Physics

Here are some of my current thoughts on Physics:
===========================================================

Time

There exist much speculation about time, time travel, space-time, and gravity as the warping of space-time. I believe much of this is just a bunch of chatter and pumped up mathematic without a sound basis in reality (whatever that is!).

Speculation On Time and Time Travel:

1. Matter doesn't generally have the wherewithall to generally exceed the speed of light. Why? Because at (near) the speed of light, matter cannot DO anything. All the energy it normally uses at sub-light speed to vibrate, spin, and other amazing acrobatic feats ceases as it commits itself to travel at the speed of light. Therefore, it is effectively "frozen" in space while traveling in one vector direction. All the things it would normally DO generally breakdown.
2. In effect, all matter turns into energy (photons) traveling "in mass" in one direction. This is supported by the following. The energy use to bind atoms and their subparticles together contends with the energy used to travel at the speed of light. Since the net energy must remain equal to the energy at rest (discounting any energy we add to or subtract from the system to get it to the speed of light), one of the energies must "win" out. If we allow the particles to continue at a "higher material" state, they must reserve energy to remain as matter and therefore must travel at some sub-light speed. If we commit them to light speed, we must commit the energy remaining as "mass" to traveling at light speed, therefore the mass itself ceases to be matter and becomes energy by E=mc^2 (approximately).
3. So, as particles of mass move toward the speed of light in one direction, they progressively give up the ability to move in any other direction. This "freezing" effect is what passes for "time travel". These particles don't experience time like us far slower (ha, ha, ha! see below) particle because they are hindered from experiencing time as we do due to their commitment to travel at such extravagant velocity.
4. The concept of Time is a construct of man. Matter/Energy and the Passage of Time are the constructs of the Universe (and as I happen to believe it is an ordered universe, the construct of a higher intellegence). In this respect, the Passage of Time is just a mechanism that allows Matter/Energy to transform into its many wonderful constructs.
5. All Matter/Energy is constantly undergoing changes in velocity (acceleraton) which makes the whole idea of tracking relative speed ridiculous. In fact, we lowly sub-light particles are traveling somewhere near 0.5c with respect to the center of the universe which is constantly changing due to the rotation of the earth, rotation about the sun, rotation about the galaxy, ..., which all leads to a certain amount of nausia. In otherwords, a "frame of reference" doesn't really exist as it is modified as soon as it is declared. Sound a lot like the "Heisenberg Uncertanty Principle".

The Atomic Clock Experiment:

1. This experiment supports all the rambling above. The experiment describes the clocks as "aging" slower or faster than ground due to velocity and gravitational effects. The velocity effect is understood from the above. The gravitational effect is similar. It takes energy for matter to exist in a gravity well. Therefore, the closer (deeper) you are to (in) a gravity well, the more energy it takes to do other things. Then, gravity causes a "freezing" effect on matter as it uses some of its net energy to exist in the well.
2. Like all the acceleration going on, all matter is subject to all other matter's gravity effects everywhere in the universe. So, gravity just adds to the problem of finding a "frame of reference".

What About Gravity?

I subscribe to a Push Theory of Gravity as opposed to the standard Pull Theory. This Push Theory is an elegant model for gravity including tidal effects and moon oscillations. It also gives a simple model that accurately predicts satellite activity (Occam's Razor and all that). People who argue about Pull Theory versus Push Theory need to get a grip. In physic, all THEORIES are (inaccurate) MODELS of REALITY. As such, models are only an approximation of reality and are subject to change. Yes, good models last a long time, but all are subject to change in the light of advanced understanding.

Making Light of Everything

I am not entirely convinced on the whole particle/wave nature of light. In particular, I find the various slit experiments lacking in some fundamental understanding of light's interaction with higher forms of matter--namely solid material use in the experiments. The whole point of the experiment is to create a small enough slit or move the light beam close enough to an edge (half-slit) to get an interference pattern. The pattern is cause by the interference of the light's wavelength at intersecting angles. Now, the experiments all require that the slit width be on the order of magnitude of the light's wavelength. Also, the slit is 3D not 2D. The light passes through a coridor of material. This gives the material opportunity to interfere with the light. Since solid matter is highly structured and not truely neutral or static (duh, its atoms and subatomic particles have charges and are moving), it interferes with the light in a structured manner imposing a structured response--an interference pattern. The rest of the experiment's explaination of overlaping wave amplification / cancellation still holds.
Many have argued about the bullet vs. light senario. My thought is that if a bullet were trying to pass thought a slit the size of a bullet it will "hit the slit" and the bullet would most likely experience deflection. This give an adequate reason for the experiment to have a similar outcome. The electron slit experiment responds in a similar way to the photon slit experiment. The material interferes with the electron's path in a structured manner causing the deflection. Since the deflection is structured, it creates an interference pattern. The fact that each electron does not collect at the same location is bound to the fact that the slit's matter is not truely neutral or static creating statistical disturbances that form the interference pattern.
It has been argued that the speed of the particles are too fast to be affected by the charges between the slit material and the particle. I argue "high energy particle colliders work." Such is the way of charged particles. I would like to see the results of a truely neutral particle slit experiment for comparison.

Back to that odd, rather depressing, melancholy Home Page.