Purely Conjectural Hypothesis

[Tharios]

This technically has no evidential basis in known physics. I am not a physicist, or even an engineer. I am a night stocker/cashier at a grocery store, with a GED. There are some aspects of it supported by certain experiments, but, more importantly, it is not contradicted by any experimental data to date. Please take it for the total amateur speculation that it is, and not a hard hypothesis.

I myself prefer the idea that space is not, in fact, a membrane and is, instead, a soup of unidentified fundamental particles...like another layer of the Higgs Field. Its behavior doesn't make sense any other way, from what I've read in various papers.

In the particle soup scenario, normal matter would interact with the Higgs Field, thus being imparted with the effect of mass, and causing interaction with the particles responsible for "space" or rather the definition of separation between any two other particles. More mass, less separation...less separation, more "gravity".

Additionally, if time were not an aspect of space, and not a "fabric" or membrane, itself, it too would make more sense. Time would be linked to space, as a particle which prohibits interactions from occurring in reverse, and the local distribution of which determines the apparent rate at which interactions do occur. These particles would apparently have to exist in a natural equilibrium with particles of space, assuming there were no other matter or energy present, or else something else is at work also. In such a case, it would be likely that something such as charge or spin would be responsible for their "mixing" properties? There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with the assumption of a natural equilibrium, all outside factors accounted for, so we'll stick with that for now.

So normal mass would push away particles of space, reducing separation (and thereby increasing "gravity"), while massless energetic particles don't (or may even gather them up, in some instances), increasing separation...and this would in turn cause particles of time to fall in and fill the void, or be thrown away to make room...thus slowing time in a gravity well and "speeding it up" farther away.

Acceleration through these particle fields would have the same effect at sufficient velocities because the particles of time determine rates of interaction and if you acquire more interactions within that frame, the effect should increase, and since everything is always moving relative to everything else, you'd get relativistic timeframes. The faster something goes, the more Higgs particles its material is forced to interact with, the more mass it gains, the more space particles are forced away, the more time particles are gathered up...and so on.

It occurs to me now that one might ask, "then what's between particles of space and time"? To which the only possible answers are of course, nothing...or something. I'm inclined to go with nothing. There's otherwise no reason to assume yet another particle's existence in this case. But if there's nothing, then WHY is there nothing? Well...technically, there isn't nothing, I think.

Perhaps the particles overlap one another. Their density being the measure of what we call time, distance, and gravity. They can never be separated from that overlap entirely (or perhaps they can and that's what a wormhole is?), and so no matter how "empty" space seems, or the overall distance travelled, everything will appear directly as though it were traveling across a uniform surface or membrane. Hence, why even cosmically distant light appears to arrive here without significant deviation, when the idea is that a particle soup of spatial fabric would indicate they should stutter and be less bright.

So...Higgs, Space, Time...the three together give us substance, universal bindings, and interaction. Higgs gives everything else mass dependent on everything else's own traits otherwise (which I'm sure there's uniform rules to, but we won't get into that right now...because I'm clueless on it), most likely by increasing in field density around those objects. The increased concentration of overlap in Higgs particles forces spatial particles farther apart, which causes temporal particles to constrict into the region of less spatial density...and for whatever unaccounted for reason at the moment...don't seem to care about Higgs.

Hmm...maybe a hole in the idea...darn. Ah well...I'll keep thinking on it.

Anyway, thoughts, criticism? I don't at all expect this to be well-recieved, but rather to be torn up hard as an "armchair physicist" with no idea what I'm talking about. lol

Edit: For clarification of various points and assumptions. For the purposes of this clarification, "known" refers to that knowledge which currently has fewer actively lingering questions, than acceptable answers.

1) All currently known natural universal laws are governed by one or more particular forces.

1a) All currently known forces are fields composed of specific and unique types of fundamental particles.

1b) These particles, to date, never "pull double duty", and are always responsible for only one field and its singular effect.

1c) It can be reasonably assumed, given our current understanding, that while any given field has only a singular effect, those effects can have far more varied results through interactions with other fields and entities within those fields and itself.

1d) It is probable that certain natural universal laws that seem too complex to be related to a single field in the above case, may as such be related to multiple fields, instead.

