I mean don't get it twisted, I got da balls. What I meant was time, yes definitely time.
You all testicles, and no shaft! What happened to ya shaft, Robert?
Not to mention they are measured to travel at or DAMN CLOSE to the speed of light.
Particle physics/astronomy has fascinated me ever since I was a child, so I am hoping we get some answers from the LHC.
I would venture to guess massless and traveling the speed of light, with mass like properties (wave/particle interactions). Even if they were rediculously small mass, the amount of momentum required to get them to 99.9999% c or closer would be enormous.
It just goes back to the same problem: We really have no understanding of what mass is.
Welcome to the club. People at work try to get me to explain Relativity and why Jesus is real vs the Physics and ideas of the Big bang and space. Don't bother. Ask Neo, hes been barking up that tree for years.
You're wasting your breath, I've learned that I can best equate it to teaching Trig to a Chimpanzee.
Well then, hello Gentlemen.
Mizzle: my nizzle, thanks for the hizzeadlle upizzle, dizzawg!
Neo: wouldn't it be just as valid to say duration goes away? Keep in mind though, for considering the reference frame of a beam of light, we're now heretics.
At the speed of light, one should observe all points in time as being simultaneous. The difference then becomes the relation between spatial events at those points in time, and for points which are only separated by time, there would no longer be any spatial difference.
Perhaps if you expanded the distance as you are describing, while reducing the temporal portion of the interval from some value, it wouldn't explode any more?
Woozie: I wouldn't say I hate QM, I'm pretty sure I found a way to make QM fall out of General Relativity, after all. I'd say I think trying to build a Universe from the bottom up is overly difficult. The reason it is so difficult is because time is treated as if it stops being important at 0 mass, and there is thus only one way interactions can flow along it. Smolin and I have a nasty tendency of rambling into language we're trying to construct to explain the terms we're trying to explain... my first paper on Simply Relativity is HORRIBLE to read for that same reason.
Mass is interaction, but interaction between what?
Reduce everything you possibly can, model the absolutely simplest Universe you can, what can you not do away with before losing the sense of a Universe at all?
Directions! If you do not have a way to define a stage, you can't have actors at all!
QM doesn't work unless you say beforehand: "This is the stage, these are it's limits", and work from there.
GR doesn't want you to be able to say: "This is the stage, these are it's limits", and not consider what the stage itself does, it is as important as the actors!
QFT and String Theory assume that the stage can be built from tiny little actors and inserted when that is understood.
LQC and Spinfoam models assume that you can build a stage from tiny little bits which are really only identifiable against themselves, and that you can then insert the QFT/Stringy stuff later.
What if the stage has a sense in which it can be defined against itself, one which would allow it to be deformed dynamically, but which would require no smaller components than the very directions we identify along it?
There is a very interesting body of work done by a fellow I met recently, Christoph Schiller. [0905.3905] Deducing the three gauge interactions from featureless strands is the first paper I saw of his, this site has his other papers.
Essentially the difference between his work and mine can be summed up in my focus on time, and his focus on the indistinguishable nature of the strands.
I'd love some of you guys to look over his stuff, I've talked to him a bit, still waiting for his latest paper on the origin of particle properties.
If you take what he has, and allow what seems to be a background dependence to emerge in the definition of the strands from featureless except for crossings, to (x,y,z) threads but unobserved except the crossings and relational interactions, you arrive at what I'm working on.
My pleasure homey.
Awesome, I'd love to look over those papers.