Energy is the defining property of our physical world, and therefore the most important tool for understanding nature, hence the most commo...
Energy is the defining property of our physical world, and therefore the most important tool for understanding nature, hence the most commonly used method for describing our physical reality. And the law of conservation of energy is the most fundamental, general rule of our material world.
It should be noted that the law of conservation of energy is considered to be applicable to closed systems, but our universe being in space is characterized as an expanding system, which we explain by the expansion of space. Consequently, this expansion makes the entire universe an open system according to physical theories, so we do not consider the law of conservation of energy to be generally valid for our universe globally. However, for closed systems, we still consider the law of conservation of energy to be generally valid.
The law of conservation of energy can be derived from the symmetry of the laws of nature regarding the translation of time. If the law of conservation of energy is not valid in the universe, then the symmetry of the laws of nature in relation to the translation of time is not valid in our world either, so the laws of nature should change over time, just as they should change in the present. What is striking, however, is that no matter how far we look back in time in the observable universe, we do not see the laws of nature changing. This, in turn, calls into question the existence of the universe as an open system, which seems to contradict the observed reality of the evidence for expansion, in particular the observable redshift of photons that lose energy due to expansion.
How can the laws of nature remain unchanged over time in an expanding universe where the law of conservation of energy does not apply globally? Is it possible that the nature of the change in the laws of nature is such that the change remains undetectable to us, i.e. the laws of nature change, but their relative proportions to each other remain unchanged throughout their change? Or is redshift due to the expansion of space perhaps attributed to some other physical cause that preserves the law of conservation of energy and actually replaces it with energy conversion, which in turn would make the general expansion of space unnecessary? A new way of looking at this idea will come up later in this thought.
The description of the physical state and the changes of our material world by energy can actually provide accurate answers of the properties of our material world, but it is also a dangerous method of the path of understanding, because it can satisfy this cognitive process by accurately describing and predicting the energy characteristics of the changes of material systems, but it can also obscure the fundamental properties of our material world and prevent the cognitive process from understanding the origin of the fundamental properties of our material world. Among the properties of our material world, energy is not an inherent property, not a fundamental cause, because we always talk about the energy of some kinds of properties. Consequently, energy is a consequence, the cause of more fundamental properties. A deeper understanding of our world must require the investigation of the origin of states characterized by energy.
This problematic state of understanding is well illustrated by the current description of the Standard Model of particle physics. The mathematical description of the Standard Model is an energy-based definition of the most fundamental behavior of the basic building blocks of our physical world. It can be said that almost everything we experience in our world, with the exception of features related to gravity, follows from the Standard Model of particle physics. The mathematical description of the Standard Model can accurately describe the changes in the world of elementary particles in terms of energy, its calculated predictions exactly match the reality we experience, but beyond the energy description of elementary particles, we do not know what the particles really are, for example, what the electric charge is, what an electron is, or even where the energies used to describe the Standard Model come from, beyond the fact that these physical entities of particles have certain abstract mathematical symmetries that result in the conservation of certain properties during changes. The origin of fundamental properties, the origin of energies that are uniquely present (such as mass), is typically not explained by the Standard Model.
The Standard Model of particle physics is a mathematical description of energy in content and symmetry in nature, but it does not provide a specific description of where these properties of our material world come from.
There is also the idea that the origin of our physical world is based solely on mathematical structures. This seems to be more of a philosophical approach, since mathematics is an abstract tool for the methods used to characterize our material world. Mathematics can provide a valid description of our material world, but mathematics as a tool is a method for describing properties, not the cause of the origin of properties.
There should follow a new physical level of understanding of our world, which must have as its consequences the properties of the present description of the Standard Model, and which must include the structure of space, and which must also include, in a consequential, causal form, the changes in the structure of space, the origin of gravity, from which model the already known properties of our world would follow naturally, necessarily, and obviously.
Further exploring the existence of energy as a defining property in our material world, we can see that energy appears in the world in many forms. The sum of these energies, by the law of conservation of energy, must be a constant quantity, so the changes of state that carry these different forms of energy in the material world are actually transformations of different forms of energy into each other.
A related point is that we do not know exactly how much energy our material world has and why it has it. This question is important because the total energy of our material world (in addition to the energy that follows from the Planck constant associated with a unit volume) can influence the global behavior of our universe. If this value were different from what it is, surely a different kind of universe would exist than the one we experience.
This problem is different from the special values of the natural constants that strangely support the existence of complexity. The values of the natural constants may be possible and obviously create a different kind of universe than the one we experience, but how and why the collective energy of our universe would be, could be, or is different, or why it is as much as it is, we have no demonstrable idea.
