a compilation of documents relating to iam space

8/8/2019 A compilation of documents relating to Iam space

1/33

temporal relativity, spacelet theory, and coherent processessg micheal, 2011/JAN/09

In honor of Richard Feynman, in sincere humility, i hereby found a new branch of science withthree main branchlets: temporal relativity, spacelet theory, and coherent processes. TR is the

theoretical foundation behind spacelet theory. ST is the fully deterministic theory of elementaryparticles. Coherent processes is the deterministic analysis of: lasing, superfluidity, and coherentstructures in turbulent flow, as examples. Because the assumptions of these areas are in starkcontrast with those of the Standard Model of particle physics, we cannot use the standardmethodologies of quantum field theory and conventional quantum mechanics. We mustnecessarily develop a temporal curvature analogy of quantum field theory. In fact, it is argued thephenomenal success of quantum electrodynamics is actually due to this conceptual analogybetween the proposed temporal curvature theory and quantum field theory.

Many erroneously declare the 'greatest physicist of all time' to be Albert Einstein. Although hisfaith in the theory described above and his contribution of relativity is fully recognized, most ofconvention recognize Richard Feynman as that person. There are two basic reasons why hedeserves this title. One is that Feynman basically 'taught physicists the deep structure of physics'by providing them the tools they needed to formally justify their ideas. The other is that herecognized, he himself, the need for a 'less haphazard' theory of elementary particles. Feynmanwas not as vocal about this as Einstein was but still believed we could find a better way oflooking at things. The fact he had the mathematical and conceptual sophistication to developmodern QFT and QED, and the foresight to recognize their weaknesses, is the reason we honorhim.

The inspiration for this theory comes from the inconsistent modeling approaches betweenconventional branches: nuclear chemistry and quantum mechanics. One assumes inherentstability and the other quite the opposite. This inconsistency within convention was one of thestimulants. However, the main impetus/motivation for it is the faulty main assumption of theStandard Model: elementary particles are probability waves that interact via virtual particles.Admittedly, this is the logical extension of Heisenberg's early matrix formulation. But at thattime, we did not have the level of engineering sophistication capable of 'pointing the way' towardunification.

In my estimation, it will take about 100 years for this theory to be established because of theconceptual inertia of the physics community. So by 2110, we should be looking back at at thistime saying "how could we be so naive?" As stated above, it's not really convention's fault for notdeveloping this theory previously. We simply didn't have the sophistication in perspective to beable to model things appropriately. That's forgivable. What's 'unforgivable' (strictly speaking,

nothing is unforgivable) is if we ignore this 'wake up call'.

Many will see me as incapable of establishing a new branch of science. Many will see me asarrogant. However, close to 40 years i've made it a lifetime discipline (humility) andapproximately 30 years i've privately studied physics. Even considering these factors, manywould still dismiss me as incapable. But it's always the 'fresh perspective' in science which'solves the problem'. This particular perspective comes from engineering.


2/33

There are two engineering concepts and one relatively new area that contribute: elasticity,impedance, and wavelet theory. Within engineering, these concepts are well developed anddeserve more attention from the physics community. Admittedly, specifically because of thisdeterministic bent and the fact impedance 'smells' something like the historical aether, physicistshave ignored them.. But again, because of the level of sophistication of the models being

discussed, we cannot afford to ignore them anymore.Models is plural above because we're being inclusive of general relativity. The new branchbriefly described above has its roots in both general and special relativity - as much as theengineering concepts mentioned above. So it's not as if this 'new tree' of science does not havefoundations / roots / conceptual inspirations .. The path to this tree/moment was quite convolutedand took me through territory mentioned above: from impedance to special relativity to generalrelativity to now. It's not so much i 'borrowed concepts' as began to see a clearer image of thisview of elementary particles.. What's the famous quote.. "We see through a glass darkly.." Notexact but you get the idea.. So the main reason Feynman himself could not develop these ideaswas because, i believe, he was browbeaten into submission by himselfto follow a conventionalpath. How would we have received his proclamations had he followed this path? i believe quitederisively as i have been.. So basically 'no choice' Feynman had - but to support convention.

There is tremendous unspoken pressure to conform in the physics community. Basically, thetenet is: conform or don't get supported. This is the battle any newcomer must face. EvenEinstein faced great ridicule within the community because of his philosophy and later years. Hewas mocked and denigrated.. It's the sad unfortunate truth that even physicists are subject tonormal human frailties.. ;) So much of my previous writings were about the philosophy ofscience, scientific method, and Occam's Razor because we have led ourselves astray.

This is my formal statement because if i don't make it, history will not recognize me as saying so.i must take a stand and make an unequivocal declaration: the Higgs will never be detected (ifsomething is found, it will not be the Higgs), no evidence for gravitons will ever be detected,many of the 'forces' will be overturned such as Casimir and weak, and all so-called quantumeffects will be subsumed into various portions of ST or coherent processes. In lieu of anycommendation, i respectfully request we formally develop: temporal curvature theory, TR, ST,and coherent processes independent of any probabilistic/QFT formulation.

..All the hullabaloo about 2012 may very well be this 'transformation in physics' i'm calling for..What i'm calling for is a return to determinism and rationality. And quite honestly, a return tosanity.

Iam space - a 5D bosonless model of spacetime

Iam space is a proposed alternative to Minkowski space. The latter does not permit curvedspacetime and is therefore an incomplete basis for comprehensive models of physics in ouruniverse. More specifically, Minkowski space does not allow the theoretical framework ofgeneral relativity. Iam space accommodates this including electromagnetic theory. The formalstructure of Iam space and comprehensive list of implications need development however, it is apromising alternative. The initial benefits include: better fit to reality than Standard Model


3/33

predictions, an intuitive and accessible framework which connects to engineering more readily,and is a more balanced and holistic approach.

There is evidence, from the IT community, that spacetime can be modeled in five dimensionswhere the fifth dimension is scale. This is from an information standpoint. But consider that

instead of scale, a measure of curvature is introduced. Further, that index need not be associatedwith spatial dimensions as assumed in general relativity. Curvature may exclusively beassociated with time.

Conventional extensions of the Standard Model predict proton decay. No obvious examples ofproton decay have been detected. The Standard Model predicts the existence of the Higgs boson.None have been detected and the allowable mass range is fast becoming excluded. ConventionalHiggsless frameworks are ad hoc at best. They are not comprehensive nor realistic. It is proposedthe Higgs itself is an ad hoc construction of extremely dubious benefits.

Benignly, convention has accommodated theoretical work over the decades - assimilating variousconstructs into the Standard Model: Casimir, non-locality, multi-state atoms and nuclei,.. Butthese concepts actually detract from a holistic perspective. The concept of virtual-exchange,arrived at through over-application of reduction, associated with Feynman's QED and path-integral formulation of QM, is perhaps the worst example.

