|Knouse Main Page||Genealogy||Openlands Businesses||Sustainability||Athens, Ohio|
|Geography||Science & Nature||Miscellanea||Personal & Links||Feedback|
My Personal and Quirky Views of the Possibilities of Fundamental Physics
by John Knouse, "-pH D"*
* (acidic Deuterium)
Disclaimers--Please Read: The above "title," -pH D," is not an academic title, but a joke (the academic title would be Ph.D. or PhD). Such as a joke may be. Also, the concepts proposed in this paper are strictly my own conjectures, and are not, so far as I know, theories held by any legitimate physicist of the creditable physics community. They are offered purely as wild speculation, food for thought, and absolutely should not be represented as fact and may be utterly diametrically opposed to reality, although I do include factual information (look it up if you don't know!). Finally, the contents of this are copyright April, 2000 by John A. Knouse, and may not be used or represented without attribution nor for commercial purposes without my explicit consent.
This page has had [an error occurred while processing this directive]
This page was last revised on July 12, 2011.
Paired 3-Dimensional Spatial and Temporal Matrices
What has become classical relativity postulates the four-dimension space-time continuum. I would suggest that this is a false construct, and that a more accurate way of viewing this picture is of a multi-dimensional spatial matrix and a multi-dimensional temporal matrix which intrinsically interface. For purposes of argument, and because it seems to work on many levels, I would suggest three dimensions of space and three of time.
Often physicists have spoken of the "Arrow of Time." Many would raise this as an objection to a multidimensional time matrix. My response is that our "Arrow of Time" is simply the experienced vector of our movement through the time matrix, somewhat comparable to the fact that we are traveling through space -- relatively -- at a mind-boggling speed.
Also, in the "Arrow of Time," physicists have asked why we continue in one apparently irreversible direction, noting, of course, that some reversal of events is postulated on the quantum level. This is related to the aforementioned momentum; we simply lack the power to alter the vector and thus are completely subject to it.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle very much pertains to this concept. This theorem, stating that we cannot know the exact position and momentum of a quantum particle simultaneously, could simply be based on the conceptualization of position as a function solely of space, while momentum is as well a function of time. On the quantum level, the space and time matrices may be commonly mediated through the same contact point for each particle, and it may be impossible to thus represent both space and time precisely and simultaneously for the same particle. By focusing precisely on space, time is excluded, and vice versa. This means that, consistent with the probabilistic determination of particle characteristics, each particle presents itself in time and in space alternatively. With billions of billions of etc. particles acting to represent our perceived reality, the averaging effect of such presentations may obscure this fundamental paradox.
Another conundrum of time is the construction of cosmological evolution by physicists. In all models I've read, it would appear that space is viewed as being initially singular, but time has been viewed as an eternal constant, invariable in momentum. I think this may be a grave error in these models, and that time could either have been highly condensed or highly dispersed at the time of the expansion of the singularity. Our measurement of time effects as being perfectly constant is simply a present matter of our capacity for precision and the idea that shifts in time dimensions as well as space dimensions are of a constant rate.
Another intriguing aspect of this construct is the nature of eigenvectors involving complex numbers, which include i, the square root of negative one. The most lucid and conceptualizable explanation of the effect of using i is the rotation of the scalar quantity at right angles to the number line. In other words, if you conceptualize the number line, with zero in the middle, negative numbers to the left and positive numbers to the right, then multiplication by i introduces a second dimension to the number line: in effect, shifting the value to the x axis from the y axis. If we then equate the number line to the time arrow, then the i shift moves the value to another dimension/position in time.
Another aspect of this is that a number of physics equations factor time with exponents higher than one. For instance, just Einstein's famous equation,
E = mc2 (energy equals mass times the quantity (the speed of light squared))
factors out further as
E = m (9 x 1016) meters2/seconds2
This may be interpretable as comprising two dimensions of time within the equation. That certainly is my interpretation.
My suggested construct also would tie in well with the proposed ideas of infinitely-branching universes, as suggested by some physicists and many science fiction writers. This idea proposes that actions taken at any moment may cause the time line to diverge. For instance, whether or not you drive to the grocery store today could result in one of two different time lines from then on. I would suspect, however, that the perturbations necessary for such divergence must be major and rather selective.
There's also the peculiar problem of figuring out the structure and logic of the distribution of rest masses among particles. There seems no reasonable pattern to the observed mass of such elementary (?) particles such as leptons and quarks. Were there another two dimensions of time to be factored in, this could be a factor in explaining the problem. For instance, perhaps what we think we observe as the rest mass really isn't that, but we need to be able to observe the fullness of the time dimensions in order to figure that.
