Special Theory of Everything

Nuts to general relativity. I'mma return to wild speculation about whatever. I still have most of 10 years to figure it all out.

Theory: All forces are an effect caused by the warping of space.

Evidence for: When you move relative to something, it gets warped. When you move relative to everything, everything gets warped. We can say, "space gets warped." This is special relativity.

Conventionally, we say "When you apply a force to an object, it moves, and its velocity causes a warping of observed space."

Instead we could say "When you warp space, you move through it." Occam's Razor favors the latter.

Not that we know how to warp space by will alone. Nevertheless, we do it all the time, simply by moving. We don't know how forces work but we use them all the time. We don't know how space warping works but we use it all the time.

Evidence against: Ain't none but tired old convention.


Theory: The universe is a singularity

Evidence for: Distance and time are observer-dependent. The shape and size of the universe is different for different observers. It seems as if shape and size, and time too, is defined by an observer. If you try to envision how a spherical light wavefront "sees" the universe under Time Relativity, you see the universe shrunk to a single point: a singularity. Without observers, there appears to be no time, and no distance, and no chronology of events or causality. Observations define the observed universe; without those observations it seems to best make sense as a singularity.

Evidence against: The above description of a universe as a singularity is an attempt to describe an observation of the universe without an observer, but still using that mathematical language of an observer. It seems more likely that it exists in some different way, with different dimensions that only appears as a singularity to our common understanding of observations. But an observation of such a universe wouldn't appear as a singularity; it would appear as the universe appears to us.

Perhaps though it is possible to describe how the universe is shaped (IE. a singularity) without being able to describe how that shape might look.

Force of ignorance

Einstein and Newton are my heroes, but if any scientific convention leads us astray, even one established by the most intelligent players in the game, it must be ignored or corrected (or my misunderstanding must be rectified).

List of junk that I don't like in science

• A frame experiencing gravity is indistinguishable from an accelerating frame
  
  Observers in each of these frames will observe a warping of space around them. A linearly accelerating frame will observe a cartesian warping, where "lines of length contraction" are parallel. Under gravity, a frame will observe a polar warping, where lines converge at the center of gravity. Across the "height" of the frame of a person standing on Earth, there will be a gravitational differential (gravity should be measurably stronger at your feet than at your head, even if the difference is minuscule).
  
  A single point of observation would still not be able to tell the difference between a linear acceleration (that can change in magnitude as the point changes position), and the force of gravity. Again, as with Time Relativity, there is the suggestion that an "inertial frame" that contains "stuff" where there is distance between the stuff, can not be consistently described as a single entity. Different points within an inertial frame will experience phenomena differently.
  
  

  Update: Einstein thought of this. I think they're expressing the same idea when they say "in mathematical terms, it is the geodesic motion associated with a specific connection which depends on the gradient of the gravitational potential. Space, in this construction, still has the ordinary Euclidean geometry. However, spacetime as a whole is more complicated." (IE. it's all curved up, yo.)

  
  
• Inertia: A body at rest tends to stay at rest
  
  To claim that the natural state of an object at rest is to remain at rest, requires one to consider the object in the absence of gravity. This requires one to consider it independent of any other matter, because otherwise there will be gravitational forces. But then you lose all definition of "at rest" verses "moving", because movement is relative. To say that the object is at rest implies that it is not moving relative to some other object. You cannot compare it to "the frame of space", which doesn't exist in relativistic physics. This object that you are considering independent of all other matter, has no way to distinguish whether it is moving or at rest compared to other things it can't observe, and its inertia or momentum is undefined.
  
  If you add another mass into the picture, then we must have that a body at rest will tend to accelerate toward other masses. To cling to the old definition of inertia, we're compelled to treat gravity as a constant force which is something that is "additional" to the underlying natural state of things. But gravity is the underlying natural state of things. Bodies that obey a more natural definition of inertia will tend to attract each other.
  
  This almost suggests that an object in free fall is not observing a "force" so much, but rather just being inert within the relative space around it. That is roughly how it feels, to the observer. Another observer that is overcoming gravity is the one who employs or experiences forces.
  
  

  Update: Einstein thought of this. "This suggests the definition of a new class of inertial motion, namely that of objects in free fall under the influence of gravity."

