Well. As I’m already sort of ‘weird certified’ due to my essay here I thought I would take it up a level more. I like to say that what we see at a QM level is due to ‘emergences’ right, and that from there to our macroscopic reality there will be yet another ‘jumps’ or emergences defining our ‘arrow of time’.

I also suggest that what we call ‘dimensions’ might be a little different that our mainstream definitions, not that I have any tests for that, except suggesting a way of experimentally proving the existence of the mainstream theory of ‘dimensions’, that is, how to prove the existence of a ‘two dimensional’ system inside SpaceTime, which would put all my ideas to a rest when it comes to dimensionality.

Let’s talk about the electron for a moment. I say it’s an emergence right. So what does that mean? Geometrically we might not define the exact location of any electron but we can still see the perturbations of it. So whatever it is it does have a distinct placement geometrically, would you agree to that?

Now, let us assume

that what we call an electron is something very ‘fast’, as seen inside SpaceTime, creating a figure inside spacetime.

How could it do that?

One idea here is whether you could see it as a one or two dimensionally plane, rotating itself into what we define as three dimensionality.

Now, you need to see the difference between my idea and ‘dimensions’ in general. There is no ‘Lego’ to it. You can’t really play with the concept of ‘dimensions as ‘planes’ that we can connect, or are ‘interconnected’.

What creates ‘dimensionality’ is the ‘times arrow’, and what we have is ‘emergences’.

There are some constants we hold true inside SpaceTime. One is the speed of light, which keeps our universe in shape.

If everything comes down to ‘c’ in a vacuum then what is creating the electron should have a relation to that too.

So our electron should be ruled by ’c’ inside SpaceTime, and an electron is definitely ‘inside’ SpaceTime.

So?

Can light ‘paint’ an electron?

How?

And why would there be any consistent ‘cavity’ for it to ‘paint’ in?

One idea is to see it as a light quanta bounded to a certain ‘form’ ‘moving’ as we see it, creating the properties we call an electron. But why would it be ‘bounded’ to a certain form?

Let us take a plane, now, if you want to see it as’ one or two dimensional’ is not that important for the moment, we’ll just call it a transparent ‘plane’ existing by itself. Let that plane be ‘undefined’ as for size, and let us then start to rotate/twist it. The rotation is through all axles we can imagine, creating our 3D ‘ball’, but still transparent.

If we now placed a red point of reference on that transparent plane, as defined by some coordinate system. What will we see as the transparent ‘plane’ starts to rotate? And geometrically ‘twists’ simultaneously in all ‘directions’, up to the speed of light.

Well, that might become an ‘electron’ to me, and lifted up to a macroscopic scale, perhaps also matter. And also create the apparent ‘motion’ of that same point of reference that we, ‘in reality’, know to be stationary.

And to that you might add that what I call its ‘rotations/twisting’ to me is our ‘arrow of time’.

Well, to me ‘times arrow’ is what moves it, rotating/twisting it, creating us. ‘Times arrow’ is what defines law from chaos, and with ‘times arrow’ defining a direction macroscopically we will have a ‘filter’ defining our reality.

For that to make some twisted sense we might need to look closer on how many transitions that ‘arrow’ might take before it becomes macroscopically clear. In a QM environment Feynman’s diagram describes a time going several ways, simultaneously. But still with some sort of ‘directionality’ to it, which is one reason I prefer to refer QM:s ‘arrow of time’ as ‘whole processes’ and ‘emergences’, instead of it going ‘two ways’

At that plane ‘times arrow’ is yet undefined even though existing, all we can talk about there is the ‘particles’ probabilities giving us a most probable direction. And as we come into a macroscopic perspective we have (nowadays) gone from Newton’s certainty of celestial unchanging ‘laws’ to admitting that there exists a possibility of probability steering us even here.

The ‘plane’ I play with here is not bound to any specific point in space. In a way it can, from our perspective, be seen as existing at all points independently of each other, like an unlimited amount of ‘planes’ all rotating.

And the rotations is created by what in the end becomes our ‘arrow of time’. So what I’m suggesting is that there is a concept of ‘time’ that could be seen as ‘the holy grail’, unmoving, in which all is resting. And that the ‘arrow of time’ is what gives it a direction and emergences, materializing SpaceTime, creating our ‘reality’.

In a way it’s a perpetual motion machine as what we see as forces and all other manifestations then comes out of a ‘nothing’, created through an ‘emergence’ without any real substance when seen from that other ‘original’ point of view.

