That there is more to explain is itself a truth-fact.
In response to the light cones post:
Garret: Does that pertain to neutrinos? They hardly interact with matter at all, and when they've been detected, they have proven to be even "smaller" than photons, indicating a smaller frame. As a result, I think there is something else going on with light speed.
The moment of dimension shift between energy being massless and having mass is the smallest 'physical time' unit, which is expressed as photon production.
Think of the pendulum, we mark the middle spot as zero and the ball swings from negative to positive numbers on a number line. It is sensible to put the zero there, where the kinetic energy is highest. Still, the oscillations can be numerated only if some zero is chosen. Now think of the photon as being the zero between mass and massless, which is to say between energy and matter.
The speed of light being constant could be just the highest kinetic energy moment of this process. With faster than/lighter than as feasible as heavier than/faster than.
Here is another space where a dimension shift occurs: think of the exponential growth function, y=e^x, where e is Euler's Constant. The fascinating thing about this constant is that for all the exponential growth possibilities (of which there are infinite!) this is the one where the speed matches the acceleration.
These are all good examples of physical paradoxes we accept because we have experience with them. mass = energy, particle = wave, square root[-1] = i, e = irrational number, etc.
cool links on these topics
what's a neutrino?
faster than light!?
y=e^x and why this is my favorite number and function.
.....from Jared: Garret, you may be equating particle size with unit-of-time size. What Jeannette said does not require the size of the photon or neutrino to be specified (it may end up being a mathematical consequence, but it's not immediately obvious). What you're saying is that the neutrino may end up being the unit-of-space particle whose emergence is correlated with the unit-of-time, instead of the photon, but since neutrinos move at light speed also, Jeanette's idea still holds.
Are mass-generating and space-generating different things?
Randy: But if time is just an illusion caused by photon generation, it can be removed from the equation; thus, making the speed of light indeterminable. I just totally made that up ... but my fine use of commas and semicolons makes it sound believable.
You colon better than other punctuators.
For the conegeeks: I give assertions: Time is not an illusion. Time is real.
Still, some math arguments for sort of ignoring it are valid, we don't call it the independent variable for nothing. These musings are more of a radical redefinition in how we think of time, especially towards unifying the dimension shift between time and space.
Jeff: The unit h is the smallest unit (of mass?) that can sustain a frequency. But how long does it take for an electron to move from a higher to a lower orbit? Some say "No time at all." Light moves at a constant *velocity* for all frames, but the frequency that is observed at the boundary of an event is dependent on the relative velocity of the frame making the observation. Does it take a longer or shorter amount of local time for an electron to move from a lower to a higher orbit? Now compare two frames moving with unequal velocity observing light of the same frequency from a light source. Does one of the electrons appear to move between orbits faster than the other electron? How can both be instantaneous locally and not the same when viewed from outside the two moving frames?
Lots of maths work just about perfectly in their appropriate frame. Euclid, Hyperbolic, Newton, Einstein .... Gödel, Feynman? I feel the earlier time cones gives a potential structure to those physical paradoxes you describe, we need a mathematician. A model which allows some perturbation to warp space time in such a way that the SERIOUS problems with electrons are resolved.
I love your last two questions. I think they arise from some assumptions I don't agree with, namely that the electron exists at all in lieu of quantifiable perturbation. I think the "electron" is energy until some force acts upon it, in which case the electron appears at the interaction, otherwise it is in it's highest KE state, which is the cloud. In other words, if you bump it, it will be there.
Which makes me wonder, are there "electron cones" like I assert there are "light cones" ... I'm unconvinced at the knee jerk.