2) Space is a field of force composed of fundamental particles whose individual volumes always overlap one another, and all other particles.

2a) As such, they have no requirement for intermediary particles that "fill in" the otherwise nonexistent gaps between them.

2b) The field of these particles serves as a matrix of dividers between all other forms of particles, except for Higgs particles, and temporal particles; which are themselves additional complimentary field matrices.

2c) The degree of "density" of this overlap between spatial particles is what gives the appearance of gravitation between massive bodies.

2d) Greater field density increases the apparent separation between non-spatial particles, presenting the appearance of decreased gravitation; while lesser field density decreases that apparent separation, therefore increasing the appearance of gravitation.

2e) It is the greater and lesser density of these particles, and their effects on the appearance of distance, that cause relativistic effects, rather than the fundamental particles of time; as a given interaction spread out over a greater span, intrinsically appears as though it occurs over a longer period, as well.

3) The Higgs Field is responsible for the appearance of mass for given particles, and particles with given traits interact or fail to interact with the field to varying degrees, producing a variety of mass effects.

3a) It is not unreasonable or contradictory at this time to assume that a given Higgs particle has a given effect on a given piece of matter, and that the appearance of greater mass is due to interaction with greater numbers of Higgs particles.

3b) Given the immediately prior assumption, it follows that a given mass in relative motion through the Higgs field interacts with a greater number of Higgs particles than it would at rest relative to the field; causing the same effect as though that body were proportionally more massive than it actually is, contributing to the appearance of time dilation in transit.

3c) Given all of the above assumptions, it is reasonable to assume also that Higgs particles and spatial particles attempt to avoid interaction with one another, as a greater density of Higgs particles would seem to cause a lessening of spatial density and thus increase gravitation.

4) Time, like space, is also a force related to a field composed of fundamental particles, which serve as a matrix for mitigating the interactions of all other particles.

4a) These particles' effect is the mechanism whereby the energy required for an interaction to operate in reverse is directly negated in response by a reciprocal quantity of energy in the field, and so reversed interactions are prevented.

4b) Given all prior assumptions, particles of time do not otherwise seem affected by Higgs or spatial particles.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Tharios
Clarification and revision.

[Duxwing]

I'm glad that you're thinking about such questions! They need bright, eager minds. In your hypothesis, what separates two particles of space? Also, your time particle may be unnecessary to explain closed-system thermodynamics, wherein "reverse" phenomena never spontaneously occur because the "reverse" direction requires energy that the system originally lacked and further either conserved or turned into heat via the 'forward' direction. Finally, how can we empirically falsify your hypothesis? Empirical falsifiability is an important concept in scientific epistemology because if two unfalsifiable statements were valid, then they could both be verified, and they might contradict one another.

-Duxwing

[NGTOne]

Man, I wish there were more people who actually think about these things.

I don't know if your theory holds water or not (will give a more careful reading tomorrow), but damn is it good to see someone thinking seriously about the nature of the universe, especially when they're not being paid for it.

Faith in human race restored, and keep up the good work!

+rep

[Tharios]

Wow...really...wow.

That is not what I was expecting. Good thing to see on the internet, it's appreciated.

So while at work last night, I gave it some more thought, and having read Duxwing's post, I'm glad I did. As such, I've chosen to edit the OP both to clarify and revise the hypothesis.

As for methods whereby this hypothesis might be falsified through empirical experimentation...well frankly, I really have no idea. At the moment, given my genuinely total lack of training or experience in the field, I can only assume that it would have to do with an extremely powerful particle accelerator seeking appropriate "energy gaps" in the current model where such particles might yet be hiding.

Their properties would necessitate certain energies, and so any particle found consistently within that range could indicate the validity of the hypothesis. But I haven't the means to even randomly take a stab at guessing what those values might be.

[K^2]

Higgs Field is only responsible for a small amount of current mass. Most of the mass is dynamic, due to dynamic symmetry breaking, for example.

Force isn't what you understand it to be. All of the fundamental forces are due to symmetries. Gravity is due to translational and rotational symmetries in space-time, while electroweak and strong forces are due to local structure.