According to our scientific conjecture, which refers to the observed non-curved, flat global space-time, the total amount of matter-related energy present in our universe, the sum of the energy of rest mass and the energy of motion and the opposite energy of gravitational energy is precisely zero. Since the vacuum energy underlying our material world is certainly not zero, it follows that our material world is a stable or quasi-stable fluctuation of vacuum energy around equilibrium. The fluctuations around equilibrium in equilibrium systems are a natural phenomenon, but in the case of our universe, the global, general, and at least quasi-stable nature of the out-of-equilibrium points to the fundamental characteristics of the physical manifestation of vacuum.
The currently known physical properties of the vacuum and our material world suggest a model (grid-model), according to, the vacuum is a three-dimensional solid structure composed from identical components (grid particles) with the dimensionality of Planck scale size and bonding to each other by the Planck scale energy, which grid particles are capable to vibrate locally next to each other freely with specific degree of freedom defined by the physical properties of the vacuum, and where the particles of our material world are manifested as existing resonances of varying complexity formed by the vibrations of the grid particles, which are capable to move freely and interact with each other by synchronizations according to the properties of the resonating structures on the three-dimensional surface of the vacuum, while the forming resonances of synchronously vibrating grid particles deform the dimensionality of the vacuum defining a direction, the inertial path of the movement formed by the most dense arrangement of the grid particles in the vacuum.
Energy exists in many forms in our directly experienceable - outside of vacuum energy - physical world. There are energies that originate exclusively from the internal properties of the given system, the self-energy and the binding energy. These energies are the properties of a system considered as a unit, existing independently of its external environment.
Self-energy is the total energy of the system considered as a unit. The most fundamental self-energy is the rest energy carried by the elementary particles, the rest mass, which is a specific value for each type of elementary particle. The rest mass of elementary particles, the self-energy, is inferred in current theories from the interaction of the particle with the Higgs field. Although the Higgs particle, which is the quantum of the excited state of the Higgs field, has been found, the current theory is not able to demonstrate as a cause why the self-energy of a given elementary particle is exactly what it is, nor even to explain why some particles, the excited states of certain fields, interact with the Higgs field and gain rest mass, while other types of particles do not.
The Higgs field is a necessary part of the Standard Model, but its existence and operation still leave many questions unanswered. This approach to reality might actually be a theoretical dead end, similar to the description of heat as an energy-bearing fluid. Heat-fluid theory has provided a suitable mathematical method for describing the observed properties associated with heat, but it has not brought us any closer to understanding the fundamental reality of the origin of heat energy. A similar impasse may exist in other areas of our current physical worldview.
Until we find a model for elementary particles from which we can directly deduce all the properties of elementary particles that we know, we cannot be sure that the model we are actually using is not just a theoretical dead end in our understanding of our world, even if the model used gives valid results for empirical reality.
The binding energy is also considered to be the internal energy of a system. Binding energy is the energy that results from the interactions of the components of complex systems, where the combination of different interacting constituents can be considered as a single system.
The binding energy is typically a negative energy for the system considered as a unit, by which the intrinsic energy of the building parts of the system is reduced by the formation of the unitary structure, with the consequence of creating a lower, necessarily more stable state of energy, the preferred state of being a unit by the interconnection of the parts.
The negative nature of binding energy is itself an interesting feature of the multi-component state behaving as a unit. If this were not the case, there would be no structures in our material world, no complexity would exist, no new emergent properties could be created, our world would remain simple. It is the negative nature of binding energy that allows for the existence of complex systems with binding energy greater than the level of background energy present, the emergence of complex systems in general, the preferred state of emergent complexity.
However, such a preferred state, existing as an energetically more stable complex system, essentially exists in a lower entropy, exists in a more ordered state. This necessarily self-evolving process, however, contradicts the law of spontaneous change in complex systems, which states that entropy cannot decrease systematically.
Entropy in complex systems is essentially a descriptive law of behavior, not a generic property. Entropy is a consequence of more fundamental properties, the free motion of the particles that make up a composite system. The contradiction with entropy in the formation of bound systems is resolved by the fact that entropy is a property of unbound complex systems, and the statistical impossibility of spontaneous entropy reduction is the law of unbound multipart systems. The bound state, which can be considered as a unit, does not behave like a multipart system from the outside. The descriptive law of entropy growth of a complex system with a stable structure is not necessarily valid for the processes involved in the formation of the bound-state system.
In general, for a given background energy level, if there is an interaction between the constituent parts of the complex system that has an energy greater than the given background energy level, then the bound state that produces complexity through that interaction is the preferred state. Since our universe is theoretically expected to cool as it expands, i.e. the overall background energy level is steadily decreasing, typically lower and lower binding energies can prevail, allowing the formation of increasingly complex structures, including the emergence of life as a consequence.
The physical basis for the emergence of complex systems is made possible by the defining rule of seeking the energy minimum of a system. The pursuit of the energy minimum in our world is a general law, justified by the more stable state of existence at lower energy levels. However, it is not obvious and requires explanation why a state of lower energy is a more stable state than a state of higher energy.
