Journal subjectstorm's Journal: My (wrong) theory of everything 1
This "theory" (in actuality, it is not a theory, just a lameass idea i had) is fun to consider and full of possibility. it tickles me intellectually that such a thing could conceivably be correct . . . but in all likelihood, it is completely, utterly incorrect in every possible way.
that being said, i shall proceed.
I propose that there is only one material in the universe; a single substance from which all other substances derive. This substance is space, and it is, in its natural state, a zero-energy, massless, frictionless material.
When i say that it is massless, i mean only that it is of constant and uniform mass, the baseline against which all other masses are measured. In practice and function it is our zero; in reality, its mass is arbitrary and meaningless, so long as we realize that it is a constant of the lowest possible order.
picture an unmoving sea of fluid. this is space. there is no energy. there is no matter. there is only space, and no part of space is in any way distinguishable from any other part. In fact, there is only the one part. space is a non-particular fluid. OH HO! interesting.
Now imagine that something stirs the fluid. Currents, waves, whirlpools, and other such things appear. although these things are distinguishable from each other and the rest of the fluid, they are still part of the body as a whole and composed ENTIRELY of the original fluid.
It is useful to consider space in this manner. apply energy to it, and suddenly odd things occur. a whirpool in space could be a particle.
also, remember that space is frictionless - so these movements, once started, will not stop.
i like to think of quarks as tiny spinning bubbles or whirls of space with a perfect vaccuum at their core. i like to think of light as sort of a current. energy applied to space at a vector, er . . a ray. this could possibly explain the bizarre nature of light. it could propagate in a vaccuum (because there is no vaccum, it acctually space). it could behave as a wave . . because that's what it IS. and it could behave as a particle in some instances, because it is only a different manifestation of space, the same material that a particle is constructed from.
this is especially useful in matter/antimatter annihilations, where light is emitted and the matter (and antimatter) disappears. rather than saying that the matter and antimatter convert into photons or some other nonsense, we can simply say that their cores collapse and the energy of their spins is released in straight lines as light.
honestly, this makes as much sense as saying that a sea of zero-energy photons exists . . or saying that objects are constantly emitting streams of particles OF WHICH they AREN'T actually composed.
at any rate, under this set of assumptions, the entire universe and everything in it can be reduced to a peculiar construction of a universal material; individual parts being distinguishable but not seperated from the parent material, dependent upon their motions relative to each other and the parent substance.
and of course, the only true form of energy here would be motion. I'll save that for another time though, specifically when i cover my equally ridiculous views of time.
Go for it! (Score:1)
Here's what I think is the good:
1) It makes at least as much sense as any other current theory of everything;
2) It might actually be useful as a metaphor. If light can act sometimes like a particle, why not sometimes as a vortex in the ether?
3) Ether is a cool word. You could spell it with the AE ligature for extra points.
The Bad:
1) I