As a result, absolutely all known phenomena, all available observation, and every bit of knowledge we have of this universe is described by a set of 12 fermionic fields (6 leptons and 6 quarks) placed in R⁴ manifold and governed by a Lagrangian with Lorentz, U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) local symmetries, with all of the corresponding gauge fields and regularization terms.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that such description is in any way flawed or insufficient. This is very important to note. We aren't faced with any phenomena that we cannot place in this hierarchy.

There is an issue of being able to actually model something within this formalism, which is practically resolved by considering separately a problem of particle fields in locally flat space-time (QCD) and a problem of space-time geometry with classical energy distribution (General Relativity). Attempts to come up with a mathematical formulation that allow to cover both aspects in relation to each other are at the leading age of modern physics. But any such theory has to yield QCD and General Relativity in corresponding limits.

And while various string theory and holographic approaches to field theory have been explored, they have not given us anything new. Nor have we found any indication that additional degrees of freedom allowed by these theories are necessary. At best, they describe the same dynamics in a more convoluted ways. A standard 4-space with U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) fields is enough as far as everything we observe tells us. If there is more to reality, we have not found any indication of it.

So before you start making up a description different from Standard Model, I strongly suggest you learn more about the later. At least qualitative aspects of it. But it is very important to keep in mind that description is only valuable if it gives reliable quantitative predictions. A bunch of words are useless if you can't put some formulae with them and these formulae let you compute something you can compare to a measurement.

[Ben 9072]

This is definitely a very interesting idea. However, the biggest issue I see with it is that it breaks T-symmetry by having time as interactable "particles", since it adds an uncertainty to time, so actions are not the same when reversed. Also, if you consider such things as time and space as being particles, it must mean that they can have a definitive position (plus/minus some uncertainty). You can't really define space as having a position without referring back to space, so it kind of recursively breaks down there. Also, having time as particles does not explain relativity or Lorentz contractions like having space and time be linked in spacetime. Anyway, I guess my reaction would be that it's an interesting idea that sounds plausible, but breaks down when you look closely. However, don't stop thinking of ideas - some of the most valuable contributions to science have been made from people with little scientific background.

[K^2]

To be fair, time symmetry really is broken.

[Tharios]

Higgs Field is only responsible for a small amount of current mass. Most of the mass is dynamic, due to dynamic symmetry breaking, for example.

Force isn't what you understand it to be. All of the fundamental forces are due to symmetries. Gravity is due to translational and rotational symmetries in space-time, while electroweak and strong forces are due to local structure.

As a result, absolutely all known phenomena, all available observation, and every bit of knowledge we have of this universe is described by a set of 12 fermionic fields (6 leptons and 6 quarks) placed in R⁴ manifold and governed by a Lagrangian with Lorentz, U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) local symmetries, with all of the corresponding gauge fields and regularization terms.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that such description is in any way flawed or insufficient. This is very important to note. We aren't faced with any phenomena that we cannot place in this hierarchy.

There is an issue of being able to actually model something within this formalism, which is practically resolved by considering separately a problem of particle fields in locally flat space-time (QCD) and a problem of space-time geometry with classical energy distribution (General Relativity). Attempts to come up with a mathematical formulation that allow to cover both aspects in relation to each other are at the leading age of modern physics. But any such theory has to yield QCD and General Relativity in corresponding limits.

And while various string theory and holographic approaches to field theory have been explored, they have not given us anything new. Nor have we found any indication that additional degrees of freedom allowed by these theories are necessary. At best, they describe the same dynamics in a more convoluted ways. A standard 4-space with U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) fields is enough as far as everything we observe tells us. If there is more to reality, we have not found any indication of it.

So before you start making up a description different from Standard Model, I strongly suggest you learn more about the later. At least qualitative aspects of it. But it is very important to keep in mind that description is only valuable if it gives reliable quantitative predictions. A bunch of words are useless if you can't put some formulae with them and these formulae let you compute something you can compare to a measurement.

I see...wizards only, hmm? Mere mortals need not apply?

I appreciate the information. I don't appreciate your tone or implications.