The development of quark theory is similar in that an incredible amount of theoretical effort hasbeen expended to explain the veritable zoo of particles detected in collider experiments.However, none of these particles are actually stable. Exactly four stable particles are known:proton, electron, neutrino, and photon. These are listed in order of decreasing mass. Noconventional mass is ascribed to the photon and a minority of physicists ascribe any to theneutrino. The few who ascribe any mass to the latter designate it miniscule.

It is proposed the mass pattern, in terms of curvature (curvature is C = EtP/h, normalized c = 1),is: 11/9*10^-20 6/9*10^-24 1/9*10^-28 -4/9*10^-32 which correspond to: proton, electron,neutrino, and photon. (Normalized implies: 0 = 1/0, Z0 = 0, = (1-v^2), lP = tP, E = m, andC/tP = E/h where tP = lP Planck-length, mu, epsilon, Z, and gamma are standard designations ofpermeability, permittivity, impedance, and relativistic factor.) It is proposed the anti-particlesassociated with each still exist in our universe accumulated in anti-galaxies or perhaps in aparallel anti-universe. That speculation is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion. Iam space doesnot depend on it.

The coefficients are surprisingly exact. The first two are known. The rest are derived from thepattern implied between the first two. Again, the values assigned to neutrino and photon are

speculative and based only on two data points. This is the unfortunate reality of the situation. Ifhumanity had allocated resources toward experimentally investigating neutrino and photonmasses instead of Higgs and others, they would have more hard evidence for them. This is anindirect consequence of the 'benignness' mentioned above.

Other surprising consequences exhibit if the pattern is continued. It's further proposed thecurvature pattern continues with so-called dark-matter constituents: -9/9*10^-28 -14/9*10^-24-19/9*10^-20 where the exponents are arrived at through symmetry about the photon. These are


4/33

undramatically labeled: dark-neutrino, dark-electron, and dark-proton. Assuming a balanceddistribution of particles, the percentages/ratio between dark-energy and dark-matter/normal-matter is surprisingly close to conventional calculations: 72/28 vs 74/26. Note that photons haveslight negative curvature in this scenario.

The three paragraphs above are actually later developments/consequences of Iam space which arenot especially integral to the theory. They're an illustration of implications mentioned in theabstract. Explicit predictions of the theory include: no Higgs nor graviton signatures, nuclearmeta-stable states are controllable, 'multi-state' atoms/molecules are controllable, double-slitexperiments are controllable via slit separation, slit size, and materials involved,.. Furtherresearch is required in at least two areas: theoretical investigation of implications of complextime including possible non-local effects - and - simulation runs of various media interfacesvarying media, energy range of TEW, and temporal curvature.

A first order correction to Iam space is (x, y, z, Zit, EtP/h) where the first three items areEuclidean coordinates, Z represents the impedance of the media at that location, i is thefundamental complex number, and the last is equivalent to C, temporal curvature at the samelocation. While impedance has a tendency to lengthen the period between electromagneticevents, curvature has a tendency to lengthen the period between mechanical events. This is theessence of the theory. It's equivalent to Feynmans statement about understanding non-localityand QM.

The three basic assumptions of the Standard Model can be compared against those associatedwith Iam space:

1. quantum self-interference is caused by non-locality2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that3. forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying particles

1. quantum self-interference is caused by extended portions of the standing wavescomprising elementary particles

2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are actually different representations (distinct instances)of possible equivalent energy states

3. there are two distinct forces in our universe:electromagnetic and another mediated by temporal curvature

It's possible point one is moot since there's evidence Minkowski space 'causes' non-locality andMinkowski space is contained in / a subset of Iam space. The lower three points are essentially adeterministic view of quantum mechanics. The defining characteristic of the Standard Model and

its associated framework is item three: forces are caused by virtual exchange. The definingcharacteristic of Iam space is essentially its deterministic counterpoint: there's only one forcecalled electromagnetism mediated by electromagnetic flux, impeded by 'temporal impedance',and mechanical events are delayed by temporal curvature. Matter is essentially temporalcurvature. Gravitation is distributed temporal curvature. The strong nuclear force - similar. And,relativistic/gravitational time dilation is enhanced temporal curvature.


5/33

Every event human eyes perceive is a direct consequence of either: temporal curvature ortemporal impedance. Essentially, it's a comprehensive yet simple model of our universe thatexplains matter and interactions holistically. There's no need for virtual exchange because allforces are accounted for.. The seeming omission of 'weak nuclear' is there because it's believedhumans simply don't understand that 'force'. Nuclear decay is a statistical process because

humans cannot know when unstable nuclei formed. The mechanisms of decay are barelyunderstood. When humans approach these deterministically, from within the Iam framework,they will understand more fully nuclear decay.

The author is well aware of multi-state energy levels for example excited helium. Included areexamples of so-called quantum fluids. It's believed the conventional understanding via'successful application' of PQM is simply due to statistical analogy of some not yet understooddeterministic coherent process. There is little doubt in the author's mind that if humanity put asmuch effort into validating DQM as they have PQM, many insights would be revealed.

One way to think of gravity is as curved space. Another way to think of gravity is as curved time(only). An object in a circular orbit (around Earth) is following a 'straight line' path (of leastaction) through curved space - or - is following a path of same temporal curvature. An object infree-fall is following a straight-line path to the maximum of spatial curvature - or - is following apath to the maximum of temporal curvature. Gravity can be analyzed exclusively as a distributedcompression of time. (All trajectories can be treated as a linear combination of those twoorthogonal trajectories. They are fundamentally different in terms of temporal curvature. Allextended objects experience a gradient on different parts of their extension - its not just thesteepness of the hill which pulls them down. In the same way, time is infinitesimally slower onthe low side of an object in orbit. Objects move to maximize time-dilation.)

It's interesting to note the author's initial revulsion of multi-dimensional approaches, such asassociated with string theory, was finally overcome in discovery of Iam space. Occam's Razorwas employed consistently in development/discovery. 5D or 10D, only time will decide..

References:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativityhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/f89m346543l3g071/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_bosonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgsless_modelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-locality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_forces_and_virtual-particle_exchangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_unitshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-matterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time


6/33

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_modelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluidhttp://wikibin.org/articles/gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

Another Possible Curvature Pattern (edited)

[deleted section] Of course, with only two data points (associated with proton and electron), thecurvature pattern could be anything: linear, non-linear, random,.. [deleted section discussing asymmetric distribution about zero curvature] These could indicate several things. They could beanti-particles or dark matter. The fact is we're talking about negative temporal curvature whichindicates anti-particles according to Dirac. But, the first element in the second pattern couldcorrespond to dark-energy (photons with slight negative temporal curvature).