Obviously, the spontaneous process of seeking the energy minimum can only be interpreted for systems in which states of different energies can exist. Since our world is such a system, the pursuit of the energy minimum seems to be a general rule.
It can also be seen that the pursuit of an energy minimum, as a process that determines the direction of change, can only be understood for systems that are not in energetic equilibrium, i.e. where there is a persisting energy difference between the components that make up the system.
However, it also follows from these conditions that the pursuit of energy minimization, while a general rule, is conditional and therefore not a fundamental law.
The pursuit of the energy minimum is a consequence of the general rule of seeking an energetically equilibrium state. It can be seen that the preferred state for any system is the energetically equilibrium state, and therefore the natural pursuit of the energy equilibrium is necessarily a dominant process.
It is worth noting here that the general rule of seeking equilibrium may be the most general law of the universe, determining the time course of the universe's global existence in the most fundamental way.
A necessary consequence of this strict law is the descriptive rule of seeking the energy minimum. In fact, the pursuit of the energy minimum is a quasi-apparent rule of how our world behaves. It is inevitable that if the average energy of a system is greater than the energy of some part of it, then the natural law of the pursuit of energy balance will cause the energy of the lower energy part to increase over time at the expense of the higher energy whole. The general property of such a system would be to strive for a local increase in energy, the pursuit of energy growth.
However, in our universe in general, the tendency to seek an energy minimum is the dominant process, and consequently the average energy of our universe is necessarily decreasing. And the dominant process of seeking a local energy minimum, resulting from the decreasing average energy, favors the formation of energetically lower states of bounded structures.
However, the energetically lower state of the bound structures must also be explained. The reason for the lower energetic state of bound systems is the negative nature of the binding energy for the bound system, a consequence of the necessary decrease in the degree of freedom of the components involved in the binding due to the bonds that occur during the formation of the bound state.
A lower degree of freedom in a system with decreasing background energy is a more stable, and thus more favorable state, because the decrease in degree of freedom allows the energy associated with the vanishing, and thus hidden, degree of freedom to be released. (The scientific literature usually refers to this process, somewhat misleadingly, as symmetry breaking.) The necessity of the energetically more stable state of the bound state is a consequence of the lower degree of freedom of the constituents resulting from the binding, which at the same time causes the stability of physical systems and favors the formation of structure.
This interpretation may also be able to explain the relationship between gravity and entropy and resolve the contradiction that in complex systems gravity leads to a more ordered state, the formation of a bound structure, which leads to a spontaneous decrease in entropy.
Another problem to consider regarding the general state of energetic equilibrium and the rule of seeking the energy minimum in our world is that in practice we find that the energy of the components of our universe is higher than the background energy. It is as if the general rule of energy equivalence, of seeking equilibrium, does not apply. This phenomenon can be explained by the minimal state of degrees of freedom that is characteristic of the given bound systems.
If a state with a lower degree of freedom can and does arise, it can provide stability for the state, even if the state itself is of a higher energy level than its environment, and even if the environment is of a higher energy level than the state.
If the environment is of a higher energy level than the bound state, as long as the environment does not reach the energy level required for a new degree of freedom to appear for the binded state components, the binded state will retain its existing lower degree of freedom, it will remain stable, only the energy of the existing degrees of freedom will increase for the state. For complex systems, this is explained by the connection that as long as the magnitude of the binding energy is greater than the energy of the environment, the binding will not break.
And in the case where the bound state has a higher energy level than its environment, the state can only move to a lower energy state by either reducing the energy of its existing degrees of freedom, or by having a lower degree of freedom state that can be reached by giving up its existing energy to the lower energy environment. However, if the degree of freedom of a given bound state cannot be reduced in its environment, the state will remain stable even if the energy of the bound structure itself is higher than that of its environment.
A state with a lower degree of freedom is more stable - not necessarily because it has less energy - than a state with a higher degree of freedom. And the energy of a state with a minimum degree of freedom in a given environment can no longer be reduced by decreasing the degree of freedom. Such a higher energy state remains stable even in a lower energy environment.
Here it is necessary to think about the origins of the existence of the minimum degree of freedom. Why and how can a minimum degree of freedom exist in a given environmental state in our world, why and how is this physical reality that appears with a minimum degree of freedom, this specific physical state a minimum degree of freedom, and what does this characteristic reveal about an even more fundamental physical reality of the universe?
In the scientific literature, degrees of freedom are usually referred to as symmetry or conservation of property, and can also be associated with different types of bonds.
The current interpretation of the bound state produced by the binding of the strong interaction - called asymptotic freedom - is a unique bound state, which in many respects contradicts the physical behavior of the bound state discussed above. According to the current interpretation, the strong interaction produces such a bound state that does not result from the decrease in the degree of freedom of the components (quarks, gluons) involved in the binding, i.e. the bound state does not lead to a system of potentially lower energy resulting from the decrease in the degree of freedom. Moreover, the theory of the strong interaction states that the components involved in the binding do not even exist in a free, unbounded form, and that the bound form of the components (whose bound state in this case does not involve a decrease in the degree of freedom of the components) also has a significantly higher energy (mass) than it would have in the hypothetical free state.
