Why is the Speed of Light the Speed Limit?

Why is the Speed of Light the Speed Limit?







I asked myself this question many times. Einstein simply hypothesized that the speed of light is the same for all inertial reference frames. This hypothesis results in the speed of light being the speed limit in our 3-D Universe (4-D spacetime). This is not an explanation on the why is the speed of light the speed bump of our Universe, it just an observation of how things are.

It is certainly not a simple and clear explanation...:)

Things are about to change...:)

Look at the ubiquitous picture above...:)

The circle above is a shock wave where any direction in our Universe can be mapped to the perimeter X. The shock wave Universe is traveling at the obligatory speed of light along the direction R, which is a Radial direction perpendicular to our X direction and thus to our 3-D Universe.

The first thing to realize is that the speed of light is not the highest velocity one can travel, it is the ONLY velocity one can travel.

Traveling at the speed of light along our 3-D Universe is equivalent to riding the interference of two spacetime waves: One that is our 3-D Shock Wave Universe and another perpendicular to the Radial direction.

The resulting interference would land our traveler on a 45 degrees trajectory with respect to the Radial direction and traveling at the speed of light...:)

Simple and Clear...

Fields of Dreams...

Fields of Dreams...:)








I still remember the feeling of extreme perplexity when I was first introduced to the concept of Field.

It was either the concept of Gravitational or Electrostatic Field, and it happened sometime in my early childhood.

The concept of Field goes one step beyond the concept of Force at Distance.

A field is supposed to be a property of the space where a charge or a mass will sense a force and it is given by:

E =e/(4*pi*epsilon*r^2) for an Electric field

E =GM/r^2 for a Gravitational Field

It was mysterious for many reasons but I can tell you two. The first one is that somehow a charge or mass would modify space itself...:)

Einstein later linked Gravitation with modulations of the metric of a Riemannian spacetime continuum. The obvious inference that nobody draws for some obscure reason is that being the Electric Field 10^36 times greater than the Gravitational Field, one would expect that a single charge would produce a Black Hole.. :) and of course, light would bend around any capacitor... Of course, this is not the case. If you read the paper I, the HyperGeometrical Universe GUT, you know my solution to this problem.

The second amazing and very subtle property of fields is Extensivity, that is, fields are proportional to the number of particles (charges or mass) in a given region of space. You know, if you pick two one-pound bags of Coffee and put them together they weight two pounds.

Why is Extensivity such a mysterious property?

The reason is obvious. A geometrical theory of the Universe can only be made of metric oscillations (dilatons) and metric oscillators (dilators).

An important observation is that dilatons can carry angular momentum, that is, one can have a 4-D wave that will impact you with a 4-D torque. Just a reminder, spin has been associated in this theory with rotations perpendicular to R (4-Dimensional radial expansion direction) and one of the 3 spatial dimensions.

If Gravitation is an extensive property of matter, it means that all the dilators in a body are in phase. Had Newton or Gauss or anyone else tried to create a truly geometrical theory of the Universe, they would have to have reached the same conclusion I reached: There is a need for a Cosmological Coherence among Dilators and for a Coherence Lagrangian Principle governing Dilator Dynamics.

Why nobody asked "How come the things that generate the field are in phase? "

Newton, Gauss, Einstein and many others are the luminaries that helped Mankind to find their path to this point. Reverence, Respect, Admiration are appropriate emotions when considering their work. On the other hand, one has to question assumptions to evolve knowledge. I am doing my part in the questioning and do it with the highest admiration to my predecessors and stemmed colleagues.

Hyperspherical Universe????

Is the Universe Hyperspherical?






Of course not!!!!

A Hypersphere is described by the equation below:
x^2+y^2+z^2+w^2 +t^2=R^2

The cross-section above cannot be obtained from this equation and that means that I don't really know what is the name (if it has a name) of the 5-Dimensional Object I consider the Universe to be....

Of course, one can write the Universe parametric equations as:

Fi * C=R; (notice that I made Fi as a Cosmological Time, to make things simple)...:)

X=R* ThetaX; ThetaX is the Cosmological Angle for X.

{x,Tau} and {x', Tau'} are related through Lorentz Transforms if you consider Tau as proper time.

{x,Tau} and {x', Tau'} are related through a simple Rotation Matrix you consider Tau as a direction in the Four-Dimensional Space. This might seem confusing, but that is how I thought about the problem...

One cannot not write a theory just because an Object has no Name...

I named it Hyperspherical... I am sure someone will eventually give it the appropriate name...