[deleted section] Any dark-matter described above may behave like a massless superfluid (sincetheir negative temporal curvatures correspond to anti-gravity - a repulsive gravitational force). ileave it to cosmologists to figure out the 'nitty gritty' of particle distribution patterns. The fact wesee nearly perfectly flat space indicates a balanced pattern about zero curvature.

But of course, that does not acknowledge any stellar/nucleosynthesis processes that disturbinitially balanced distribution patterns. Our ways of measuring dark-matter and energy are justemerging as parts of science. Many scientists regard cosmology as a very speculative field. So wehave a lot of work to do: formally develop Iam space as Minkowski has been, derive allimplications of complex time where the coefficient represents complex media impedance, andformally determine full implications of Iam space. This is the fundamental shift in perspectiveFeynman was calling for when he designed QED.

Deleted sections above indicate the danger of embracing any particular particle distributionscenario. Quantum cosmology is a field in science so rapidly evolving and subject to empiricalrevelations that typically restructure the field every time a new significant discovery is made. Inorder to make progress in this new branch, we need to focus on Iam space and implications asdescribed above. Later, we can work on particle distribution patterns.

Error in numbers but not concepts

It had been quite a while since i've 'played with the numbers' (of curvature etc), so i didn't noticesome errors in my numbers and numerical claims. Taking five numbers and their associateduncertainties, i propagated the uncertainties until i arrived at the curvature ratio between electronand proton. In the process, i noticed an error in the electron curvature and error in my claim about


7/33

'exactness'. Please forgive this - it was not intentional and the error - actually helped me thinkmore clearly about the concepts. But to clear the air, i will list out my numerical errors.

Idiotically, i couldn't even get the ratio right because i had the electron wrong. The correctapproximate values are: (2/3)10^-23, (11/9)10^-20, and (6/11)10^-3 for electron, proton, and

ratio. That leaves the progression to approximately be: (11/9)10^-20, (2/3)10^-23, (4/11)10^-26,and (24/121)10^-29. It's a little sticky to convert back and forth between curvature and mass sothe easier approach is simply to use the NIS value for proton-electron mass ratio, invert it, andapply that on the electron mass. The mass progression from proton to electron to something-1 tosomething-2 is: 1.673*10^-27 kg, 9.109*10^-31 kg, 4.961*10^-34 kg, and 2.702*10^-37 kg.

Upsettingly, i re-realized the upper limit for neutrino mass proposed by convention is about 2 eV(electron-volts). This converts to a mass of about 4*10^-36 kg. So.. "I'm frakked" (with thenumbers) as Starbuck loves to say. 8| Even considering my error bounds as i traced them above,doesn't allow me leeway to claim rational numbers for coefficients. :( And what do we do withthe conventional claim neutrinos have a maximum mass of 2 eV? i can't just pretend that doesn'texist..

My intuitive prediction for the pattern would have been something like this: proton, electron,positive charged 'something-1', and negative charged 'something-2'. Not a neutral particle. Sothere's something wrong with the way we measure mass, our theory about neutrinos, or mythought processes. ;) i know what you're going to say..

All my numerical errors cannot erase the conceptual insights i've arrived at over the years: chargemoment is impeded spin, elementary particles are dual flux-vortices and screw-dislocations inspacetime, more deeply - they are spherical standing waves of temporal curvature, and all theassociated insights of complex time.. i know there are many who would 'throw up their arms' atthe numerical mistakes i've made but the spirit and motivation of/for Iam space stands.

A billion numerical errors and Iam space are preferable to the Standard Model and virtualexchange.

What do we call this new beast?

For quite a few months i've labored to accurately label this new branch of physics whichcombines ideas from: general relativity, electromagnetism, and special relativity .. We can't keepcalling it "bosonless particle physics" because that only says what it's not. i've posted twowebsites on scholarpedia.org and wikiversity.org with that name. Likely the former will be

removed due to scholarpedia restrictions but i hope not: essentially it belongs there because it's anew branch of science. We can't call it part of quantum cosmology because that area depends onconventional quantum mechanical techniques which employ constructs in direct conflict withthis approach. It's not quantum 'anything'. We could call it relativistic cosmology orelectromagnetic relativity but there has to be a stipulation: we're using a modified form ofrelativity that does not curve space - only time. So strictly speaking, general relativity has to bereformulated from the temporal curvature perspective, or temporal curvature must be developedformally as general relativity has, then this must be conceptually combined with complex time


8/33

and Euclidean space to formally justify Iam space. This is the 'bottom up' approach. The 'topdown' approach takes Iam space as is, and develops cosmologies without benefit of anyconventional quantum mechanical techniques. Both approaches are formidable because theyrequire us to become a kind of 'TC Feynman' - inventing tools as we go along..

As suggested previously, we could use a curvature analog of Feynman's path-integral formulationof QM .. (It was argued previously that the reason Feynman's QM/QED is so successful isbecause it's actually an analog of a yet-to-be developed TC approach to particle physics.) So "TCparticle physics" or relativistic cosmology - you decide.. Regardless of what we call it, i predict itwill eventually replace QFT and the Standard Model. Please don't ever call me "TC Feynman"because i haven't earned it, but i sincerely hope one of us does.. sgm

PS: again, CTCED (complex temporal curvature electro-dynamics), Iam physics, TC particlephysics, CTCT (complex temporal curvature theory), relativistic cosmology,.. you decide. Butlet's move forward regardless.

Hey Baby, Your Space or Mine? ;)

When i was at Michigan State, i almost did date a conventional physicist. But in addition to herbusy personal life, she had conceptual reasons for avoiding me. She adamantly proclaimedhelium is a quantum superfluid and cannot be modeled in any deterministic way*. At that time, ihad not discovered Iam space so she could not reject me on that behalf. But if i had, surely shewould have added that to reasons for her rejection. The component of Iam space calledimpedance is the critical factor conventional physicists reject my discovery. *Coherent processesis the deterministic way of modeling superfluidity.

There are several different forms/usages of the term. There's electrical impedance, mediaimpedance,.. and even gravitational impedance. But what i'm mostly referring to is theimpedance of free space (although i'm including 'wave impedace'). Because of the historicalrejection of the luminiferous aether, conventional physicists refuse to accommodate any theorywhich includes any aspect resembling it. Wave impedance is just too much like the luminiferousaether for conventional physicists to stomach.

But i urge convention to reconsider for the aspect of temporal curvature. It's the proposedsummary characteristic of reality which can explain: mass, gravitation, strong force, time dilation(both gravitational and relativistic), and other relativistic effects. Unfortunately for Iam space, ihave associated it with wave impedance. Conceptually, it was Occam's Razor which impelled meto simplify Iam space thusly. So it was not my preference which dictated that action; it was

expediency, elegance, and simplicity.

