A combination of a basic idea about communicatiion and an analysis of motion is seen as an indication that a possible model of existence is “motion in a matrix.” This is in the first section of this tripartite essay which runs approximately 3400 words.
In the second section, energy expressions are equated to estimate some possible characteristics of the postulated matrix. The third section explores the implications of the concept of momentum with respect to this type of model.
A model for our physical universe considering motions in a matrix as being fundamental, may be usable to explain most , if not all of our present knowledge. That the speed of light is a constant of nature which can be considered to be the limiting velocity of an information carrier-wave, and that all information moved by other means, can be considered as being moved from particle to particle by some sort of “wave motion,” suggests that electromagnetic radiation,light,is a transverse wave motion in a three-dimensional matrix analogous to a solid. Quantization of every known interaction, also implies an underlying, regular structure, a “Matrix.”
“Motion” of some sort is a “given” in all observations/experiences. The fact that motions can be analyzed in two categories, motions related to a point or points, and somehow “attached” to the point or points, and motions along a line, fits well with the known Mass/Energy duality. Mass is considered as static, i.e. it could conceptually be related to motion associated with a point, while Energy is noted when motion along a vector is changed in direction or impeded. This somewhat reverses the concept of Energy from “That which moves Mass, ” to “That which is observed when Mass is moved.” Mass, then, may be considered to be a characteristic of a point-centered motion in a matrix, a characteristic of the spinning of a “3D-Vortex.”
We, therefore, can conceptually consider all matter as being made up of combinations of two variants on two fundamental, stable, “Vortex Particles” having opposite spin-tumble orientations. These would be what we know as the electron and positron.
[The proton can be considered as a very large vortex formed by partially inelastic collisions between positrons, resulting in “Exploded Positrons,” thus explaining the absence of positrons in our “normal world.” They are “hiding” in the guise of the proton. Vortices of opposite spin/tumble can be expected to attract, and if of the came size could mutually anhialate. If the vortices are very different size/motion characteristics, the attraction will still be there but the distructive potential is not. The neutron can be considered as an electron-proton combination, with the electron spinning within the proton.]
The mass/energy interconversion would imply that any given vortex would have a certain amount of motion associated with it, as linear motion increased, point-centered motion would decrease, and vice versa. Applying this to electron orbitals, the electron at its fartherest distance from a nucleus would have it maximum point-centered motion, “mass,” and it least linear motion, “energy.” At the center of its motion passing near or through the nucleus it would have its minimum mass and maximum energy.
Now, one should look at the Space/Time dimensionality, Space can be considered as an inherent characteristic of the matrix. Time is always measured by consecutive, changing motion and can, therefore, be considered as just that, a measure of consecutive motion, referenced to some reproducible cycle.
What are some of the other results of this view?
The fact that light is considered a “mass-less particle” is no problem in this model. It is a linear disturbance in the matrix.
A positive charge would be associated with one spin/tumble orientation. A negative charge with the reverse orientation. Gravitation would be a result of the strained Matrix trying to readjust.
Motion of the electron vortices in atoms and molecules would fit best with the “3-D Pendulum” conception of electron orbitals. (More on this later.)
This whole area needs far more work. Here are some of the questions which come to mind.
What are the “dots” of the matrix?
Neutrinos in a ground vibrational state might fit. (This would explain why a nutrino would travel at close to the speed of light. A “freed-up-neutrino” would pass througy the matrix in the same way that a pendulum ball hitting a string of like-sized balls will bounce another prendulum ball off the other side. It wouldn’t be the same neutrino; but, who could tell the difference?)
What is the spacing?
Is this spacing implied in some of the constants of nature, just as the constant speed of light implies the existence of the matrix? (This will be explored more fully later.)
Can the tremendous amount of physical science data that is now extant be fitted to this model?
This question appears to be one which could take years to answer.
This model does nothing to solve the question of existence, but does seem to cut down on the number of unknowns with which one must deal.
We shall make an attempt here to evaluate the spacing and vibrational frequency of the “dots” that are proposed as making up the universal matrix. We can attempt to do so by starting with two constants of nature. These are the speed of light in a “vacuum” and Planck’s Constant, “h,” which relates energy to vibrational frequency.
The postulation of a matrix has the inherent prediction a high-frequency cut-off point for information/energy transfer. it can be postulated that this cut-off frequency would be at the wave length of the spacing of the “dots.” It also would be at the vibrational frequency of the dots, and at the highest energy “quantum” that could be carried by a carrier wave passing through the matrix. The Kinetic Energy of this quantum-all energy being considered, at least for now, as actually being “kinetic”-would be 1/2 mc^2 wherein “c” is the speed of light. (The actual value of a quantum that could pass through would technically be infinitesimally less than this value, but we can’t measure that close.) This Kinetic Energy could also be measured by the expression, E=hv, where “h,” is the afore mentioned Planck’s Constant, with a value of 6.63×10^-27 erg. sec. , and “v” represents the vibrational frequency.