In fact, now that I thought a little more about the subject, the topology might be a HyperCilindrical...:) HyperToroidal...:) ... or something lame as HyperCircular...:)

I don't know... Should I call the expansion a Lightspeed Expanding HyperToroidal or Hypercircular Universe..

If that is the case, let me know your preferences, and I will recast it as a HyperToroidal Object...:)

That is why I sought a better name for the theory which would hide this small detail.... The topology of my Universe has no name...:)

Now the Cat is Out of The Bag and I don't mean the Schrodinger Cat...:)

The Solution to the Olbers' Paradox

Olber's Paradox
and the
Hypergeometrical Universe

From Wikipedia ...

Olbers' paradox, described by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers in 1823 (and then reformulated in 1826) and earlier by Johannes Kepler in 1610 and
Halley and Cheseaux in the 18th century, is the paradoxical observation that the night sky is dark, when in a static infinite universe the night sky ought to be bright. It is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static Universe such as the current Big Bang model. This paradox is sometimes also known as the "dark night sky paradox".

The Olber's paradox cannot be formulated within the Framework of the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory because, the proposed Universe topology is not infinite, presents tremendous amount of Doppler shifting and even though it is circular, one cannot see anything beyond one Cosmological Radian..

The Meaning of Material Existence

The Meaning of Material Existence







I believe that the simplest picture for matter is one of a four-dimensional “rotating double well”… Again, I am driven by physical considerations…

The Nitrogen atom in the Maser have existence in one side of the hydrogen plane and disappears from existence in that side of the hydrogen plane with an oscillating frequency equal to the difference in energy between these two states divided by h (Planck constant). This is a coherence, that is, the real state is a linear combination of two states of different energies (frequencies). The difference in energy is what creates the beating.















Figure 1. This figure shows a double potential well representing the energy levels of an out-of-plane vibration of Nitrogen in Ammonia. The space dimension is the distance from the Hydrogen Plane. This Figure was borrowed from the internet and its availability is greatly acknowledged and thanked for.

In the case of Ammonia, the finite potential barrier in the middle allows for tunneling and that in itself results in a splitting of equal energy levels located on both potential wells. The difference in energy between these new hybrid levels will define the frequency of beating. In the case of Ammonia, the potential wells are symmetric and the beating frequency is in the microwave region. The probability of the Nitrogen being found in one side of the Hydrogen plane is equal to the probability of the Nitrogen to be found in the other side of the plane.

In the case of an “Existing Particle” – material existence of a particle will be explored later in this work – it can be thought as a coherence between a massive and a massless states of the multidimensional space. The massless state lies outside the 3-D space along the radial direction. Their nature is of an eigenstate of spatial deformation (4-D space) potential rotating double well.

The mass of different particles /state of space deformation is defined by the different probabilities of being found in the massive side of the potential well. That explains the large variety of particle masses.

ParticleMass is a 3-D footprint (in the 3-D Universe we know) while they walk and tumble along the radial direction.

This in a nutshell is the reason why different particles have different rest masses.

You have to remember that in the theory particles always rotate (tumble) around the direction perpendicular to the plane XR (YR, ZR)..Those tumblings correspond to the Pauli spin (sigmax, sigmay, sigmaz)…Other quantum numbers can be obtained using similar reasoning…

The meaning of Material Existence implies that as the molecule tumbles it should set foot on the 3-D space at multiples of the de Broglie wavelength… At this time, I am not explaining some other details of the meaning of Mass… It is an elaborate argument…I will explain later..

Basically, to exist is to set foot on the Hyperspherical Universe Shock Wave every so often… If the phase is not correct, things don’t exist…

To exist is to be phase-matched with the Hyperspherical Shock-Wave Universe.
That is also the basic condition for Nuclear Chemistry.

The potential well is not symmetric (the radial direction and the 3-D shell are not symmetric)… thus the occupation number on each side of the well are not equal….That is the reason for the different masses associated with different particles… just an occupation number on a “rotating four-dimensional asymmetric “double” well” … I say “double” because one of the sides is triply degenerated (3-D side or Universe side)…

A simple problem…

PS- The maximum potential mass of a particle is proportional to the absolute value of its charge...:) Hadrons have three dimensional footprints in the 3-D Universe we know.. Mesons have two dimensional footprints...

From that you can imagine that the maximum mass of an electron is equal to the maximum mass of a proton and that is pretty close to the mass of a neutron...:)

I will introduce the HyperGeometrical Universe Standard Model next. I skipped the derivation of the Biot-Savart Law because it is convoluted to explain in a blog...but it is in the papers

I am not covering the Cosmogenesis because it is too simple... albeit conceptually straining..:) I might explain if there is interest...