The following is a quickly-jotted-down stream of consciousness-esque series of thoughts I had, cleaned up and presented here for your bemusement. I actually jotted this down some time ago, and just recently found this while cleaning up some drafts in my blog... Enjoy!
...Okay, so we know that light is a wave and a particle. Or, if you prefer, a wave-particle... appropriately traveling through what we consider space-time. Named thusly, because we are more familiar with "space" 3-dimensions, and we simply lob in a fourth, which we call time. However, if you ask someone what the three dimensions are, they would respond something to the effect of length, width and height... which are all simply scalar distance measurements. And, depending on your choice of origin and orientation, those three could be anything, so long as they are "normal" to each other. Length could be width or height, and the others rotate appropriately to suit. Simply turning an object in your hands and considering what its "height" is will reveal the very definition to be very weak and backwards-thinking. How can we hope to uncover the science behind the creation of a universe when we measure reality and all of existence with relation to the gravitational center of our planet of birth ...or any single planet for that matter? If height is "up" and up is "away from down" and down is the direction that things fall when dropped on Earth, then our definitions are waaay too "preschool" to approach the task.
So, given that we are looking at some arbitrary distance (we'll call length, in this case), if we take an object and dissect it perfectly (impossible, but that's another story), then we end up with twice the number of objects, each with half the length - voila! ...preservation of matter (or, more technically, matter-duration, in space-time). These two objects can occupy the same space, much like cars in parking lots do... by taking turns. They can't occupy the same space at the same time. They, likewise, can occupy the same time. This is, in fact, totally normal and expected, in our point of view. You would be quite shocked to find that if you cut an object in half one half disappeared and would only reappear at the disappearance of the other half. However, we have already illustrated above that one axis is no different from another axis and, in fact, objects can be rotated such that their lengths can swing around to become their widths, with other axes following suit. This poses some interesting questions...
First, quarks. We can observe a quark existing in two places at the same time and then apparently disappearing from existence. Can we move quarks? If so, is it possible to move two "of the same quark" into the SAME 3D space? I wonder if this would be possible at all. Much like the familiar objective behavior of normally observed objects occupying the same space, but at different times, given an axial rotation, it may be impossible for the same quark to occupy different times at the same space. Moving on...
Quarks have been observed to rotate in opposite directions to each other. We see similar behavior when we wave at ourselves in a mirror. Or when an image is flipped in a camera. This observed phenomena is resultant of optics - lens effects. Could there be something in nature that acts as a "matter-duration" lens, not of light, but of quarks, causing a "reflection" effect on the quark, so that the spins are actually identical (As would be necessary if it is the same quark), but the space-time orientation of the quark is adjusted by this lens effect?
If items could occupy the same space-time location-moments, then the only mathematical description that could isolate these object-instances would be mass. Mathematically speaking, however, this would present an "n-paradox", where we could agree that there is a given number of instances coexisting, and the amount of mass ascribed to each instance would have to be identical, lacking any way of specifying one from the other. It follows that any number of possibilities would be equally true, so long as the number (n) of assumed instances times the assumed mass of a given instance equals the total mass occupying that specific location-moment. This should hold true right on up to a single object in space-time being recognized as an infinite number of instances with infinitely small mass. If you could focus on a single instance, moving one would be infinitely easy. Should we assume that the others, being instances which are bound in space-time would move with them?
...A question best left to the Jedi, that is...
Posts
