs of virtual photons are likely to be formed (forget about why for the moment), and the new virtual photons may propagate in any direction at right angles to the paths traced in time by the propagation of the first pair. Performing this operation three times generates a sort of propagation space out of the propagation of virtual energy and the dimension of time in which they propagate. Note that a "rotation" of a direction of propagation in this context does not yet imply "space" as we understand the term, nor does any such rotation require any "time" in any real sense, in order to accomplish. Now we are presented with a universe in which there are virtual photons being continuously created (also referred to by some as a "quantum foam") which may propagate in any of an infinite number of directions at any instant. REAL unbound energy may propagate in this space also by the same means that the virtual energy is able to, by a mechanism not yet formally specified. Let us switch briefly to a consideration of the way that the bound energy that is matter may also propagate in this space, and how the "space" behaves on a submicroscopic level. To bound energy (matter) that is at rest, you look around and notice that the ENERGY which comprises the virtual photon pairs in EVERY direction appear to be OF EQUAL ENERGY. If the virtual photons were RED, then BOTH of them are RED. If the virtual photons were BLUE, then both of them are BLUE, in every direction, EVERYWHERE. Now for whatever reason, some other particle of bound energy collides with the single particle of bound energy that was initially at rest and it begins to "move", through this field of virtual energy, whatever that means. What does an observer hitching a ride on this particle of bound energy moving through a vast field of virtual particles now observe? Well, since this is relativistic space we are in, NEITHER of the virtual particle pairs may travel faster than + /- c relative to this observer on the particle of bound energy. Let's stipulate that what happens instead is that for virtual photon pairs in the exact direction of motion of the observer, the leading virtual energy will appear to be BLUE, and if the observer could actually see it (something can scatter the light emitted in other directions), the other virtual photon would be RED. Both the RED and the BLUE virtual photons are still traveling at +/- c. After the REST FRAME of the virtual photons pass the point where the observer has passed (whatever that means), the RED and BLUE shifted photons now flip sides, the BLUE one becoming RED, and the RED one becoming BlUE. But no matter which direction in this universe built from scratch the observer on the bound particle of matter travels, like those short lived beams of virtual photons, the speed of light can never be exceeded, because the bound particle of energy is also energy. It is simply propagating in a different mode in which it does not dissipate. The same RED/BLUE Doppler shifts the virtual energy has when the particle starts moving apply to whatever is going on inside the particle of bound energy. There is no limit to the relative amount of kinetic energy that can be stored within the confines of the bound energy particle, just as there is apparently no limit to how much energy can be stored within the context of the virtual "space" we have created in this universe using only time and energy and rotation. "AT REST" means the same thing no matter where you are or how you "move" in this simple universe, and can always be obtained by summing +/-c in any direction. The only "inertia" here, if you can call it that, is in the energy that is bound. Unbound energy propagates in a given direction, but the direction has no "anchor", no "coordinate system" as it would have in a Euclidean space. Bound and unbound energy only has inertia (and a measurement of relative energy) that is relative to other particles of bound or pairs of propagating unbound energy. The only "absolute space" in this universe is the center of ROTATION of bound energy. The only "absolute time" is the instant of "NOW" THAT IS THE DEFINED REST FRAME OF THE CREATION OF VIRTUAL PHOTONS. This defines time's origin and also arrow, BUT NO FIXED RATE FOR A FLOW OF TIME IS ASSUMED OR IMPLIED ANYWHERE IN THIS MODEL. All "lengths" measured in any direction are in LIGHT TRAVEL TIME, even and especially within solid matter that was the model for Euclidean space in Ancient Greece. Even "solid" matter is made up of mostly empty space. Nor is it assumed that the singular dimension of time has any lower limit (even Planck) in terms of scale. Want to add anything to this model of physics, or is it complete enough already? Recognize anything about inertia that you didn't before? The main emphasis of this model is to say "cram it already" with notions of Euclidean space, Lorenz covariance and geometric coordinate systems anywhere and everywhere physics is done except in the vicinity of really big, and slow relative velocity vectors near large solid references. Relativity, not something conjured from Euclidean space in the mind of a mathematician, is the only reality that matters.
You have a something from nothing scenario going, right? If so, then my next question is, was there a "first cause", something that set things in motion; something that caused that first pair to be produced? Also, you mention this pair originating from a single point in space, but you advised us to start with NOTHING that could be identified as "space". How do you explain there being a single point in space? Would you say it pre-existed the initial pair production? Even if the theoretical physics that has grown up over the years is full of incompleteness and inconsistencies, you are proposing vast changes. I would ask, are you keeping some of it and chucking the rest? What is good in the old physics, and what needs to go? Do we keep or chuck General Relativity? Do we explain the CMBR differently than in the standard model, and if so, what is the new explanation? In your two posts you have covered a lot of territory, and I'm a simple layman, so I won't understand it very well. Will you humor me in my line of questioning?
