I have no time to pursue advanced quantum (or any other) physics, but the ideas of physicists do not add up – yet. That's why I have argued:
In my hypothesis there are (to us unobservable) photons that travel FASTER – much faster – than the speed of light.
These photons BEND space and create the experience of mass.
There has been little or no evidence to date to prove that any photon can travel faster than the speed of light. A recent experiment that "showed" that was found to be flawed.
But now there is another lead in this direction: The speed of light in a vacuum may not be a constant after all.
This is a HUGE theoretical breakthrough, for it allows for photons that travel at ALL possible speeds – soemthing more likely to be true than an arbitrarily fixed speed.
In my view "normal" light is SELF-SELECTED. It doesn't reflect the actual, true world of photons, in which energy travels at ALL possible speeds.
Basically, if the speed of photons is THEORETICALLY not constant, then there is A POSSIBILITY that many photons travel MUCH FASTER than the speed of light.
Such photons would have been naturally produced at the moment of Big Bang, being SUPER-FAST PHOTONS. These photons would have had the capacity to bend space and (potentially) travel in extremely "tiny" spheres (this is a simplification) IN – what to the photons appears to be – A STRAIGHT LINE.
The energy possessed by such photons would therefore exceed the energy of ordinary light photons, thus allowing more energy to be created from "mass" than has been visualised to date. This would break the e=mc2 equation.
Anyway, this is my preliminary hypothesis. To me it explains better the existence of mass in a world of PURE ENERGY.
I realise that some will say that I ought not to propose things about which I'm not an "expert". However, most "experts" are wrong MOST of the time. That has been the universal law of humanity.
Humans will always be better off if more hypotheses are put into the mix. Amateurs can increase the possibility of humans finding the truth by increasing options for us to explore, and raising objections when "experts" believe they've found the "answer".
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email: