I am noticing an enigma/contradiction within the P.Q.model. Particles are considered "disturbances" within the "field"; they are also considered to be oscillations within the potential energy (4th dimension). But what is enigmatic is that particles and their associated charges are what create the potential energy of the scalar 4th dimension. The enigma is that the particle (disturbance in the potential energy) is creating the potential energy.I was playing with the idea that every particle in a system (the universe) has a tangible relationship or connection with every other particle in the system. The idea was to create a relativistic frame in which only the particles exist and the laws of physics are defined for each pair of particles by unknown (to be determined) processes. The idea was to dualistically either (a) overlook the particles and allow the "connections" to become the space (complete with defined laws of physics) or (b) overlook the space and just see the relationship between pairs of particles (the way physics is described now). I haven't thought it through completely. Much to my liking, I leave a backdoor in this model for the Creator to alter the laws of physics locally through the "connections" between the particles. Given the more than infinite number of connections between particle pairs, the overlap could appear as a potential energy scalar field.The other interesting quality of this model is that the connections between particle pairs can be defined/programmed as "no interaction". I can have particles of group A with interacting laws of physics. I can have particles of Group B with interacting connections (laws of physics); and I can say that the connections between particles in A to particles in B are either "non interacting", "restricted/weakly interacting", even "interact a clusters of A to single particles of B". The particles would exist in an ocean of "connections"; the "connections" are push/pull with respect to each other. Given the infinite number of these connections, they could be perceived as an ocean of potential energy. Since particle pairs can spring up or annhilate, then "connection" creation/collapse can occur. The "connections" are (a) the laws of physics, (b) space itself and (c) lines whose endpoints are the particles.So, do you think I'm taking too many conceptual/hypothetical liberties?
Within a "Connection Theory", if I take 4 particles: A,B,C and D, then I can define the connections:AB,AC,AD,BC,BD and CD. I've already suggested that these connections are programmable. But for a given connection, I can define (a) a separation 'd' (b) a force between the two particles as F = +/-(strength)/r^(1 to n dimensions). (c) a velocity of affect of endpoint A to endpoint B. (d) cluster rules.To meet a physics format, I have to boil down the rules into something more mathematical. I'm workin' on it.
Connection theory rules1. "Appear"; Redefine relationship pair (distance d,Force F, endpoint affect velocity).2. "Vanish" collapse pair by annhilation.3. "Add to cluster"; 4. "Subtract from cluster"Since a particle A has as many connections as N-1 for N particles in a system, there are N-1 relationships to be determined; which is probably a good reason to simplify with well established set of particles.
I hate to spend physics credibility for vision, but here is what I see. These "connections" between particles can obey Least Action rules and reproduce the physical universe as physicists known and love. But there are other connection rules that are beyond linear space and time, they are part of the deepest mystery. The mechanisms take much longer to occur, but the effects are much broader than just one or two particles. There are connection rules for clusters (clusters are large macroscopic objects that can approximate platonic absolutes). It kills me to have to spend credibility on this but this is an important piece to the puzzle.