To my meager understanding of the subject, Iam space is the minimal construct which will 'dothe job' of physics unification. Physicists have tried for years, both conventional and fringe, toperform that action. It refers to the attempt to unify the 'four forces of nature': electromagnetic,strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and gravitation. But the basic stumbling block of convention hasbeen the assumption forces work via virtual exchange of bosons - attempting to integrate particlephysics with gravitation. If they had worked it 'the other way around': attempting to


9/33

develop/integrate particle physics from a 'general relativity' standpoint, they might have had moreluck.

Luck has nothing to do with Iam space - i claim divine inspiration.. i know, that in and of itself isreason for rejection.. But isn't divine inspiration better than say: "I invented Micheal space!

Aren't I wonderful!" ;) That way is saturated in ego and i refuse to approach ANYthing in thatmanner.. Again, Iam space is a divinely inspired model of spacetime curtailed by Occam's Razor.

In order to lighten the discussion somewhat, i'll copy-paste a satire of it here:Boxing Match: VX (virtual exchange) vs TC (temporal curvature)

Courtesy of David Chalmers, http://consc.net/chalmers/ , please enjoy the following MontyPython skit about international philosophers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiZt79UKUFQ

i must apologize i cannot produce the following skit in that style; i don't have a team ofcomedians working for me.. :( Referee = R )

R: WELCOME to the ring! VX, virtual exchange! and TC, temporal curvature![crowd goes wild]R: VX represents convention, is the reigning world champion,

has never been beaten in the history of physics![crowd goes wild]R: in the other corner, please put your hands together for the upstart and newcomer,

temporal curvature![crowd boos and hisses][R waits for crowd to calm]R: come forward gentlemen! [the two comply]R: put your gloves together as a symbol of good faith, let the best man win! [the bell dings][VX and TC eye each other - gauging each other warily..]R: they seem to be examining each other..[crowd boos and hisses]R: have some patience good people..[crowd boos and hisses more loudly][under pressure from the crowd, the two boxers start to circle each other - fists ready..][the two dance and skip around like positronium]R: they appear to be mimicking positronium..[crowd becomes ugly - frothing at the mouth like rabid dogs..][under pressure from the crowd, the two begin feigning punches.. toy models of punches..]

R: I don't know what they're doing! but it looks virtually exciting![crowd doesn't believe and starts throwing food at the two..][under pressure, VX starts throwing real punches at TC]R: finally! the fight begins![crowd screams in insane delight][TC blocks deterministically but VX's punches seem to move faster than light..]R: look at those punches! you can barely see his fists move![crowd now frothing in rabid delight]


10/33

[VX repeatedly beats TC's body and face with lightning fast punches..]R: look at those attacks! even from behind![crowd swoons in ecstasy]R: oh! an unusual development![TC lowers his guard and slowly sits down in a lotus position..]

R: what is TC doing! the idiot! is he giving up???[crowd resumes throwing food][impervious to crowd, referee, and opponent, TC meditates and Ohms..][the Ohms resonate throughout the auditorium silencing everyone but VX]VX: get up and fight! coward! [VX screams at TC]TC: Ohm..[VX resumes his punching at incredible double-lightning speed..][his fists are a blur - nothing can be seen but VX's fists hitting his opponent..]TC: Ohm..R: what's happening! a new development???[crowd gasps in amazement..]R: some kind of temporal 'force field' is coming from TC! look everyone![VX is relentless - he increases his punch frequency..][now nothing can be heard or seen but a vibrating hum of VX's fists..][strangely, immediately surrounding TC is a glow of blue light, within that glow,VX's fists slow markedly.. VX cannot make contact with TC anymore..][VX disappears in a puff of smoke, crowd gasps in astonishment]R: well it looks like TC is the winner by default! VX has vanished![bell triple-dings][mixed reaction from crowd]R: don't worry folks! [starts singing] Ti-i-i-ime is on my side! yes it is!..

References:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluidhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedancehttp://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gravitational_characteristic_impedance_of_free_spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aetherhttp://wikibin.org/articles/gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_elegancehttp://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Grand_unification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_forces_and_virtual-particle_exchangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime


11/33

Public letter to Timothy Clifton

i believe Timothy Clifton will become a recognized conventional authority in the theory ofgravitation and general relativity. He submitted his doctoral dissertation at King's College,Cambridge University in August '06. The title of his dissertation is Alternative Theories of

Gravity. i'm reading it now. There's one statement that stands out to me: "It seems that GR isunique not only in satisfying all of the conditions listed above, but also in being the simplestrelativistic metric theory of gravitation that can be conceived of." .. i've written to him personallybut believe some things, like this letter, should be part of public record.

The Natural Philosophy Alliance is a good place/forum for alternative physics ideas but we havea tendency to get sidetracked and confused (forum conversations) .. The two greatest honors ihave there is meeting other open minded people who are critical of convention and the chance toair mine (criticisms etc). But we have our weaknesses. We have a tendency to push ourindividual ideas at the expense of others'. We tend to have unbalanced perspectives.. This is thedisadvantage of 'living on the fringe'.. Personally, i'd rather we got integrated into mainstreamphysics, found some kind of support individually, and published in mainstream journals. i'm notreferring to Physics Essays (this journal is somewhat fringe itself). Considering the worldeconomic situation and hoarding tendencies of human beings, it's unlikely my desire will realize..

But any of us in NPA deserves a chance to air our ideas to 'the rest of the world' and so i've triedto diligently maintain my relationship with NowPublic and Scribd .. My scholarpedia essay on"Bosonless Particle Physics" has been deleted as anticipated .. Articles there are "by invitationonly". The intention is good but .. again i'm unfairly dissed .. Iam space deserves serious attentionfrom cosmologists and particle physicists.

Previously, i gave a brief history of Iam space but i need to rewrite it in English so that laypeoplecan have a chance for understanding.. It all started when i was studying electromagnetism (forengineers) at Florida International in Miami. Something clicked in my mind and i was shown*something difficult to appreciate. i could write the equation here but it's better if i write it out inEnglish: charge moment is impeded spin. i know, the word 'moment' throws you.. It refers to ahigher order 'something' relating to whatever you're talking about.. Moment typically refers toinertia - as in moment of inertia. But moment can also refer to charge indicating a measure of it.So again, a measure of charge is directly related to spin via impedance. This is actuallyastounding if we ponder it .. This was the beginning of my path toward Iam space.*shown as in divinely inspired

Continuing this line of investigation, i found that elementary particles can be modeled by dualflux vortices and screw-dislocations in space (dual structures with two manifestations). Markus

Lazar has independently investigated this (more formally than i have). Once i had discovered hiswork, i realized that anything i did would be ignored - if he also was ignored (since he is part ofconventional research). So i compiled the ideas in a booklet (available at Scribd) called N andOmega. i did other things for a while..