Moreover, if a stable bound state (such as a proton) created by a strong interaction - in which case the degree of freedom of the bound components of the state is not reduced by the creation of a connection - has more and more energy, no new degrees of freedom can be created for the components of the bound state (they are in the state of maximum degree of freedom). Therefore, the bound state cannot break, but if there is enough excess energy in the system, based on the energy-mass equivalence and taking into account the conservation of symmetries, new self-existing bound states of components with no decrease in degree of freedom are created.
Thus, the components involved in the strong interaction exist at the maximum degree of freedom and can only exist at the maximum degree of freedom. Such a theoretical structure can logically exist, and indeed the practical consequences calculated from its mathematical theory well describe the behavior of reality for the strong interaction, the rules are not compatible with the general behavior usually required to be a bound state.
According to the currently accepted explanation, the particles that mediate the strong interaction (gluons) that create the bound state are themselves bound by the strong interaction (without losing their degrees of freedom), and when new gluons are created by the energy which would serve to break the bond created by the strong interaction, the process actually further increases the strength of the bond of the bound state, until another self-existing bound state can be created by energy-mass equivalence and by symmetry conservation.
It is worth noting that the binding of nucleons that leads to the formation of the nucleus, which is also indirectly the result of the strong interaction, follows rather the previously discussed interpretation of the "classical" bound state with a decrease in the degree of freedom.
Although the mathematical structure of quantum chromodynamics, which deals with the theory of the strong interaction, can produce observable results, its conceptual structure does not necessarily reflect physical reality. Perhaps a theory that treats quarks not as independent entities, but as part of formations of a unified whole, would result in a theory that is closer to reality, just as it is a closer view of reality to characterize the circle as a unified single entity rather than as a connected set of uniquely existing arcs. This interpretation could naturally explain the missing existence of lone quarks, and would not create an exception to the general interpretation of the bound system with reduced degrees of freedom.
There are also types of energy that are characteristic of the system as a unit itself, but can only be interpreted in relation to the system's environment. These energies are potential energy and kinetic energy.
The potential energy comes from the properties of the material state capable of modifying the properties of the environment by acting on the environment. The actually modified property of the environment - according to the general principle of action causing reaction - has a consequent reciprocal reaction on the material state producing the effect and on any material state capable of producing the similar effect on the environment.
It should be noted that the general principle of action cause reaction is a necessary consequence of the even more general law of natural systems seeking equilibrium.
Current physical theories discuss potential energy in the context of field theory. The fundamental difficulty with field theory is that it characterizes the interaction of action and reaction as a mutually reinforcing interaction, a phenomenon that predicts the appearance of infinitely strong interactions in mathematical contexts, which is clearly incompatible with reality. Field theory applies the method of renormalization in mathematical calculations against the appearance of infinities, according to which, interactions have natural limits measured in experienced reality.
The currently used field theories are not able to derive the actual values of the fundamental properties (mass, electric charge) that cause the interaction in reality from a theoretical model, and as the complexity of the theories increases, for example in the case of modeling the strong interaction, the method of renormalization to derive finite values from the mathematical model of the interaction has even more obstacles because of the special relation of the supposed interaction to the distance in the model.
The nature of the effect of potential energy is generally governed by the inverse square law. The inverse square law is a well-interpreted law for a space with three dimensions, and is also a proof of the three-dimensional extension of space.
Note that the three-dimensional extension of space does not preclude the existence of degrees of freedom for components existing in space beyond the three dimensions of space, but the existence of the inverse square law confirms that these degrees of freedom do not create a new extension of space.
This approach may also be able to indicate why only gravity and electromagnetic interactions in nature have the inverse square law, i.e. why the material properties that produce these effects can modify the properties of the surrounding space. Only those vibrational states - creating the given properties - which have the physical extensions corresponding to the three spatial dimensions of space are capable of modifying the properties of three-dimensional space. Consequently, the degrees of freedom of the vibrational forms of a given material state that produce these properties can have extensions in the three spatial dimensions.
Gravity is the effect of locally existing stable vibrations, resonances, which form ordered motion of chaotically vibrating components creating space. The effects of gravity in space can be derived from the effect of the difference between the ordered and chaotically vibrating (grid)particles forming space, which affects the structure of three-dimensional space, similar to the way that disordered and ordered cubes placed next to each other can fill different volumes.
The effect of the electric charge on space can be derived from the effect of the vibrational state manifesting what we call the electric charge possessed by the resonance manifested as a material particle on the vibrational state of space, which in physical reality corresponds to two oppositely symmetric vibrational forms.