[Tharios]

This is definitely a very interesting idea. However, the biggest issue I see with it is that it breaks T-symmetry by having time as interactable "particles", since it adds an uncertainty to time, so actions are not the same when reversed. Also, if you consider such things as time and space as being particles, it must mean that they can have a definitive position (plus/minus some uncertainty). You can't really define space as having a position without referring back to space, so it kind of recursively breaks down there. Also, having time as particles does not explain relativity or Lorentz contractions like having space and time be linked in spacetime. Anyway, I guess my reaction would be that it's an interesting idea that sounds plausible, but breaks down when you look closely. However, don't stop thinking of ideas - some of the most valuable contributions to science have been made from people with little scientific background.

I would have to say that if space were composed of particles, would not one particle have its position relative to others of its kind?

Aside from that, I guess I'll have to work on it.

As for whether or not I should...I think I should. It won't do any good, but I have little better to do, and I think the entire model needs to be simplified. If the government ever decides it would like to pay for it, perhaps I'll actually commit to studying it.

[JebidiahsBigSister]

I see...wizards only, hmm? Mere mortals need not apply?

One of the very first steps in wisdom is in knowing how much you really do not know.

As a grocery stocker with a GED would you be comfortable going to your local hospital and giving advice on your latest ideas about neurosurgery to the head of that department? How about going to Washington and giving your ideas to some lawyer on how to best argue the latest Supreme Court case?

No? At least I hope not. Then why are you so comfortable giving your latest thoughts on Particle Physics which require one to have a minimum of an eight year University education before one is even thought of seriously in professional circles?

Tharios, everyone in the U.S. is certainly entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are of equal worth. When K^2 mentions the obvious shortfalls (well obvious to someone with more of a Physics education than I) in your thoughts, you should be grateful and thoughtful rather than showing your ire about it.

Edited October 23, 2013 by JebidiahsBigSister

[K^2]

I see...wizards only, hmm? Mere mortals need not apply?

I appreciate the information. I don't appreciate your tone or implications.

And what did you expect? Anything that can be understood without spending a decade building up a proper background has been understood centuries ago. It has taken a score of people who were brilliant in mathematics, logic, and sciences, and who have spent their lives studying the world to build up the knowledge we have today. And it takes many years of study for us, common wizards, just to understand all of this and try to expand the foundation.

Understanding isn't some sort of privilege you are granted as a birth right. It is something you gain through years of work. That makes it easy to forgive the ignorance of the subject, but not the lack of respect towards people who actually do something to advance sciences.

If the government ever decides it would like to pay for it

It would be a dark day indeed when public money is spent on charlatans and snake oil.

[Dispatcher]

One of the very first steps in wisdom is in knowing how much you really do not know.

As a grocery stocker with a GED would you be comfortable going to your local hospital and giving advice on your latest ideas about neurosurgery to the head of that department? How about going to Washington and giving your ideas to some lawyer on how to best argue the latest Supreme Court case?

No? At least I hope not. Then why are you so comfortable giving your latest thoughts on Particle Physics which require one to have a minimum of an eight year University education before one is even thought of seriously in professional circles?

Tharios, everyone in the U.S. is certainly entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are of equal worth. When K^2 mentions the obvious shortfalls (well obvious to someone with more of a Physics education than I) in your thoughts, you should be grateful and thoughtful rather than showing your ire about it.

There are differences between education, knowledge and wisdom; one never knows what lurks in the mind of another (ignore that degree on the wall). Perhaps if a learned professional were to engage in a dialog with someone not skilled in that profession, new and useful ideas might be sparked. At the very least, the learned professional could set the other party straight when their views are contrary to accepted theory and practice. I'm not suggesting that such a pro should tutor the less educated; there's where established institutions of learning shine. Also, entitlement to opinions is not limited to the U.S. (which is true of this forum also). As for me, I've a degree, some knowledge and hopefully a little wisdom (plus that very educational toy called KSP).

[K^2]

Perhaps if a learned professional were to engage in a dialog with someone not skilled in that profession, new and useful ideas might be sparked. At the very least, the learned professional could set the other party straight when their views are contrary to accepted theory and practice.

We have that. It's called a University.

