While in my latest post I’ve been a proponent of the theories of the Special and General Relativity, I think even there I’ve been a bit too timid. This is to say, I’ve somehow (at least implicitly) placed the current theory of relativity on the exact same level as the theory of relativistic refraction. At first glance, this seams like a reasonable thing to do, as relativity has been proven to be the most accurate model of motion at any speed when gravitational and quantum effects are negligible.
But what about where quantum effects are not negligible? This is where it all goes pear-shaped. The way general relativity is formulated at the moment, it does not take quantum effects into account. For this, you need relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. Well, perhaps pear-shaped is a bit too strong of a term. Apparently, you can do very useful things with quantum electrodynamics. But the problem is, you are introducing the quantum world into the relativistic approach, and this is a hole you cannot dig yourself out of without those annoying extra dimensions.
You see, without the elementary particle of energy, or dot, there is no object experiencing relativistic effects in the quantum realm. And this is where particle physics come into play. If we assume elementary particles to be truly elementary, we also have take into account the fundamental interactions of the particles. But if we scrap the idea that any of the elementary particles are truly elementary, we can ignore quantum mechanics and only consider gravity. This is to say, if force is something emergent of the interaction of the true elementary particles, or dots, we can go back to special relativity:
1. The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no acceleration).
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of light source or observer.
The only thing to add is:
3. There exists only one size of particles: these are spherical and move at the speed of light in vacuum.
But if I’m honest, I think special relativity is an emergent rule number 3. So, in a sense, what I propose could have another name altogether. It could just be the dot theory. This would mean that the only honest title for the paper would be:
The Mathematical Principles of All Physical Interactions Based on the Existence of Just One Truly Elemental Particle
But even if relativity comes after the existence of these particles, it doesn’t at all mean that relativity is useless. Nor that quantum mechanics is useless. I’d like to show this with a rather simple illustration. Dot theory, or what I’m proposing, is just a theory of the basic structure of larger particles that can undergo relativistic or quantum effects. Thus, dot theory precedes Quantum mechanics and Special Relativity (I ignore general relativity for a while, as I’m not sure whether that is required for the next stage. But as dot theory as it stands isn’t a theory of interactions, or mechanics, itself cannot be expanded into a theory of everything. It doesn’t introduce the mathematical tools to work with. This means, we still have to go back to quantum mechanics and relativity to get things done. So, we could view it like this:
Or perhaps like this:
In here, dot theory causes special relativity, which indirectly leads to quantum mechanics, but only if one does not contradict the dot theory with the abstractions of the special relativity. And quantum mechanics leads to the theory of everything, but only if it first follows the structural principles of dot theory AND the motional principles of relativity.
There’s even a tiny possibility that one could ditch quantum mechanics and go deeper back into Maxwell’s equations. Then we’d get this:
Anyhow, my point is that even if I have discovered the structure of everything, I haven’t discovered the mathematical description of the interactions of these newly found structures. At least according to Wikipedia, the theory of everything is
a singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.
So, while you can’t have a theory of everything without dot theory, it’s like a glue that sticks all of the mathematical pieces together to form the final theory of everything. You still need the pieces to be glued together.
Perhaps I've finally pondered my ponderings, and I'll go back to finalizing my manuscript.
Comments