It should be noted here that the Standard Model attempts to interpret all fundamental interactions in a single theoretical framework, deriving the long-range interactions from the masslessness of the interaction mediating particles, but does not specifically address the natural origin of the inverse square law, and additionally requires the introduction of specific interpretations to explain the non-long-range effects of interactions.
It is possible to model the world in this way, since the ever-expanding mathematical models developed within the framework of the Standard Model are obviously capable of producing values that correspond to reality, but this type of interpretation, which follows empirical reality by constantly adding new and new properties and modifying the existing theoretical model, is not necessarily a suitable method for providing a true description of reality, since it can easily lead to theoretical dead-ends from which it is difficult to interpret the world in a unified way, as is clearly shown by the mutually exclusive nature of the current theories, one interpreting general gravity and another explaining the quantum world. These theories separately produce values of empirical reality, but they are incompatible with each other. We must find a way to interpret reality in a unified way.
The inverse square law, which is characteristic of the potential energy acting in three-dimensional space, cannot be interpreted for the strong and weak interactions. The conceptual problems in the mathematical interpretation of the potential energy of the strong interaction to produce a bound state have already been discussed.
The weak interaction is essentially not even an interaction for creating a bound state. It defines the transformations of the types of elementary particles, so it makes no sense to talk about binding energy in relation to the weak interaction, and therefore the weak interaction cannot be classically considered as having potential energy that behaves as a force.
The physical process called weak interaction plays a crucial role in the transformations of flavor and generation of types of elementary particles. These changes are related to changes in the symmetries of the elementary particles, which determine the properties or types of the particles. The properties of particles are derived from symmetries, symmetries at the level of existence of elementary particles are related to resonances, which are associated with vibrations with different degrees of freedom. The weak interaction creates the connections between these states. What is understood as weak interaction is equivalent to an interaction that actually transfers degrees of freedom between different vibrational states associated with resonances that interact with each other.
The currently used, conceptually unified Standard Model of particle physics incorporates the weak interaction into the field theory, associates the interaction with boson-like mediating particles, and attributes significant mass to the mediating particles to explain the short-range interpretation of the interaction.
The Standard Model interprets the weak interaction in terms of a theory that produces physical values that are also observed in the reality of practice, but the development of the structure of the theory of the weak interaction has conspicuously required further and further modifications as it has evolved, and the mathematical description of the weak interaction has become increasingly complex as new and new features have been introduced, and it still cannot explain all the features of the weak interaction, such as the chirality difference between specific matter and antimatter states.
Although it may be a feature of mathematical modeling of complex systems that the more we know about a system, the more complex it appears, and consequently the more complex models are needed to describe it, the natural path of increasing complexity in complex systems does not follow this path. Complexity increases in the direction of including more and more components when building complex systems. Complexity typically increases with the quantitative increase in the components of the system and the associated increase in the degree of interconnectedness.
If, in the process of gaining knowledge, we explore a system more deeply and find that the complexity of the system increases as we explore the components of the system, then the exploration of the system is not necessarily in the direction of understanding. The knowledge that results from such a process typically serves only to describe the phenomena, which, in the absence of true understanding, can often correspond to reality only in increasingly complex forms, and the theory can even lead to a theoretical dead end, resulting in difficulty in seeing the whole of reality as a consistent unity.
A structure can be a complex system, but if we look at a complex system by moving toward its building blocks, we should typically see a reduction in complexity as our knowledge grows. The complexity typically comes from the growth of the components of the system, and thus the multiplicity of their interactions, resulting in emergent properties.
The fact is, however, that as we come to know our reality more and more deeply, we do not find that our world is simply a multitude of elements with increasingly complex relationships as they form more and more connections creating increasing complexity. The deeper we look into the reality of our material world, the more complex we see it. However, this phenomenon is not necessarily a consequence of the fundamental characteristics of our material world, but may also be a consequence of the method we use to gather information to know nature.
In practice, in order to see deeper and deeper into the structure of our material world, to examine smaller and smaller details, we usually have to use more and more energy. While this is a necessary method, it can also be a misleading technique for gathering information.
Our world is a collection of components that vibrate in a fundamentally wave-like manner, creating vibrational resonances. To learn about our world in the smallest possible range of extensions, it is necessary to reduce the wavelength of the vibrational state of the probes used for the investigation, i.e. to increase the number of vibrations per unit time in order to reach the desired range of dimensions. However, the higher the frequency of vibration used for the probe, the higher the energy of the probe used for the test, and the higher the energy present also allows a higher degree of freedom for the object to be tested, the more complex the behavior of the object can become during the test, the more complex the action of the system under examination can possess.
As we apply higher and higher energies, we can see how the resonances that manifest the particles behave in a more and more excited state. The knowledge gained is important because our universe was supposedly in a high energy state in the early stages, and knowing how matter behaves in these circumstances is important to understanding how the universe formed to this present, however, this method of gaining knowledge can be misleading because it is based on specific circumstances if we consider the knowledge gained as a deeper understanding of how our material world fundamentally functions.