[Dispatcher]

We have that. It's called a University.

True; I was referring to the OTHER pros who are applying their degree in their chosen field (outside of the educational realm). Notice tha I mentioned "established institutions". These include universities.

[Tharios]

One of the very first steps in wisdom is in knowing how much you really do not know.

As a grocery stocker with a GED would you be comfortable going to your local hospital and giving advice on your latest ideas about neurosurgery to the head of that department? How about going to Washington and giving your ideas to some lawyer on how to best argue the latest Supreme Court case?

No? At least I hope not. Then why are you so comfortable giving your latest thoughts on Particle Physics which require one to have a minimum of an eight year University education before one is even thought of seriously in professional circles?

Tharios, everyone in the U.S. is certainly entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are of equal worth. When K^2 mentions the obvious shortfalls (well obvious to someone with more of a Physics education than I) in your thoughts, you should be grateful and thoughtful rather than showing your ire about it.

You misunderstand. Firstly, I don't expect to have "hit the nail on the head". It was pure speculation and I said so from the start. I never claimed to be an expert. In no way was I dishonest about any of it.

Secondly, the primary purpose was more to offer a different point of view for, say, the purpose of inspiration. Maybe someone who actually knows what they're doing, might look at it all and say, "no, you're completely wrong...but THIS particular part is interesting, let's see if there's anything behind it."

I'm grateful for any correct information to supplant or supplement what I have available. I would rather have accurate information, than not. I would rather produce effective and accurate hypotheses, than not. My ire is due to the fact that, as you can read below, he's accusing me of being a liar, essentially claiming that I'm intentionally attempting to dupe people into believing my claims OVER those of experts. When such accusations themselves are, in this context, petty and dishonest.

One last thing...law is strictly a matter of interpretation, currently. It isn't in any way equatable to scientific endeavors. A better example might have been going into a hospital and insisting that I can do a better job than the surgeon. Honestly, at this point, as far as Washington DC goes, there is almost no one who couldn't do a better job in any of those roles...except for the fact that nearly all would be instantly corrupted as well. Just look at the mind-bogglingly wrong interpretations of the 2nd amendment. Or the decision that corporations have a right to free speech and that money counts as speech (grossly simplified, but accurate).

And what did you expect? Anything that can be understood without spending a decade building up a proper background has been understood centuries ago. It has taken a score of people who were brilliant in mathematics, logic, and sciences, and who have spent their lives studying the world to build up the knowledge we have today. And it takes many years of study for us, common wizards, just to understand all of this and try to expand the foundation.

Understanding isn't some sort of privilege you are granted as a birth right. It is something you gain through years of work. That makes it easy to forgive the ignorance of the subject, but not the lack of respect towards people who actually do something to advance sciences.

-snip-

Now I'm going to go peruse FAFSA and see if anything about their willingness to have people like myself attain a proper education has changed. Though perhaps I'd be better off going to a Canadian university. Their curriculums are more focused and their standards better than American schools. Guess I'll just have to look at all possible options and hope for the best.

Oh, one last thing, Einstein's capability certainly benefitted immeasurably from an extensive education (though he largely ignored it), but what he did with that knowledge...that, was most certainly a birthright. The way in which he viewed the universe in the light of his acquired knowledge was something that cannot ever be taught, or copied, by someone not born with it. The same is true of Hawking, and a myriad of others who've made the biggest and most groundbreaking strides. All are important to the process, but your claim that no one has such a birthright, is demonstrably wrong. Some do...I am almost certainly not one of them, and I may never know at this rate anyway.

I don't necessarily care all that much, though it would be nice to go through it all and find out. -snip- I have an almost immeasurably slim chance, a minuscule uncertainty, enough that I myself don't believe it for an instant, but it's technically there. But you've already been through the crucible, and your chance is gone. -snip-

Edited October 23, 2013 by KasperVld

[Nuke]

thats the suckey thing about learning: finding out some of the things you knew were wrong.

[Camacha]

thats the suckey thing about learning: finding out some of the things you knew were wrong.

It is the good part too. As long as you are willing to kill your darlings.

[KasperVld]

Things are getting way too personal here. Thread closed.