While i was doing other things, i could not forget physics no matter how hard i tried.. It wouldgrab me in the shower.. It would wake me in the middle of the night.. At some point, i wasshown other things .. That: space was measurably distorted by elementary particles (you can


12/33

calculate the exact distortion). So mass behaves like self-confined energy.. Thinking like thisreveals many things.. It verifies Einstein's famous equation. It verifies the importance of specialrelativity.. It forces you to try to understand 'what's really happening' with accelerated particles.So NPA's auto-rejection of SR and Einstein is unfair.. It's misplaced..

There are no people i more greatly admire in science than Feynman and Riemann. They are like'gods' (or angels with divine intellect) to me.. Their perspectives and contributions to science areunrivalled. But.. i question Feynman's perspective and assumptions.. Because of all the 'holes'and ad hoc methods in the Standard Model, i've been forced to search for more elegant 'solutionsto the problem' (of unification) .. The path above finally led me to Iam space and the centrality oftemporal curvature. Once i realized that 'time can store energy' (like space proposed above), themost startling revelation of all hit me directly in the face: theoretically, you don't need a separateforce for 'nuclear glue', gravitation, theory for SR,.. All you really need is temporal curvature. Ifindeed particles are 'localized time warps', SR is explained by enhancement of that via kineticenergy; the kinetic energy in a particle exactly equals its relativistic energy; its relativistic energycan be looked at as - an amplification in the temporal distortion. Why does 'time slow down' forspeeding craft? Because they're amplifying the temporal distortion in all their particles. Combinethese realizations with the idea that gravity is simply a 'far field' effect of all the particles' (thatmake up the gravitating body) temporal distortions - and you get a comprehensive, simple, andelegant theory.

So with all due respect to Timothy, his statement above is clearly incorrect. GR is not the"simplest relativistic metric theory of gravitation that can be conceived of." (Metric refers to afixed measure allowing measure within a space.) {R4, c, t0} is a metric space since c definesmeasure on space and t0 on time. (The first 'space' is a mathematical term and the second 'space'is a physics term.) .. i'm waiting for his reply..

We still need to name this 'new branch of science' .. (No one has written me with anysuggestions.) Maybe .. it just occurred to me .. TR (temporal relativity)? ;)

i need a few encouraging prayers..

Simulating Iam space

(x, y, z, Zt, C) where x, y, z are real numbers representing Euclidean coordinates in space, t isnon-negative real (a convenient convention), Z is typically complex representing media waveimpedance (for open space, this reduces to Z0i, the impedance of space times imaginary identity),and C represents temporal curvature at (x, y, z). C typically takes on very miniscule numericalvalues for elementary particles, is dimensionless, but can vary widely depending on local energydensity. Theoretically, it can even be negative. So as long as we keep clear which indicescorrespond to spatial dimensions etc, we can reorganize the space for simplicity: R4xC (four realdimensions plus one complex). This mathematical model is hardly unique but the assumptionthat it corresponds to our physical universe is.

Electrons/protons can be thought of as: probability waves, particles, wave-particle dualstructures, flux vortices, screw-dislocations in space, and temporal distortions. Considering


13/33

tunneling and electron orbitals, perhaps it's best in this scenario to view them as 'electromagneticwavelets'. This view accommodates them to Iam space nicely. So consider an electron/proton'living' in Iam space = (x, y, z, C, Zt). With c=1, C=EtP/h, E represents local energy density, tP,and h Planck constants. Here's where things get a bit sticky. t represents time, but as we knowtime progresses dependent on local energy density (the higher E is generally, the slower t

progresses). So in order to keep things clear, we must designate t=t(E), t is a function of localenergy density. Iam space becomes: (x, y, z, t(E), C(E), Z) where both E and Z are evolving,dependent on position and time in any particular cosmology. It sounds recursively maddening butis actually simulation feasible .. Iam space is getting bigger.. The minimal set becomes R5xC.

*tx below needs correction to tx=t0/(1-1.48*10-27(m/r)) which is conventional gravitational timedilation where m is affecting mass and r is distance from itIf we designate t0 the time index for flat-space (no curvature), then t(E) has the form *tx=(1+C)t0.The bold subscript emphasizes the fact time usually progresses differently dependent on location.In a simulation, this would equate with local dependency on energy density - augmenting globalstep size locally. If C is negative, corresponding to anti-gravity or perhaps anti-particles, local

step size decreases relative to global step size. So for simulation purposes, Iam space becomes(x, y, z, Cx=ExtP/h, tx=(1+Cx)t0, Zx) where again bold subscripts indicate location specific data.We still have not defined Ex, local energy density, yet. That may be approached in a cellular way.With sufficient resolution, our universe may be modeled by a cube of uniform cells. Each cellhas six neighbors. Instantaneous energy content for each cell can/must be tabulated, includingself cell, so that instantaneous local averages can be calculated. So the energy content of sevencells determines average local energy density. So let's tentatively define local energy density tobe: Sum(neighbor cells, self cell)/7. Iamsim becomes (x, Ex, Ena, tx=(1+EnatP/h)t0, Zx) where we'vechanged notation a bit: the first index is a vector indicating cell position in the 3D matrix, next iscell energy content, next is neighborhood average, next is local step size, and finally last is localmedia impedance. Iamsim relates to Iam space described above as 'minimal set' because Ena is

only there for computational convenience. The reason we need to account for local mediaimpedance is because waves/wavelets are typically impeded in physical movements (cellulartranslation in this discussion); there are: boundary effects, group effects (coherence/interference),and individual effects (momentum, spin, charge) relating to physical translation. Again for thesake of clarity, impedance and associated translation 'machinery' equate with inclusively: laws ofoptics, coherent phenomena (including lasing, superfluidity,..), interference phenomena (wavecancellation, double-slit phenomena,..), and traditionally 'classic' phenomena (charge interaction,mechanics,..). This may sound like a 'tall order' for the simulation but i assure: with somesimplifying assumptions, the requirements become computationally approachable.

Each simulation run would correspond to a cosmological instance (one possible universe of

many). We're not particularly interested in local physics unless a singularity arises and 'crashesthe simulation'. These should not be avoided rather - they should be studied to see what causesthem. A computational issue becomes cell size/number. We must provide sufficient resolution toallow realistic containment/movement of elementary particles. We must experiment withdifferent particle distribution scenarios. Total number of particles is a 'good question'.. i supposeit depends on what is computationally allowable presently. Ideally, there should be enough globalenergy to form a neutron star but that's computationally unrealistic presently. There's probably anoptimal balance between cell size and total number of particles but we're concerned with realistic


14/33

cosmologies initially .. i suppose the real test of the paradigm will be when someday: we cansimulate star formation, life, and death in the scenario proposed above.