We can equate these two expressions to obtain 1/2 m c^2 = hv . This we can rearrange to find the numerical value of “v.” In this form we have v= mc^2/2h . Plugging in the values of 3 x 10^10 cm./sec. for “c” and 6.63 x 10^-27 erg.sec. for “f, ” and doing the calculations, we obtain a value of 6.9 x 10 ^46 cycles per second for the vibrational frequency. (This calculation is independent of mass, the mass units cancel out.) Since the velocity divided by vibrational frequency would give the wave-length, the above figure divided into the speed of light gives a spacing of the units in our matrix as approximately, 4.3 x 10 ^-37 centimeters.
the above distance can be compared with the Planck’s distance derived by Max Planck by a combination of the Gravitational Constant, a variation of his constant known as Dirac’s constant and the speed of light. This number, which is sometimes called “The infinitesimal black hole from which no light could escape,” is 1.6l x 10^-35 meters or 1.61 x 10^-33 cm., approximately 4300 times the size that we calculated for a possible spacing. As the calculation of Planck’s number implies that it could possibly be the diameter of a circle or a sphere, we may speculate that Planck’s number represents the diameter of one of the “vibrating dots” in our matrix. (For much more technical information about Planck’s number and the “Natural Scale” based upon it, check Wikipedia.org.) It may be possible that our calculation represents a tightest compression between centers of our “dots,” With Planck’s number representing a “more normal’ spacing of dot centers in the matrix.
Now what about the mass of our dots? The amount of mass is immaterial in the above calculation as the mass units cancel out. The mass of our dots can have any value and the calculations would remain the same as long as we’re talking about the same amount of mass. For the moment we can presume our dots to have an “infinitesimal” mass as close to zero as we wish it to be. The interesting result of this is that there is no apparent limit to the size of the mass/energy unit which can move through the matrix. It appears that the Mass/Energy could be considered together as either a “measure of motion” in the matrix, or a measure of the instantaneous involvement of the matrix in this particular set of motions.
It can be seen that what we are talking about as the basis of everything seems to be an unimaginably small unit moving back and forth at a extraordinary rate in what we would consider an infinitesimally small space-and with an incredibly huge number of them in every cubic centimeter of space. Assuming a regular cubic structure, we would have somewhere on the order of 10^100 dots per cubic centimeter of a “vacuum.”
we seem, in a way, to have a considerable simplification from the Standard Model developed in 1970-73 with its bewildering array of fundamental particles.(see the Wikipedia article, “Standard Model.”) We still, however, are left with a situation of great complexity. It is highly likely that we shall discover that our “points” have some sort of structure, including a “rest mass,” angular rotation, spin/tumble. Our dots may turn out to be actually sets of some sort. We have moved some of our problems of structure to a very micro scale, but, they are still there. (How does the old poem go, “…and smaller fleas to bite ’em, ad infinitum?”)
Very long wave length vibrations in the matrix would set up what would amount to membranes and cutting planes through membranes would produce “strings.” Brane and String theories may not be totally incompatible with this model. This is especially true when one realizes that the 10 dimensions of the Brane and String Theories-and the 9 tensors mentioned by Einstein-can be considered as ways to “I.D.” a point where there is no fixed reference. (One might say that it is a way to locate yourself, in theory, when you have not the slightest idea where you are.) If a fixed reference set of axes were to be found, the 10 dimensions, and the equivalent 9 tensors, could be reduced to three dimensions of “where” and one of “when.”
That the gravitational forces would be most likely a result of the matrix, as an entirety. trying to return to an unstressed state may well be consistent with the long held belief that gravitation was due to very long wave motions in “Space/Time.” It seems rather obvious that Space/Time is simply another name for our dot matrix. Long wave motions some of which could have wave lengths of many light years are certainly possible. (O.K., O.K., probable, essentially certain.) The “Long Wave” explanation of gravitation may be quite valid.
In considering the involvement of momentum and energy in Motion in a Matrix ideas, the writer has come to the conclusion that, for stability, a system will have a total constant energy of two types which may be called “Kinetic Energy,” associated with a vector, and “Static Energy” associated with a point and that “Mass” must be considered as a “Velocity” in the opposite direction of the normally considered motion vector. A definite possibility is that it is a measure of the vector sum of all of the rotational energy vectors of the involved “dots” in the opposite direction of the linear motion of the particle. (This involvement of momentum will be discussed later.)
It may also be noted that Planck’s constant has the dimensions of “Action” or “Angular Momentum.” This has long been known; but, previously has been given no interpretation. It can be now interpreted, in our model, to suggest that “Energy” is related to the angular momentum/action involved with all of the points involved in the system which we happen to be investigating.
Since we have mentioned momentum, we shall go ahead with integrating momentum into orbital theory in terms of our model. For many years there has been questions as to how particles could have stable orbits. At the same time, it has been long known that the product of mass times velocity known as momentum, “p,” seems to be a constant for any given system. Recently it was noted that momentum, considered as a mathematical expression, could be considered as either an integration or a derivative.That is, speaking in the sense of differential and integral calculus. As an integral it is the integral of force over time, in other words it sums up the total effect of all forces that have ever operated against the object on question. As a differential, it can be considered as either the instantaneous rate of change of velocity with respect to time, with mass being considered constant. It may also be considered the instantaneous rate of change of mass if velocity is held constant. This latter does not seem to have been explored.