This is not yet a cosmological theory. I was unhappy with the way particle physicists shrug it off whenever you point out to them that the principle of equivalence is more solid a law of physics than are Hilbert spaces, Lie groups and String Theory, not to mention Lorentz covariance, which makes no sense at all. In a universe that is composed only of time and energy, and with time dilation different whenever something moves or is in proximity to other bound energy, it really makes no sense even to consider "warpage of space". Since relativity 101, lengths are simply light travel TIMES, and so is space, in every direction. I was also unhappy with the way QCD theorists shrug off the discovery of the Higgs boson, and consider its role in atomic structure as chump change compared to the energies of gluons, color charge and the strong force. The Higgs is intimately involved in imparting inertial mass to electrons, electroweak bosons, quarks and their antiparticles. If the rest is simply energy (and it is), you have a field that is directly responsible for 100% of the inertial mass of atomic structure. The 98% proton mass they calculated from their "first principles" QCD relations means that the other 2% of the inertial mass of quarks via the Higgs mechanism. They don't seem to believe even their own figures. It's all over; Higgs exchanges of inertia with atomic structure explains 100% of gravitational mass. If the "spin" value isn't what they were expecting, the rest probably results from the bound energy they imparted inertia to imparting some of the spin of bound energy back to the Higgs bosons. The problem with Higgs gravity is resolved.
You have a way of putting your finger on the very basics. You have a place to start building a cosmlogy identified in that paragraph. You say, "a universe that is composed only of time and energy, and with time dilation different whenever something moves or is in proximity to other bound energy, it really makes no sense even to consider "warpage of space". If that is true, and I think it is, you can let go of GR. But you need to then say what causes the observed fact that clocks that are accelerated run slower. I suggest that acceleration somehow increases energy density in the clock's frame. That is what leads me to think of energy as waves, and objects moving through space encounter wave energy. The energy density would then be greater in the direction of motion, and the particles in the clock function slower as the wave energy density increases, but that is just my layman thinking. In that paragraph you may have the prescription to quit thinking along the lines QCD. The next question is how much of the Standard Model of Particle Physics can you use. What particles and forces in the model do you think we really understand? To accept fundamental particles, they can have no internal composition, so what are they like? Do forces become particles that carry force? I think you should go through it and see if it really makes sense, or if the missing particles are missing because the model is not just incomplete, but incorrect? Your thoughts along those lines?
Unfortunately, it will not be possible to "let go" of GR just yet. If it isn't the right field equations, I will stipulate that it must be very close. There is nothing really wrong with the idea of Euclidean space for things that are always much closer to "at rest" locally than they are to the speed of light. The enigmatic fudge factor G in the field equation is a dead giveaway that even though the math for GR may work, the mechanism really isn't understood by anyone who uses it, including people who seem to insist that time dilation is the same thing as space warpage. Anyone who claims it is otherwise is a liar. Einstein evidently understood this when he allowed Hilbert credit for his parallel analysis of GR's field equations. But Hilbert was not really a physicist, and really cared only that the math checked out. This analysis was not an easy one to achieve, and an expert in exotic geometries no doubt helped a lot. We can't really give up on QCD either. The reasoning that led to the discovery of the relationships between quarks and gluons and the strong force is quite sound, and over half of the mathematics that led us there probably is also. I'm not arguing against the use of the best mathematical tools we can find to deal with inquiries about physics; only that they must be periodically checked against their bindings to physical reality. Some of the mathematics can make that claim (the Higgs Lagrangian can!). Others, it is not so clear. A little cleanup of the Higgs Lagrangian and it's so-long gravitons; hello Higgs gravity. The Higgs mechanism CUTS INERTIA BOTH WAYS, and SPIN INERTIA seems to be missing. That mistake will need a correction. Now for the bombshell that will blow particle physics to hell and turn the Standard Model upside down. I just learned yesterday that a new and novel decay event for Higgs has been confirmed (and is in preparation for much deeper study this run). I don't have a Feynman diagram for the decay yet, but one of the decay modes for Higgs is reportedly two electrons and two muons. I found out about this from an artist who has a special interest in Higgs and is preparing a work of art in association with the LHC to commemorate this discovery. She plans a trip to the LHC herself in 2016. We should all hope that next year will be a more peaceful one in France. A particle just doesn't get any more fundamental than that. Dirac was almost right; electrons are all identical because the Higgs is made of them and all of the Higgs are entangled. Even parts of String Theory might turn out not to be dead ends. In the universe I have described particles of bound energy which actually resemble strings in one dimension. Even "rolled up" dimensions may have deeper meaning. But in String theory, strings never Doppler shift, do they? There's another one of those pesky bindings to reality I always go on about. If strings have energy and are bound, they have inertia. If they have inertia, they can absorb (and transfer) energy, and you can do physics in this universe with them. If they are fantasy, they will do nothing of the kind, but you can't have it both ways. Brains. Not "Branes". So long, SUSY.
So long, SUSY, I have to agree. Just a question, if energy levels that produce Higgs boson during expansion, i.e. during a decline in density, then does decay from particles that exist in the highest densities occur becauses the density declines. Does that mean that those particles become unstable as the energy density declines, resulting in decay into new particles and energy configurations? Is that what you are picking up on in that new information.
This vision seems to be presenting itself a little at at time as I converse here and I seem to have little control over when the next piece will snap into sharp relief. There really is nothing like a cosmological constant dropping out of this analysis yet. If it comes, paddoboy and brucep and rpenner will be involved.
I don't expect there to be any new evidence of a Cosmological Constant. There is already evidence that the universe isn't expanding smoothly, depending on how you interpret the cold spot and the hemispherical ansiotropy in the back ground temperature. The decay of hugely massive particles, as the known universe expands, fits with a history of extremely energetic particles that decay during expansion until the stable particles emerge.
And of course, now we have to worry about the Higgs abyss. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just found this on APS (American Physical Society) ... http://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/108