Re-reading this several times impels me to reiterate, temporal curvature can explain: mass,gravitation, strong force, time dilation (both kinds), and relativistic effects. Impedance and

proper translation rules explain everything else. Creating this simulation faithfully will not onlybe exciting and revealing, but 'tests the model' of Iam space. We're testing whether or not R5xCis a good model for our universe. We're testing the importance of impedance and local curvature.We're testing the fundamentalness of local temporal curvature.

One method for validating/correcting any translation rules are: does hydrogen form of its ownaccord?, what about excited states?, can we stimulate them?, do they properly return to groundstate?, what about excited states of helium?, are they properly modeled?, what about spin-orbitinteractions?, are they evinced?, what about fusion?, testing spontaneous fission?, and of coursetesting various coherent/interference phenomena..

It's interesting to note very few parameters are required with Iam space (contrast that with theStandard Model). If the premise is correct, only two 'fundamental constants' are required:impedance and t0, the rate time passes in flat space. Everything else is encoded in the dynamicsof particle interaction (based on impedance and temporal curvature) and self-characteristics(again relating to impedance and temporal curvature).

Theoretically, i'm not up to becoming a 'TC Feynman' but with simulations.. i believe i canimplement the simulation above given proper access to capable equipment.. This essay is also arequest for others interested in physics simulations to attempt their own.

Iamsim vs Iam space

Frequently, i try to take on the role of 'distant observer' in regards to my work on Iam space. I tryto view it as another interested person might. The purpose is to check my own reasoning andthought processes for relevance, validity, consistency,.. so that i can try to check the model forthe same reasons. For engineering purposes, there are others who have proposed discrete space(and for other reasons). i have deliberately stayed away from discrete space because i do notpersonally believe space is discrete (cellular as in Iamsim). But obviously, it has practicalapplications. In linear systems science, many of the physical models are differential-continuousbut we actually simulate them on computers which are discrete. So a large part of linear systemstheory is called discrete (step-wise vs smooth).

As a distant observer looking at Iamsim and its possible correspondence to reality, i wouldreiterate above and examine, in detail, the structure. With appropriate 'translation machinery'(how one particle/photon moves from one cell to another), assuming impedance is constant,uniform, and isotropic (does not depend on direction of travel), then the 'minimal set' of Iamspace reduces to R4. The reason for this is - the impedance of space is purely resistive,approximately 377 ohms. However, the fourth component is not time as we think of it. Time inthis context is 'local time' which progresses at different rates dependent on local energy density.


15/33

From the cellular approach, again with proper translation machinery, temporal curvature is'encoded' in that rate. So formally, Iam space becomes {R4 , Z0, t0, T} where the fourthcomponent ofR4 has a very specific meaning as indicated above, Z0 is the impedance of freespace, t0 is the rate at which time passes in flat space (in our universe), and T represents the(assumed enormously complex) translation machinery for a particle/photon to move from one

position to another. (For those who cannot stomach impedance it equates with c, the rate photonstravel in flat space and the limit rate for particles.)

*tx below needs correction to tx=t0/(1-1.48*10-27(m/r)) which is conventional gravitational timedilation where m is affecting mass and r is distance from itLet's get a little more detailed to examine our assumptions:Iam = {{x,y,z,tx: x,y,zR, *tx=(1+EnatP/h)t0, Ena is neighborhood average energy density, tPPlanck time, h Planck's constant, and t0 is 'flat space time rate'}, c, T defined later}

The reasoning for using neighborhood average and not individual cell energy content is similar tomy reasoning for space: time is not discrete in our universe - we assume and perceive it

continuous. So naturally even in a cellular spatial approach, we assume temporal effects aresmoothed. This equates with a smoothed boundary for particles (not abrupt and discontinuous). Ifindeed particles are Planck/other sized temporal distortions in the 'fabric of time', considering therequirement for instance that those temporal distortions explain the strong force between nuclei,'nuclear glue' becomes necessarily a boundary effect .. We see above that more than twoconstants are required for our universe: two Planck constants, flat time rate, and speed of energypropagation. Gravitation in this picture is not a boundary effect - it's more like a residual effect ofthe temporal boundary. We're missing one critical component: particles.

Iam = {{x,y,z,tx: x,y,zR, tx=(1+EnatP/h)t0, Ena, tP, h, t0, c}, T, p} where p is the cosmologicalparticle set. We see that four constants are required for spacetime, two functions relating to local

time, one (assumed) incredibly complex position translation structure, and initial set of particles.Missing from this picture is initial conditions: initial energy distribution among particles, size,and shape of Iam space. Many many surfaces have been proposed for the shape of our universe.Above assumes a kind of hyper-cube. For simulation purposes (and theoretical analysis), wemust choose something..

Iam = {{x,y,z,tx: x,y,zR, tx=(1+EnatP/h)t0, Ena, tP, h, t0, c}, T, p, p0} where the last itemrepresents the initial energy/momentum configuration of all particles in each cosmologicalinstance. The 'only' thing to be determined is T, the particle location translation machinery. In asense, this corresponds to QFT+QED+QM largely developed by Feynman. But unfortunately,these tools/constructs/set-of-assumptions/theoretical-base are not amenable to Iam space. For

example, Feynman diagrams are amazingly powerful heuristic tools for understanding particledynamics. But they're based on virtual particles. So we cannot use them directly; we mustdevelop Iam space analogs of Feynman diagrams.

Another approach is thinking ofT as a linear transformation on x (a particular particle). But asstated previously, T must include: coherent, interference, and individual phenomena. As istypical in any new branch of science, a shift of perspective and associated assumptions is really


16/33

all that was required.. i have confidence we can reformulate QFT+QED+QM for use in Iamspace .. 100 years was perhaps not lost after all..

Iam = TOE?

I wasted some time fretting about curvature .. 'correcting' my curvature function to conform toconventional temporal curvature, but conceptually - i was still on target.. Again, gravitation /strong force is mediated by temporal curvature as 'far field' (residual) and near field boundaryeffect. So i really needn't have 'got my panties in a twist' about it.. About five years ago, i ran anuclear simulation based on that and electrostatic forces - it seemed to perform well. What i wascurious about at the time was beryllium-8 - why it's unstable .. Other re-modifications of thetheory don't point toward an absolute necessity of complex time. That construct allows non-locality via Minkowski but i'm sensing, from a modeling perspective, non-locality is not required(and therefore - complex time is not absolutely required). Non-locality explains self-interferencebut it can be explained in other more simplistic ways. Since i'm now viewing particles aselectromagnetic-temporal wavelets, self-interference is not surprising. Wavelets require complexnumber and function theory but that can be accommodated in T - not required in the subspace ofIam representing spacetime. All this may be 'gobble-dee-gook' for many but it amounts topartitioning Iam space into segments: those that require complex number/function theory andthose that do not.