Elementary particles are still considered point-like entities, despite the physical impossibility of such a state, so we use ever higher energies to study them in ever smaller details. However, point-like can be a phenomenon related to the moment of interaction of resonances, not necessarily to the physical extension of the elementary particle in space. The resonance representing the elementary particle occupies an extension of size in space, which only appears to be localized in a point-like manner during the interaction.
The defining characteristic of the types of elementary particles that can exist in a stationary manner in space is a minimum self-energy derived from the nature and frequency of the self-confined resonance with the given degree of freedom specific to the type of elementary particle. In this view, the weak interaction that affects the resonance state of the particles is short-range, not because the force-mediating particle is massive, but because the change of state of the resonances is localized. Similarly, the duration of the change resulting from the probability of the occurrence of a given weak interaction may be characteristically longer, not because the probability of the existence of a virtual mediator particle with a large mass is typically smaller, but because the synchronization of the vibrations required for the change of the state of the resonances occurs over a period of time that depends on the magnitude of the difference in the states of the resonances and is determined by the degree of stability of the given vibration.
Strikingly, the most fundamental way our world works is vibration-based resonance. According to this view, the states considered as fields in current theories are in fact only the potentially possible vibrational states of the material space made up of grid particles forming the space, and the synchronized vibrational states that actually arise from these potential possibilities are in fact the elementary particles that exist in reality.
As we examine the building blocks of our world at higher and higher energies, we can learn how these building blocks behave in the high-energy background environment that may have existed at the birth of the universe, but this type of existence is not a typical state of our material world, nor does it necessarily help us to recognize and understand the basic mechanisms of how the building blocks of our world function, form, exist, and interact.
The material structure that represents the functions of space, that allows the existence of structures as vibrational states on it, provides the medium for the vibrational states that arise, move and interact with each other on it. And in this form, space itself, in its material existence, does not, cannot and need not constitute an absolute reference system (aether) for the vibrational states that exist on it, just as the surface of the ocean does not constitute an absolute reference system for the waves that form on the surface of the water.
In the absence of an absolute reference coordinate frame, the only way to characterize motion is in terms of motion relative to the location of objects in the environment. The state of motion of the resonances that manifest a material particle, and the energy of the displacement that they entail, is therefore naturally relative to the state of motion of other vibrations in the environment.
The form of the state of motion of objects, including the state of rest, can obviously be interpreted in a relative way, in relation to other objects in the environment. But motion as a state must also be a property that exists independently of the environment. Displacement, motion, must obviously be a state of an object, even if we ignore other objects in the environment. In this case, however, an objective definition of the state of motion - since there is no absolute reference with respect to which the motion occurs - seems impossible.
The absolute or relative nature of motion has long been studied in natural philosophy without a satisfactory theoretical solution. The most striking example of this problem is Mach's paradox. Special relativity offers a partial solution to this paradoxical situation. Relativity says that there is a maximum speed of propagation of an effect in our world (the speed of propagation of the electromagnetic waves is a practical example), and that this speed is the same for all objects in our world, regardless of the state of motion of the object.
A paradox also follows from this statement, a paradox concerning the addition of velocities, which relativity eliminates by making the expansion of space and the passage of time dependent on the state of motion, in a way that corresponds to our experienced physical reality.
Relativity does not, however, interpret its statements in terms of a concrete, causal physical process, instead, as a common manner of physical interpretation, it assigns mathematical formulae to describe phenomena and, from the interpretation of the mathematical formulae, justifies the reality of its statements, such as the impossibility of a maximum speed existing in nature for objects with mass at rest.
It follows from the formula that the faster a material object moves, the more its energy increases, exponentially without limit, and according to the relativistic mathematical relationship between speed and energy, taking light as the state of motion at maximum speed, the energy of the object becomes meaningless - according to the mathematical formula - if it were moving at maximum possible speed.
Mathematics is obviously the language of describing nature, and it is also typically true that a hypothetical state of nature, which the mathematical formalism describing that state considers invalid, cannot exist in nature. However, it is only the physical reality that actually exists, even though it may be easier for us to obtain a mathematical description than to recognise the physical reality behind the meaning of the mathematical formulations.
This phenomenon can be clearly seen in the case of the interpretation of kinetic energy. The interpretation of the mathematical formula of the relation conspicuously confirms the relation between the state of motion and the energy associated with the state of motion as experienced in practice, and even confirms the existence of a maximum speed in such a form that at this speed the energy of the object becomes mathematically meaningless, but the description does not offer any deeper description of the causality of physical existence to explain the mathematical legitimacy.