In mathematical terms the expression, mv, can be integrated as if it were, mv x dv/dt, to give the familiar Kinetic Energy expression. KE=1/2 mv^2. Alternatively, it can be integrated as if it were vm x dm/dt to give another expression of the same form-which apparently has been overlooked previously, E=1/2 vm^2. This expression we shall call, by contrast to Kinetic Energy, “Static Energy.” These appear to correspond respectively to the “vector characteristic” of “Energy,” i.e., Kinetic Energy, and the association of motion centered on a point which is postulated in this Motion in a Matrix Model.
Assuming that both integrations are valid, and knowing that Mass and Kinetic Energy have some sort of inter-convertibility, we can write, Total Energy (“TE”), equals Kinetic Energy plus Static Energy and assume that for a stable situation, “TE” is equal to some constant, “C.” So, for a stable “orbit.” of any kind we can write: TE=SE + KE, or C=1/2 vm^2 + 1/2 mv^2. We can discard the “1/2” and write something like “C= vm^2 + mv^2. We can see that this adds up to the equation, C = pv + pm , i.e. the total energy content of the system is equal to the momentum times the velocity plus the momentum times the mass.
For a stable system, this energy content is, presumably, a constant. If the velocity in a given direction goes up, the mass goes down. At the point of greatest velocity in a stable system the mass would be the least, at the point of least velocity, the mass would be the greatest. This prediction from the mathematics is being done here without checking any of the literature, but the writer is willing to bet that the measured mass of planets varies from perihelion to aphelion in exactly the way mentioned above.
This fits also with the idea of a “3-D pendulum” model for electron orbitals wherein the electrons would pass through and about the nuclei in a three-dimensional analog of a pendulum wherein they would have their greatest mass at the farthest extent of their motion and the greatest speed at the center of the atom. This could account, at least to some extent, to the “solid” feel of matter.
In the case of ” Black Holes,” there apparently arises the situation wherein “v” reaches a directional limit and any interaction which would have increased the velocity in that direction goes instead to increase “mass.” or, perhaps more correctly, an interaction which would have increased the Kinetic Energy increases the Static Energy instead. The idea is that a “Black Hole” would occur at any time when some object reached the speed of light along any one vector. As any further acceleration along that vector could not be compensated for, the mass would have to increase causing a condition of instability with radiation necessary until stable states were reached by the components of the interaction. In this view, a “Black Hole” is not some very mysterious gravitational sink, it is simply some object which has reached the speed of light along some vector.
[Although Einstein’s Relativity limit of “No speed greater than light” cannot apply to relative velocities, there is, in the Motion in a Matrix model, a basic notation that the fastest transport speed in the matrix is “c” for either information or energy. This would also include “Matter” as matter is considered as an indication of involved motion in the matrix. Therefore, Einstein seems to have been intuitively correct that no body will accelerate beyond the speed of light. Attempted acceleration will simply increase the “Static Energy” which is related to what we measure as “Mass.”]
An interesting situation develops if one equates the two energy expressions. One finds that “m” = “v” in this case. If instead of equating the two expressions, one assumes a constant of zero, then the logical result is that m= -v; i.e. if the mass were exactly equal to the velocity, the total energy content of the system would be zero Both of these conclusions lead to the idea that “mass,” which we consider as being point-centered, may be a measure of the vector component of the angular velocities of the spinning “points” which is directed in the opposite direction of the vector of travel of the entire “body.”
While this article is talking about the integration of the momentum definition equation, it may be noted that the same thing can be done to the Force equals Mass times Acceleration equation, F = ma, to obtain analogous expressions to those noted above, as the summation of force over time is known to be momentum, both 1/2 am^2 and 1/2 ma^2 have to be expressions of momentum and presumably can be summed as was energy, giving a similar conclusion to the one postulated above for energy. The conclusion being that, for a stable system, momentum summation and energy summation will both be constants.
All of this seems consistent with the idea implicit to the Motion in a Matrix Model that a stable system would most likely be one which involved a fixed number of units of the matrix, or at least a certain fixed amount of “action” in the system. It is to be noted that Planck’s constant which relates Energy to Frequency has the dimensions of “Action” or “Angular Momentum” implying that the two terms are synonymous.
–
Final note: This entire concept is, thus far, the work of one person, using as a primary tool a quite ancient “biological computer.” If others become involved, corrections, additions and amendments should arise. It may be noted that the first publication of a version of this paper was about April 1, 2007; however, this is not an April Fools Joke; but, rather, an attempt to add another possible tool for the understanding of the Existance of which we are a part. Only time will tell whether it will be accepted as having value or simply added to the waste bin of discarded, “obvious pseudo-science,” as are so many new ideas; e.g. those associated with “Cold Fusion….”