Also, constructing Iamsim as a discrete space may be 'overkill'. As mentioned before, computersimulations are necessarily discrete as they are implemented on discrete devices (computers).And recall that i implied above, near field (nuclear) theory and far field (gravity) theory may bemodeled and simulated by a single function. The fact 'nuclear glue' and gravity are both attractiveforces suggests this. In previous essays, i was simply trying to keep things as simple as possible.Assuming a single attractive function is not horrendous .. but requires some constants andassumptions.. Electrostatic forces are modeled by another (complex) function..

i've studied nuclear engineering so i'm familiar with decay and interaction schemes..Traditionally, there's a set of interaction probabilities associated with a particle's 'cross section' (akind of probability of hitting a barn with a shotgun blindfolded and spun around). In fact,PQMers use the term 'barn' to indicate the overall probability of interaction. But this is statisticalanalysis (which was one of my majors at university) - not physics. True physics is based onunderstanding underlying principles and valid constructs - not probability.

There was a time when students tried to understand intrinsic spin - trying to 'wrap their headaround the construct'.. Also, the c-frame.. They're both useful concepts to learn about

conventional physics.. But i question the relevance to reality .. If we approach physics / ouruniverse / reality balanced, heuristically, and with rabid attachment to Occam, we arrive at Iamspace and temporal curvature .. Admittedly, Iam space has 'transformed itself' conceptuallyrevamping itself to come closer to reality - but that's nothing more than strict adherence toOccam and the scientific method .. Think of me as just the pencil and hand that writes about theliving Iam space that wants us to discover who She really is..

Forgive the analogy but sometimes it feels that way..


17/33

Others have written about Nature with a feminine character.. Our universe is like Earth:receptive, harboring, nurturing,.. We could not exist without just the right conditions to produceand cultivate us.. It's almost as if She's leading the way of discovery and Knowing her..

Enough about spirituality; I've written my share about that plenty .. At this moment, i'm moreconcerned with cosmologists and particle physicists taking a serious look at Iam space ratherthan their religious beliefs .. Several years ago, i spoke with a physicist in Michigan about somesimplistic beginning ideas relating to Iam space .. During the conversation, we determined (atthat stage of simplistic modeling) particles were self-interacting in 'my scheme' .. He wasrepulsed by that and did not want to speak further about it .. But renormalization in physics isexactly the conventional tool they use to 'get over' self-interaction.. How could he complainabout a weakness in my theory that convention already embraced? It was duplicitous..

At this stage in the theory, i don't see any self-interaction problems we saw those many years ago.. At one point in development/discovery, i was convinced the 'Iam framework' was nothing morethan a better way to look at particle physics .. So there was little advantage in trying to forceconvention to accept it .. But that was before discovery of temporal curvature .. After that, i'mconvinced it's a better framework - a model closer to our reality..

As a kind of tribute to one of my 'old best friends' Doug Sweeney, who stated "If it could havebeen done, it would have been done." (remarking about physics unification and consciousmachines) .. But that seriously neglects the fact transformations in science typically come fromshifts in perspective. With the world economy in such tragic shape, with the Standard Modelready to fall flat on its face, with the predictions i made as a child coming true (that we'reentering another ice-age), we're faced with a crucial dilemma: is sam crazy or right on target?

The way things look right now, i would not bet against me .. That's just a recommendation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium-8#Beryllium-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_(unit)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

Chemistry and life arise how?

The proper study of atomic orbital theory is rooted in nuclear structure. The geometric

configuration of the nucleus and therefore electromagnetic field produced by it determineelectron orbitals surrounding the nucleus. Of course, there are spin-orbit interactions whichdetermine a fair amount of spectroscopy / orbital dynamics / chemistry. But the bulk of electronorbital structure (and therefore chemistry) is determined by nuclear structure.

It does sound strange to a chemist or biologist to hear, but i assure you - there really is no otherway to proceed starting from Iam space. So to study the chart of nuclides and how it arises is thefoundation of chemistry and biology .. Seriously, you can spend an entire lifetime formally


18/33

studying that chart. There are basically three types of regions in the chart: stable, marginallystable, and highly unstable. Some nuclei are marginally stable and endure for millions of years.Many are highly unstable and decay 'almost immediately' (in human time measuring schemes).But there are some declared by nuclear chemistry to be unequivocally stable.

This concept, absolute unequivocal stability, is in direct conflict with Standard Model paradigms.So chemists essentially ignore physicists adherence to PQM. Chemists know better. For thepurposes of chemistry and life, chemists know that certain nuclei are stable and therefore goodcandidates for 'building blocks of life'. If they were nuclearly unstable, chemistry and life couldnot manifest in this universe; life requires nuclear stability; stability is in direct conflict with theStandard Model.

This awareness was actually one of the driving factors for Iam space. How can two mainbranches of science be at such odds? It's unfathomable and untenable. Chemistry relies onquantum principles such as in quantum chemistry - the theory of electron orbitals as accepted byconvention. There are essentially deterministic alternatives; i will not list them here; if you'retruly curious, you will find them.

One of the things that caught my eye/mind in the chart is 'metastable states' .. They're exactlywhat they 'sound' to be: something nuclearly stable - but not really.. Just like WIMPs inexperimental nuclear physics, metastable states are a growing research area. They're both 'realscience' to me (as opposed to theories/research that depend on virtual bosons/Higgs). So if youwant to do real science, study metastable states and WIMPs over bosons..

WIMPs are good candidates to reinforce the Iam framework. They are not forbidden and mayrelate to electron/proton/neutrino masses.. However, we should not base the theory ondetection/non-detection (as the Standard Model did so foolishly on Higgs - in that sense, he didme a great favor by inventing it). Iam space is based on the centrality of TC/TR (temporalcurvature / temporal relativity). This basically says nothing about particle schemes. That's one ofthe 'great benefits' of Iam space (some would say detraction because if you don't predict particleschemes, how can it be verified?). There is one essential unspoken axiom of determinism:inherent stability. If there are inherently stable nuclei/particles, how do they arise? What are thedetermining factors for stability? If we ad hocly 'wave a magic wand' and simply declare someparticles are stable and some are not - we're no better than PQMers..

This is where discrete space comes in. If space is indeed discrete, that implies a kind of'containment' on elementary particles. Space determines energy content, energy contentdetermines properties, properties determine interactions, interactions determine chemistry, andchemistry determines life. So if indeed space is discrete, that determines whether or not life can

exist here.