This state of knowledge can also be seen in the application of relativity to the interpretation of the theory of relativity. The speed of time and the extent of space depend on what is chosen as the reference state. It can be different depending on the choice, but there is obviously only one reality that exists, which can appear in different scales depending on the frame of reference from which we view reality. But the real question is: what is the only objective reality that we can perceive as relative? Relativity does not assign a specific, causally existing physical state to a phenomenon described by mathematical formulae in the theory.
To illustrate the existing paradox, one might ask, for example, if the maximum speed of a system is an absolute state for objects with rest mass moving at any possible speed, which is always the maximum speed, then, from the relativity of speed, what is the speed of an object with rest mass relative to an object without rest mass? The objective asymmetry of this relativity can be broken by interpreting time and speed as derivatives of each other. We currently understand both to be relative, but we do not really know the physical origin of the properties that give rise to these attributes.
The theory of relativity interprets the different states of motion in a theoretical framework that gives results that correspond to reality, but its theoretical framework is conspicuously lacking in a causal interpretation of the physical properties of our material world and a model for viewing the universe as a unified system.
The nature of a state of motion can obviously be interpreted in a relative way, but the mere relative existence of motion as a state - taking into account the absolute nature of maximum speed - does not seem to be an objective reality. It seems necessary to consider motion as an objective state of displacement in order to understand our world in a unified way.
There is a maximum speed in our physical world, which is absolute. Any object that is not moving at this speed, whatever its speed, will always perceive objects moving at the maximum speed as moving at the maximum speed.
It is striking that an absolute reference has thus been defined which is not linked to a place, a position in space, but to a specific, clearly definable state of motion. Taking into account the previous assumption that in space objects exist as vibrational states of space, the objective nature of motion can be understood, and the basic proposition that motion, and essentially displacement at maximum speed, is the most fundamental state of the system that constitutes the world in which we live can be deduced from this model.
In the thought, space was interpreted as a homogeneous material system. A structurally homogeneous material system can obviously be characterized by the speed of propagation of the effect in the system, which is necessarily the maximum speed of propagation of the changes possible in a structurally homogeneous material structure.
In this world, where different states are represented only by different forms of vibrations of space, the basic state is motion at the speed of propagation of the effect. The speed of propagation of the vibrations of the particles that form the space in the system is the speed of propagation of the effect in the system, which is a property specific to material space. In this world, movement is a necessity, and movement at the maximum speed is the basic state. In fact, in this world, it is the manner in which non-maximum velocity motion exists that requires interpretation.
In such a system, the self-confined vibrational states are the stable resonances that can exist locally. The existence as self-confining resonance, the necessity of the self-confinement of the resonance in a state of motion slower than the speed of propagation of the vibration in space, is obviously a necessary condition for an object existing as a closed resonance, which has the natural consequence of the unattainability of a state of motion with maximum speed. In this model, therefore, it naturally follows that the speed of propagation of the vibration in space is a naturally existing, unattainable limit for the state of motion of self-enclosed vibrations, locally stable objects existing as resonances.
The reference for such closed vibrational states is the state of motion of the waves represented by the non-closed vibrational states. The self-contradictory nature of Mach's paradox ceases to exist when space is understood in the way implied in this thought. Motion is an objective state, but a stationary, absolute frame of reference is directly inaccessible to structures that exist as vibrations in space.
In this system, the phenomenon of time, which we currently identify as an abstract dimension, can be related to a concrete physical interpretation. Special relativity characterizes time as a dimension, but this characterization is only an abstract geometric interpretation of time represented in mathematical formulations.
What we characterize as time is actually the sequence of events and the rate of change of events. Consequently, time is not necessarily a concrete reality that exists as a physical dimension, but can be a property derived from physical properties to characterize change.
The hypothesis of space sketched here gives rise to the possibility that time does not exist as an objective reality existing as a kind of dimension of extension, as it is characterized in current scientific understanding, but as a derived measure of other, more fundamental properties. In this model, time is a measure of the rate of change of objects that exist locally in space as resonances with respect to other states of change of events. Time, as a natural consequence of this derivation, can only exist as a relative property of the actual states and environment.
According to the theory outlined in the thought, electromagnetic radiation is a vibration of the (grid)particles that construct space, with a well-defined certain degree of freedom, which moves through the structure that constructs space at the speed of propagation of the effect. Since this vibration does not create a local resonance that exists locally in space, the concept of time cannot be applied to electromagnetic radiation.
According to the theory sketched in the thought, the electron is a vibration of the (grid)particles that construct space, with a certain degree of freedom, which forms a self-confined resonance on the structure that constructs space, and thus it is a locally existing vibrational structure. For the electron, time can be understood as a property derived from other, more fundamental properties that determine its behavior.