In this way you can’t split dimensions, not without taking away our arrow, And that suits my ideas of ‘motion’ and relativity

But that doesn’t mean that the electron and matter behaves the same. Times arrow at a QM level behaves differently from our macroscopic reality begetting different ‘properties’.

There seems to be natural constants defining SpaceTime. Planck defined some of them, Maxwell and Einstein others and of course all other mathematicians and theoretical physicists exploring, like those recurring ‘magic numbers’ you can find in chaos mathematics.

Those are our ‘walls’ defining SpaceTime, and what creates and protects our manifestations. So now you might ask yourself if there are one or many electrons. Well, the questions is to my eyes wrongly defined. If what we have on one ‘original plane’ is without numbers, then what we see inside SpaceTime is also ‘nothing’.

The concept of numbers and mathematics is the tool by which we explore the ramifications of where we are, they can tell us a lot of that, maybe all. But when it comes to how to define an ‘origin’ we might find trouble using the same mathematics.

The emergences and the way those natural constants come into play will only define our ‘walls’, no matter how we refine them. We will need a tool for explaining what ‘emergences’ is too, and why we seem to go from simplicity to complexity, ending in our consciousness.

As for why an ‘electron’ as seen from inside SpaceTime would be defined as ‘existing’ only inside one (loosely) defined location seems to go back to our concepts of geometry. And as we know SpaceTimes geometry is a very ‘pliant’ definition, changing with motion, acceleration and mass, creating different definitions depending on your frame of reference I have no problem accepting that most of what we believe as being true just is definitions of frames of reference.

And if it is so, then an electron might only be a geometric, yet undefined (3D) figure, created through times arrow emerging, bound by the natural constants it creates (properties) as it emerge.

What this concept do to a ‘four dimensional’ reality, well, with times arrow we could be seen to live there already. And a five dimensional, and up ~ . If times arrow is what is defining out three dimensional then what is needed for a five dimensional would be?

Wish I knew. As it is I suspect that it might exist, but also that it, just as our SpaceTime, will be a ‘whole’ experience, not applicable to ‘splitting’ into simpler interconnected ‘planes’ as we seem to do today.

But I’m just guessing.

So what other conclusions might I draw? Well, there are a lot of people that want to see the photon as carrying a mass (restmass), however small. We know that photons are the ‘carriers of exchange’ of invariant mass to energy as well as the opposite, energy to invariant mass. So it might seem as a reasonable approach to attribute some sort of restmass to a photon.

For myself I have always preferred the concept of momentum, and as momentum only attributable to a system when it interacts. Can you see how I think here? That momentum are belonging to both photons and invariant mass as a ‘hidden’ variable that we can’t define without knowing the ‘relative’ speed and mass. Therefore only expressive of redefining our interpretation of a ‘system’ and it’s various parts as it interacts, just like our photon does. Pure ‘invariant mass’ or restmass/proper mass on the other hand is what will be invariant intrinsically in a object, no matter its weight and speed (frame of reference).

Do you see the difference?

But it is still true that light ‘transfers’ mass.

---Quote---

Let me explain how an atom could be created. You may already have heard of

Einsteins famous equation:

E=m*c^2

This means that energy is equivalent to mass and vice versa. This means if

you have enough energy, you can create something with mass, like a

particle. The more energy you have, the heavier the particle can be.

A common example of this equation in effect is a process called Pair

Production. In this process, a gamma-ray (remember, that is a high energy

particle of light) becomes an electron and an anti-electron (a positron).

The positron is the same as an electron in every way except it has a

positive charge, not a negative charge like the electron. A positron is

what is known as a piece of anti-matter. This process starts out with

energy (the photon, which has no mass) and becomes two things with mass,

the electron and positron.

The opposite effect is called Pair Annihilation. The positron and electron

collide and produce at least 2 photons. Mass becomes energy.

From this you can see that if we could get enough energy we could produce

any particle we wished. However, to produce a whole proton, we would need

to have a photon with an energy over 1800 times larger than needed for the

pair production. The heavier the particle you produce the more energy you

need.

It's difficult to explain how much energy this is, but it is actually a

very large amount. If we think of the energy of the light coming from a

normal lamp bulb as being 1 unit of energy. The energy needed for pair

production, to produce an electron and a positron, is about 1 million

(1000,000) units of energy (you would need one billion normal light

photons to produce just one pair production photon.) So to produce a

proton and anti-proton you'd need about 1 billion (1000,000,000) units of

energy.

And controlling such high energy photons is difficult too. So you can see

that producing even just a hydrogen atom would take a lot of work. Much

more work than just getting it from somewhere on the Earth, like from the

atmosphere.

