July 6, 1997 WORK IN PROGRESS ONLY

1. A Newtonian object is a point mass in a background of space and time having a trajectory specified by an analytic function (except perhaps at point collisions).
2. A relativistic object is the same as a Newtonian object except that it has a maximum velocity (in any frame of reference and of the same velocity).
3. I will call both of these objects classical objects.
4. In my work the concept of space is derived from another, more fundamental concept, called a precursor function. A precursor function is defined as a binary random function on the set of real numbers. If the limit of the average of a single subset of a precursor function exists or is defined at a given value of the reals, I then say that space exists or is defined at this value of the reals, which is then called time. If all of the higher derivatives are also defined at any given value of time, then a region of space, no matter how small, must exist as a neighborhood of that point.
5. It is seen that at any value of time that there are defined two values; a value of the precursor function, say +c or -c, and the value of the limit of the average of the precursor function. It can also be seen that the value of the average is always less than or at most equal to c. It is just here that the maximum velocity in all frames (which has not yet even be defined) arises.
6. The binary values, ± c, of the precursor function are not a randomness of spatial values of space in time, but space is, if it exists, rather a "smoothing out" of the precursor functions.
7. The precursor function values, ± c, are the eigenvalues of the Dirac velocity operator. The precursor function also gives rise to (or is) the spin and thus is responsible for ferromagnetism, valence, and a host of other effects. Thus, in this way the contradiction between relativity and relativistic quantum mechanics is resolved. It is also seen that spin is not a spatial phenomena but one that is logically prior to space.
8. Since the two values of charge (leaving out quarks) are "isomorphic" to the two venues of time, backward and forward in relativistic quantum mechanics, it is conjectured that the very concept of charge might arise from the accidental monoticity of time in classical and non-relativistic quantum physics. If so, then all of electromagnetism (also weak interactions?) would arise from this accidental monoticity, being present in particle physics as time reversals.
9. It is further conjectured that any phenomena in physics which is universal, holding for all objects under all circumstances, such as gravity, cannot be "external" to the objects themselves, but rather must arise from the fundamental concept or nature of objects. The basis for the source of gravitation then would seem to be a sufficiently basic concept of the nature of an object. Such a basic concept results when, as briefly described in my paper, The Foundation of Special Relativity and Its Critique, unwarranted assumptions are removed; the precursor function is "opened up" to what I call nonspace. Then, it is from the overlapping nonspaces of two objects that gravitation arises in a totally unexpected and absurd way. That is, contrary to the usual attempts at unifying general relativity with quantum theory by attempting to quantize general relative, it seems, at least from how I developed relativistic quantum theory, that general relativity more or less just falls out of quantum mechanics, like a foal falls out of its mother.
10. I will now attempt to give some meaning to the above. In my theory, mass is a restraint on the nonspace reversals, being defined as the average time of reversals (see my book and references to Feynman’s path integral). The nonspace between the two objects then will tend to cancel, thus eliminating some of the nonspace This is still to be seriously evaluated and calculations made for different masses, but it seems to me to be almost a necessary question to ask, at least on the basis of my development of quantum mechanics.

e-mail istein@merritt.edu