For example, when a closed resonance representing an electron moves through space, the vibrational state that creates the resonance, which also moves at the speed of propagation of the effect in the closed state, travels different lengths of distances depending on the state of motion of the resonance in space, and thus takes different amounts of time to maintain the closed state depending on the state of motion of the resonance in space. If we take the duration of the propagation time of the vibration for a given electron to maintain the closed state as a unit, which we can call as the unit of the intrinsic time of the given electron, then we can naturally derive the relativity of the unit length of time of the electron (the passage of the intrinsic time for the given electron) from its state of motion.
Since the resonance representing the electron in the model carries the minimum degree of freedom for that resonance, it follows that the electron cannot change to another resonance by itself, i.e. time itself does not pass for the electron. However, by interacting with other resonances, the degree of freedom of the vibration representing the electron can change, and the rate of change, i.e. the duration of the change, necessarily depends on the state of motion of the interacting vibrational structures, determined as their intrinsic time, and to a relative extent on the time of the interacting resonances.
The muon, as interpreted in the theory, is a resonance with a non-minimal degree of freedom, so it can transform itself into a resonance with a lower degree of freedom. The duration of this transformation depends in the same natural way on the intrinsic time of the resonance, which depends on the state of motion. The unit of the intrinsic time of a resonance moving at a higher speed is longer than that of a resonance moving at a slower speed because it has to travel a longer distance to maintain its closed state, and therefore the transition to the minimum degree of freedom of the resonance in the environment - the transformation into an electron - takes longer to reach in the reference frame of an external, slower moving observer.
The passage of the intrinsic time that determines the changes in complex structures is derived from the intrinsic time of the constituent parts of the structure, which is also a function of the state of motion of the associated structure.
In the system outlined, time can be interpreted as a derived property, a descriptor of the vibrational states of the structures that make up space.
Strikingly, space can be seen as a material medium in which structures exist as vibrational states. In this model, vibrational states are able to locally modify the surrounding space to the extent represented by the energy of their wave-like existence, deforming the structure of space by their existence, and thereby creating what called inertia associated with a given state of motion. Inertia as the necessity and magnitude of the force required to change the state of motion of a motion following the direction of density - shortest - path in the deformed space can be interpreted in this theoretical framework, but inertia as the persistence of the state of motion without force requires further explanation, which can be obtained by considering the absolute nature of motion. In the structure outlined, motion is the fundamental form of existence, and it follows from this assertion that a state of motion without change is maintained without force.
The implication of the model is that vibration can only exist in a state of motion that changes position, with a propagation speed that is the speed of propagation of the effect, a space-defined speed in space. Our experience shows that in our reality of space, the state of motion of this type of waves is not affected by the nature of the vibration, since the velocity is the speed of the effect, which is same for all vibrational states of this type. This property points to the nature of the material system that constitutes space.
The natural persistence of the state of motion without force can be interpreted in the outlined structure, but the approach does not preclude the possibility that motion through space, the propagation of vibration, does not involve a loss of energy. In the outlined system, vibrational states that exist in a non-closed manner can only exist in a state of motion that is the speed of the action of space, so the speed of motion itself cannot change, but the energy of the vibrational state can decrease in a way determined by space, which in perceived reality can manifest itself as a decrease in the frequency of the vibrational states.
According to this approach, the redshift of distant objects may be caused in part by the loss of energy through space. If this conjecture is correct, it requires a reinterpretation of current cosmological theories. The “tired light” theory is based on a similar assumption, but cannot adequately explain the frequency-independent energy loss. The structure of space described in this thought assumes the same propagation velocity for all frequencies, which is consistent with empirical reality, but at the same time does not exclude, and may even naturally include, the energy loss of vibrational states passing through space.
The vibrational states that change position, forming wave-like vibrations, themselves have the energy of their state of motion. However, if a given state of motion can also be considered as a reference to itself, such as a self-enclosed state like a closed resonance, the motion becomes practically independent of its environment, creating its own energy not directly related to the object's environment, which can be interpreted as rest mass.
If the propagation of vibrations in space involves a loss of energy, then the persistence of a closed vibrational state, resonance, must also involve a loss of energy, e.g., the mass of an electron should decrease over time. Existing experience does not confirm this conjectured phenomenon. The contradiction can be resolved by assuming that the vibrations passing through space do not involve energy loss, and then the red shift has no resulting component, or only closed vibrations, resonances, manifested particles do not lose energy, but the contradiction can also be resolved by assuming that the energy loss is an invaluably slow change, or that it applies equally to all vibrations, so that the relative ratio of energies - masses - remains unchanged, and therefore is an imperceptible change for the properties in the system. This hypothesis would make the universe ceasing in time naturally understandable, but would also allow for a universe that exists cyclically in time.
Energy is a derived property of our material world. The grid model, which interprets space as a material system, is a deeper approach to understanding our material world that seems to be suitable for an integrated interpretation of the properties of our material world, a deeper view of our material world beyond the description of it in terms of energy.
If the grid-model is a valid view of the existence of our world, the next level of existence might be the material reality and physical origin of the grid space, what science would be necessary to investigate.
No comments