----End of quote-----

Anyway, to me light is light without any restmass, which also simplifies my understanding of lights ability to travel at ‘c’ in a vacuum at the same time it intrinsically still is ‘timeless’. And what we see at its ability of transference or transformation (momentum) is a relation created at its interaction and therefore what I call an ‘emergence’.

To me all ‘forces’ and results of ‘forces’ is types of ‘emergences’.

That we have mathematical definitions from Maxwell to Planck to Einstein defining the relations between mass and light doesn’t change this.

But how can a light quanta (electron) be ‘enclosed’ inside a arbitrary part of ‘space’, macroscopically seen, to create that ‘geometric figure’ giving us a ‘electron’? Well, according to my idea it can’t, it’s an ‘illusion’. It’s ‘standing’ on a plane but ‘times arrow’ rotates that plane, creating our 3D experience. As for the discussion of how ‘many thingies’ there is, to me that question becomes meaningless under a QM level.

So, according to the tome of me, distance and motion doesn’t exist at all

What we have is a ‘plane’ of time that is turbulent (rotating), at last emerging into a macroscopic ‘one-way arrow of time’ that, as it does so, also creates our three dimensional SpaceTime with its macroscopic properties. And that mean that SpaceTime is a beautiful concept, totally true and undividable.

Also it makes me see gravity not as a ‘force’ but as a property belonging to SpaceTime, being instantaneous in that motto that it is ‘always there’ in every point of our SpaceTime being the expression of SpaceTime wrapping itself due to the emergences of matter. Inertia is also an expression of that ‘instantaneous force of gravity’ taking its toll at a course change.

If gravity moved at the speed of light only, without existing as a ‘field’ most orbits would fail as all heavenly bodies exerts a gravitational influence on each other, and as the ‘time delays’ imposed by ‘c’ on those ‘gravitons’ then would destroy the conservation of angular momentum balancing all orbits against each other. That means that the ‘gravitational attraction’ traveling at ‘c’ would be ‘behind’ time-wise where those other planets, suns etc would be in ‘reality’ when that ‘gravitational attraction’ reached its goal, increasing the conservation of angular momentum until the orbits would fail.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that if we took away, let’s say, our sun ‘instantly’ that the gravitational ‘balance/field’ would take ‘c’ to readapt itself, like eight minutes before telling our earth that the sun was gone, like if it was some sort of net existing, and the removal of our sun then would propagate at ‘c’, as some ‘ripple’ in that same gravitational net.

But it becomes strange in that we then should have some sort of ‘glue’ that then would represent the ‘field of gravity’, keeping the orbits ‘balance account’ straight against each other at all times.

At the same time, if gravity was propagating at ‘c’, it still wouldn’t become influenced by gravity’s propagation (gravitons?). Like two opposite laws working against each other? Then we seem to need some ‘law’ defining the way this ‘glue’ works and how it can counterbalance the propagation at ‘c’, keeping the conservation of angular momentum intact. And as I don’t know of any such law?

It’s easier for me accepting that gravity indeed is the topology of SpaceTime and as such as ‘instantaneous’ just as a topology of matter, like our earth, exists without any ‘propagation’ involved. And it explains ‘inertia’ being a ‘instantaneous property‘ too. And yes, to me it becomes just another expression of ‘emergence’, if so.

Another good example is a black hole, if you consider that the EV (Event Horizon) hermetically excludes all ‘propagation’ of forces, why would it have a ‘gravitational field’?

As long as we accept that all ‘forces’ are limited by ‘c’?

There is some ways to look at it, one is that gravity (gravitons?) doesn’t need to consider the EV and so somehow is excluded from SpaceTimes limitations while still ‘propagating at ‘c’’. Another would be to say that the ‘gravitational field’ somehow was defined prior to the collapse into a Black Hole (BH) and since then stayed the same, or growing depending on your views.

The first one is very strange if we define a black hole as a ‘singularity’ excluding all propagation, including gravitons. The second is also very strange in that those ‘gravitons’ emanating should need to come from ‘somewhere’ if it is a force. And remember that the BH is not ‘there’ anymore, the EV excludes it.

The third I can see is to define SpaceTime as a ‘dynamic’ ever existing topology, ‘updating/adapting’ itself instantly as ‘emergences’ happens, like if matter accumulates, breaking down into a BH. And then all BH will be a ’breaks’ or ‘holes’ in SpaceTimes topology, and as such becoming infinitely deep gravitational wells.

So?

Am I perfectly certified now, or have I missed somewhere