The fixed speed of light may simply be a factor of our vector/path through time. This will certainly take a great deal more thought, but it's certainly difficult to conceptualize this basic physics observation within the current system of four dimensions. The fact that light appears to be going the same speed, no matter how observed, while what changes with relative velocity is the apparent wavelength/frequency/energy of the light, needs further elucidation.
The dimensions of time are also an important factor in comprehending the nature of gravity and of the graviton. A fundamental conundrum of gravity is that it appears to be action-at-a-distance, apparently independent of the limitations of the speed of light. I suggest that this is not so, but simply a factor of the involvement of temporal dimensions.
If we assume that gravitons move within two dimensions of time rather than one, and that only one dimension of space is really relevant to them, then we can also assume that the action of gravity between the Earth and the Sun does not take 8 minutes, 19 seconds as does light, but rather 1.66 times ten to the negative six second. However, if gravity operates with three dimensions of time, then this figure would be 5.55 times ten to the negative fifteen second.
The "hidden" nature of gravity in the temporal dimensions speaks not only to the apparent mysteries in the masses of various particles, but also to the curvature of space due to gravity, which we have, in fact, found experimentally.
The Curvature of Space-Time
Einstein's work on relativity induced him to offer the suggestion that space-time is intrinsically curved. This relates to the cosmological constant, a number that has been in dispute ever since. If the constant equals exactly 1.0, then space-time is flat. More than one, and it's positively curved. Less than one, and it's negatively curved.
Recent research has led some physicists to claim that space-time is not curved, but flat, based on observations of light paths. I tend to doubt this conclusion, and suggest that there is, indeed, a slight negative curvature. I would suggest that the cosmological constant may be about 0.955.
Particle Characteristics as Dimensional Properties
I suspect that we should treat other physical properties as dimensional properties. Spin, charge, "lepton-ness," "quark-ness," "gluon-ness," and "color" may all belong in this category. The number 3 seems to continually emerge in these various constructs:
and so forth. I suspect that this may reflect an underlying and intrinsic dimensional relationship with the number three. There certainly are many other special relationships with the numbers one and two, as well, and perhaps a few with four.
Relationships with the number/quantity 2 certainly include:
This may further reflect a fundamental relationship of pairs of three-dimensional matrices, as with space and time.
I would further propose a construct, which I shall call a ghedj unit (phonetic spelling of gauge; the "h" is only there to confirm that it's a hard "g") which mediates these qualities.
The Relational Set of Quarks and Leptons
I would like to suggest that we are engineering a false separation between quarks and leptons, and that they are actually intrinsically the same family. To illustrate this, consider the following table:
|Charge ->||- 1||- 2/3||- 1/3||0||+ 1/3||+ 2/3||+1|
|Generation One||electron||up antiquark||down quark||electron neutrino||down antiquark||up quark||positron|
|GenerationTwo||muon||charm antiquark||strange quark||mu neutrino||strange antiquark||charm quark||antimuon|
|Generation Three||tauon||top (truth) antiquark||bottom quark||tau neutrino||bottom antiquark||top (truth) quark||antitauon|
As can be seen, quarks and the leptons other than neutrinos thus all have antiparticles, but the
neutrinos do not. I would further suggest that, while there are three flavors each of the 2/3 spin
quarks, that there is actually a second series of three additional flavors of the 1/3 spin quarks. I
would also suggest that there are six hidden flavors of each neutrino other than the ones observed.
There would still be, however, only one flavor each of the electron, muon, tauon, and their
The Nature of Pi
Another area of speculation that has occurred to me is the curious value of pi. This number has been repeatedly calculated as
3.1415926536. . .
Why this number? I fundamentally believe that it's related to the curvature of space-time itself. If
space-time had a different curvature, I believe that would have a different value. For our
3-dimensional space/time pairing, I suspect that 3.00000000000. . . would be the value if the
cosmological constant were exactly one.
Some current workers in this field suggest that the graviton must be a super-massive particle. I doubt this, however. Even if they find a super-massive particle that they believe to be the mediator of the gravitational force, I think that eventually a very much less massive particle will turn up. This is, of course, rather muddied by the fact that their is a relationship between mass, momentum and energy that makes mass a variable for any given object or moment. The fact that no quantizable unit of mass has been found subatomically, even more fundamental than quarks, may be due to this relationship.
Top of Page
Feedback to Webmaster