Andeh

I know that all things have wave-particle duality (even macroscopic objects). I'm fairly certian that macroscopic objects, since we observe them to be in more predictable locations, have an more irregularly shaped wavefunction that, say, photons (i.e., my wavefunction has a much higher probability amplitude where I am right now in space, though it extends elsewhere). My question is how the frequency of wavefunctions is relevant--or if frequency is relevant in wavefunctions at all. It seems like a simple question, but I can't find info on this anywhere! (For the record, I'm assuming that light, whose behavior we can easily observe/describe with waves, has a higher frequency wavefunction than other objects that, at first glance, dont appear to be waves.)

For a while I was wondering why c was the speed limit for the universe. I knew that to answer that question, I needed a theory that quantified this speed limit with a physical property of the universe. An idea struck me a little while ago. I was thinking about the shape of the universe, and mused with the idea that the universe was like a 4-d bubble, and that our 3-d space is on it's surface. The 4rth dimensioanlly inwards curvature of the surface of this "hyperbubble" causes gravity, as Einstein described. I then considered what would happen if something became so massive and curved space so far that it reached the cetner of the bubble (assuming the universe has a set radius), and therefor couldnt be any more massive. The distance to the center of this hyperbubble limits how much space-time curvature something can cause, and therefor limits it's mass, and therefor limits it's energy. That limit is the speed of light. Perhapse nothing can surpass the speed of light, because it's curvature has reached this maximum as a function of the G constant and the distance from the center--in other words, a function of the very topography of the universe! I really liked the idea. It explains why there can be a fastest possible speed in the universe, and why there are seemingly arbitrary thresholds of event horizons arround black holes. And all we have to assume to make this correct is that the universe is the shape that I described, which is not a very bold assumption. please tell me what you think. I'd like to hear you're disagreements, and see if my theory can stand up to them!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but-- >>>Antimatter and matter annihilate to yeild energy. >>>high velocity collisions of particles ("normal" matter, not antimatter), i.e. in a collider, momenterilly annihilates them, yeilding energy, which quickly reforms into matter again. What intrigues me are the behaviors of these two energies, how the energy yeilded from matter and antimatter is stable and can exist in that state, but the energy emmited from a collision of like matter only exists for an instant before re-forming into matter. What causes them to behave so different from each other? Why is one stable, but the other so short-lived? Any ideas?