Theory of Everything

[Anders Hoveland]

remember that there is a relationship between mass, space, and gravity. The phenomena of space arrises from mass. The phenomena of mass arrises from the potential energy of gravitational force. "Space" is a very long wavelength type of energy, so long that the flux is imperceptible. The "vacuum" energy (responsible for radioactive decay) is more of a rogue wave phenomena. In the absence of space, matter would move infinitely fast, simultaneously occupying an entire linear path, which is the same effect that would be observed if the matter was without mass. Neutrinos have a much lower cross section interaction, so it is possible to exceed the speed of light because there is less coupling with the vacuum energy. The coupling between light and vacuum energy is analogous to the coupling between a photon of light inside a transparent dielectric medium. (Photons are, in fact, statistically transiently absorbed into their medium, but they are reradiated in synchrony due to interference phenomena, rather than scattered)

 

The original reason for discounting the theory of the "aether" as a medium for the propagation of light did itself become obsolete after the theory of relativity, but theorists never went back to reexamine their justification for the non-existence of aether. In other words, it is a logical fallacy to infer that the Michelson–Morley experiment disproves the theory of aether while at the same time accepting the theory of relativity. The "aether" itself is electromagnetic radiation subject to relativity, so any possible confirmation of the Michelson–Morley experiment would be contradictory to the theory of relativity.

 

 

The behaviour of a high-density collection of very long wavelength photons will take on many of the properties of coherence, because the energy will be able to couple with intermediate transient vacuum particles. The delta distribution is only the "lowest" energy state possible within the confines of uncertainty, which is itself due to vacuum fluctuations! It would be completely meaningless to describe the vacuum energy (at least the coherent equilibrium)itself in terms of uncertainty.

 

"Non-existent" particles are referred to as "vacuum energy", which can more accurately be described as fluxuations in extremely long wavelength electromagnetic energy existing in equilibrium with particle- antiparticle pairs.

Since the vacuum energy is, on average, in a zero-value energy state, time and space could be inevitably biased toward normal matter. In the absence of "vacuum" energy, any particle would theoretically move with infinite speed, existing as a linear vector rather than a point-like particle.

It is for this reason that, in the absence of vacuum energy, concepts of space and time do not have any meaning. The vacuum energy slows down particles by coupling its large reservoir of energy to that of the particle, effectively lending the particle rest mass.

 

If there is too much mass in the universe than the potential energy that exists in the form of gravitational attraction will outweigh the sum of all the particles rest mass! This would obviously be impossible, because any form of energy, even gravitational potential, adds mass to a particle.

 

One would rather suspect that the potential gravitational energy which can be derived if all mass in the universe were to collapse on itself is exactly equal to the total rest mass. In other words, an objects rest mass might actually derive not from "Higgs bosons", but rather from the fact that it has the potential to release energy as it feels the force of gravity. From this, it would not be impossible to calculate how much mass can exist in the universe. Have a feeling this is part of a wider universal constant which ties several other constants together.

 

For example, it is estimated that 90% of a particle's rest mass is transformed into kinetic energy if it falls into a black hole.

 

First, creating energy from "nothing" does not necessarily violate fundamental laws, if the nature of all mass-energy vectors are circular. That is to say that if the universe, and time, does actually eventually circle back on itself, rather than being infinite. There is a fundamental, but still not well understood, connection between mass-energy and space. It is unlikely that the quantity of mass or energy could be limited while the space is infinite. There is also the logical argument that if the universe is infinite, most of it is must be dark, unlike the observable region of the universe around us. read about Olbers paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

 

If time/space circles back on itself, the "creation" or "destruction" of energy may be a relative phenomena, depending on the time/space scale of reference. There are good reasons why small existence-loops of matter are unlikely to exist in small intervals, but it does suggest interesting possibilities. Especially if "string theory" has any validity, small loop vectors could very well exist. Their creation/destruction would not necessarily require any energy, since they would "create themselves", but in a much more localized way then the rest of the matter in the universe.

 

 

If neutrinos can actually travel faster than light, it might suggest that the quantum vacuum is interacting with matter to give it mass, and that neutrinos apparently have less interaction with the vacuum energy. If the measurements are actually accurate, there may be other possible explanations, such as "quantum entanglement" that could be causing a particles to respond slightly prior to being affected, a sort of "time travel" phenomena within the realm of particle physics, which has already been well documented. I am rather partial to the belief that "quantum entanglement" is actually a consequence of a much more simpler phenomena; that of interference. The so-called "randomness" of decay to lower energy states cannot be entirely random. Two photons overlapping in the wrong way would result in destructive interference, which is to say that such overlap is forbiden.The real interesting phenomena is that two photons will never head towards eachother in the first place, in a way that would eventually result in destructive interference. What seems to be randomness, in which direction and phase the photons were emitted, is actually predetermined to avoid a future forbiden state. This is not specifically to say that a decaying particle "knows" what will happen in the future, but there does seem to be some sort of correlation, which is not well understood. And I think the difficulty understanding this comes mostly from our limited perception of time in terms of "cause" and "effect". Time is not necessarily "flowing" forward or backward. I think that things are less "Random" than we realise, and that there exist patterns between the past and future which cannot be explained merely through cause and effect.

 

As for the nature of the universe, the only thing that can be said is that everything that "exists" is only relative to everything else that exists. It is illogical to claim any inherent property for anything outside of this.