  
  Perhaps trying to unify the "force" of gravity with the other fundamental forces is like asking "what kind of apple is this navel orange?"
  

Foundation for a Unified Theory

The double-slit experiment immediately makes slightly more sense under the TDR model, because it allows all possible paths for the light to be evaluated in a single instant.

Single-slit and double-slit experiments are cases of light being curved. Let us consider that light appears to travel at c along this curved path. Suppose that a photon appears to travel a curved distance of d and hits a screen. The time value at the screen along the curved path is the same time value at the sender. However, due to 1/c invariance, from any perspective I will see the time difference between sender and screen according to straight-line distances. That means that the length-time that I observe or measure between sender and receiver is smaller than it is measured along the "instantaneous" curved light path. In other words, the photon has shifted into a slightly different time than the one I can observe.

However, this also suggests that I wouldn't see any photons hitting the screen, because any curved path would mean a slight shift in time. This suggests that the light event is not instantaneous after all, but has a small duration. So, though many photons appear time-shifted, those that are shifted only slightly are still visible. An interference pattern becomes apparent, as photons are shifted out of visible time to form dark spots, and others are shifted into visible time to form brighter spots.

A natural correlation between the energy and duration of a light event is that the duration of the event would be proportional to its energy. The apparent frequency of light might be illusory. An explanation of redshift or the appearance of it would need to be provided in accordance with TDR. Note that the appearance of a sinusoidal aspect of an apparent "light wave" may mean that a light event occurs similarly sinusoidal. That is, it is a "flash" of light energy that begins "dark", increases in intensity until a maximum amplitude is reached (would the amplitude be the same for all different energies of light?), and decreases back to "dark". If a light event is said to occur at a specific time, it would likely make sense that the moment of maximum intensity would be that time. Note: Several questions come up that cast doubt on this interpretation of frequency effects of light. Does that mean that part of a light event can happen before the official time of the event? Wouldn't it make more sense if higher-energy light stretched it across space (width, for example) rather than time? Either would allow wider bands for higher frequencies to be visible in the slit experiments, but the opposite effect is apparent. Therefore these ideas need to be revisited.

The effect of "which path" observations on the slit experiments destroys the appearance of interference. A couple possible explanations come to mind:

• The detection of light anywhere along the path changes the light event from a single curved-path event, "splitting" it into multiple straight-path light events.
• The detection of light involves an interaction with matter. That matter has size, which means the interaction takes time. This time might be random enough that it removes the otherwise precise correlation between time and locations on the screen.

---

Revisiting the Time-shift explanation for interference patterns...

Consider conservation of energy as it relates to number of photons. We would think that any photons that "disappear into another time" would be replaced by an equal number that appear from another time. However, a single-photon light-event will always be detected. So something is wrong.

The model of a single light event is a line (possibly curved). But the double-slit experiment suggests that light propagates as a spherical wavefront.

It could be that light does indeed propagate along that entire round wavefront, and in fact interacts with the entire area it "sees". However, every location that it interacts with exists in a different time, while any observer only exists in a single time. An observer will see light interact with only a single point at which its observed time matches the light event's time. An observation from the exact location of a light sender, could "see" that that light in fact hits everywhere, and not just a single point. This reinstates the instantaneousness of light.

It also suggests an experiment which may predict that observers in frames that have relative movement will see a different diffraction pattern, because each observer will have different measurements between the light source and locations on the screen. However, it could instead be that the pattern is defined by the ratio of curved-path distance to straight-path distance, which might be the same for any observer.

There must be something that was missed or incorrect in all this speculation.

The above describes single-slit interference, but doesn't cover double-slit.

One last wild speculation: What if time is meaningless to a light event? The "time" at which it occurs depends on a definition of time, which is time-frame location dependent. Perhaps the light event exists as a wave through all of time, and we only see the single location and time of that event that matches our observed time-frame's time definition of that event. In this case, when a single photon follows a curved path, we see it shifted in time depending on location and straight-line distance between sender and receiver. So with less curvature, we observe events similar to if they were straight-line light events, and at locations involving more curvature, a photon appears to disappear into another time, and elsewhere we see more or less (depending on location) that the photon is visible as it appears due to it having been sent at a different time value than the one that our time frame says it was sent at.

Confusing.