My Theory - Movement in an Illusion

I have a radical new theory that will change the laws of physics. It contradicts all we currently know about motion.

From what we have been taught, particles that make up all matter move. I disagree, and say that particles don't move, they transform. I think that movement is an illusion. What appears to be motion is just the fast transformation of particles into different particles. I have an analogy and an example.

Think of your computer monitor. Whenever you move your mouse, the cursor onscreen "moves." The cursor does not move, pixels just change to different colors to look like the cursor is moving.

And now the example.

Imagine a universe with only enough room for two particles. There is a particle in one of the spaces and the other space is empty. Normally, we would believe that if anything were to occupy the empty space, the other particle would have to move there. This "movement" is an illusion, and rather than moving, the particle transforms into space and the space into the particle.

Luckily, this theory is, in my opinion, safe because it can never be proved or disproved.

how much energy does it take to transform ? is there any heat generated or waste products ?

I'm sticking with the laws o physics we have, thanks anyway.

there is a little differenc between a monitor and matter. Punch yourself in the face. Did your hand move or transform ?

You can't call it your theory when it came out in Greek Times. Try again... maybe read a book.

[edit on 10-5-2005 by Protector]

Originally posted by Protector
You can't call it your theory when it came out in Greek Times. Try again... maybe read a book.

I didn't know the Greeks came up with it...I just thought of it one day at school.

I see you're a hitchhiker fan as well.... One of the best (series of) book(s) ever written, IMO. You're right, with our current tech this theory could not be conclusively proven or disproven. Keep in mind that it will be far easier to disprove than to prove, however.

How does fit in with relativity and all? Is there a limit (speed of light) to how fast space can change? Where does this matter come from that gives the illusion of motion? Zero point energy perhaps?

Also, what prevents the particles from just diappearing and reappearing randomly? When a beam of light moves through space, why does it have some "cohesive" properties? Why not just immediately being "absorbed" for lack of a better word, back into space?

Where did you get the idea for this theory?

And BTW, what do you think the question is? My cousin thinks it's "Pick a number, any number" Me, I'm still not sure.

NMS

lol high priest the hand does move and arrgh yeh it moves so nice theory but i think me and my broken nose will sick with laws of physics

It's always good to think of the universe in new ways from varied perspectives. I could argue that protons are actually microscopic paddles, and that electrons are, in reality, ping-pong balls. As you said this is rather difficult to prove or disprove, but even if true, it doesn't appear to help anyone or change anything.

The real trick is to use that insight to add something to our current pool of inventions.

For example, E=MC^2 is great and all, but unless you can put it to practical application it gets lost in the anals of Academia. In this case, the application turned out to be nuclear power.

So what you need to do is find some way to use your perception and transform it into a concrete idea.

The principle of parsimony doesn't always apply, especially quantum theory, but here it does. If you don't know where I'm going with this, google "Occam's Razor".

William of Ockham

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
translated: Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity

Wikipedia

We must drive a sword through any hypothesis that is not strictly necessary.

Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) lived after Ockham's time and has a variant of Occam's razor. His variant short-circuits the need for sophistication by equating it to simplicity.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

Occam's Razor is now usually stated as follows:

Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

As this is ambiguous, Isaac Newton's version may be better:

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

In the spirit of Occam's Razor itself, the rule may be stated thus:

The simplest explanation is usually the best.

You don't need to overanalyze things to make them right, if they are already right.