The alternative to discrete space is more intuitive: we live in a continuous world/universe. It'swhat we assume and perceive.. We don't perceive time as jumping from one moment to the next;we perceive it continuously. Continuous time and space have been unspoken assumptions fromthe beginnings of science. Only those fixated on 'watchmaking' are concerned with discrete time(watches and computers 'tick' - not time - as we perceive it). If spacetime is continuous, then we


19/33

must necessarily define some structure creating paradigms. Structure must arise 'naturally' fromIam space - if indeed Iam space is a good model of our universe.

So at this point, we're at a conceptual crossroads: is Iam space fundamentally discrete orcontinuous? Which scheme makes the model more consistent/elegant? (We are after all 'elegance

hunters' are we not?) Even though the concept grates against me like an abrasive bozo in a bar, imust concede it seems to be more consistent with Iam concepts.. It's conceptually repulsivebecause we're raised to think continuously. But it may be preferable.

So we have a chance to do 'real science' yet again: when we determine the true structure of Iamspace, we discover the properties of our universe. Who will miss this opportunity to participateand who will not? That's the question presently..

Will you?

Information loss associated with black holes

Still waiting for Timothy to get back to me.. Perhaps he never will. Found some interestingsources that parallel recent developments:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spacetimehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_Lorentzian_quantum_gravityThese are conventional research parallels to what i've been pursuing recently..

Still rabidly adhering to Occam.. Believe that will be a 'saving grace'.. Making any sophisticatedassumptions about spacetime goes against this. Whatever Iam space turns out to be, it should be:simple, elegant, and reflect reality. Have perhaps found some more circumstantial evidence we'reliving inside a giant simulation.. Let's examine.

In a physics simulation, never can we designate exact values. This translates to location,momentum, and temporal approximations relating to simulation step size / location precision.'Double precision' is usually the best we can do. Error in simulation has been analyzedtheoretically so i don't need to reexamine that here. Back to simulating Iam. Experimentally, wewill never be able to resolve detail to the Planck-length or Planck-time. Basically it's physicallyimpossible.

But suppose we are living inside a 'giant simulation'. Suppose the entities running the simulation

are not limited to double-precision values. Whatever the limit of precision is, it's finite. Let'ssuppose the limit of precision in length is the Planck-length and the limit of precision in time isPlanck-time. This equates with global simulation step size being Planck-time and space-precisionlimited by Planck-length.

How many particles are in our universe? What is the minimum information required to simulatethem? Let's estimate the total number of particles in our universe as about 8(1.878*1081) basedon the total mass of the universe, estimated proton equivalent, and multiplying that by 8 for some


20/33

WIMP, proton, electron, neutrino, and corresponding anti-particles. Multiplying that by themagnitude of Planck-time and length gives 1.3*10162 bits of information at any one instant.

.. Some years ago i investigated information theory. It's abstract (beyond normal mathabstraction) and 'difficult' to comprehend. That's an understatement in any terms. Kind of like

trying to understand Godel's incompleteness theorem. My estimate above is purely conservative.Likely it's much more than that. But imagine a 'state machine' that transitions based on T withinitial conditions p0. That simulator would be required to have a minimum of 10162 bits torepresent all particle locations at any one instant. Sounds incredible but since it's finite, ispossible.

Now we see why information theory is related to 'black hole' theory.. Is information conserved?With singularities, likely not. When a mass is absorbed into a singularity, all information aboutthe mass is lost. The basis of singularity / black hole theory is that there must be a limit to'nuclear tension' - when a neutron star collapses with too much mass.. But this equates with anassumption about nuclear 'repulsion'; there's a limit. i never assumed this in any of my versions

of Iam space. To me, a 'singularity' in space is merely a neutron star with an event horizon. Thereis no physical evidence black holes exist in terms of 'a different form of matter'. The eventhorizon of a black hole is where even light cannot escape. This is caused by the force of gravityexceeding escape velocity. But that does not imply, by itself, that the structure inside a black holeis any different than neutron stars. Black holes may simply be neutron stars with event horizons.There may not be a collapse of nuclear material.

Regardless of the structure of black holes, we need to determine the information loss regardingmasses falling into them. This relates to total universal information content and how it evolves.Again, regardless of black hole structure, information is lost every time a mass is consumed byone. So if 10162 bits of information is required at any one instant, there is an information lossassociated with the total number of black holes and average mass density surrounding them. Justfrom this heuristic perspective, we see black holes determine information loss in the universe.

If I represents total universal information content, B represents number of black holes / neutronstars, and rIl represents the average rate of information loss associated with black holes andneutron stars, then the information content of the universe at any one instant is: I - B(rIl). Thismay be a way to 'test the theory'. If we can measure/estimate the three parameters, we may beable to validate/invalidate the theory.

The initial information content of the universe we can designate I0. So verily, I = I0 - B(rIl) at anyone instant. Combining calculus and information theory is intricate but possible. Assuming B isrelatively constant throughout the life of any one particular cosmos, the function representinginstantaneous total information content becomes I = I0 - B(rIl). Again, if we canmeasure/estimate four of the four values, we can test the validity of the theory.

Ball-park estimation of above is: I = 10162 - B(rIl) where I is current information content of theuniverse, B is the total number of black holes and neutron stars, and rIl is the average rate ofinformation loss associated with black holes / neutron stars .. 'Co-conspirators' at NPA have


21/33

requested positive predictions (as opposed to negative predictions such as no Higgs) from 'mytheory'. This is 'best i can do' at the moment..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

Frame dragging, a test of GR and TR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragginghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_Bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LARES_(satellite)

If general relativity is correct, frame dragging will be detected by LARES. It was not detected byGravity Probe B because there was too much noise in the data; in that case, noise overwhelmedany 'frame dragging signal'. Frame dragging is predicted by GR because it says gravity is curvedspace and also - direction of spin, of massive spinning bodies, is important. GR says massivespinning bodies will cause a measurable 'twist' in space near the body.

Some time ago, i had no problem with this because an intermediate model of particles i haddeveloped was: dual flux-vortices screw-dislocations (in space). Screw dislocations areessentially 'twists in space' which are a possible model of particles - indeed if twisting space ispossible.

But the model above was only an intermediate step in Iam space.. The modeling process did notend there. Familiar readers know a concept called temporal curvature was developed/discoveredwhich unified special relativity, mass, gravitation, strong nuclear force, and both kinds of timedilation. Yes, relativistic time dilation is part of SR but special mention is needed here toemphasize the explanatory power of temporal curvature. Conceptually, TC is 'near field gluons'or the 'stuff' which holds nuclei together. TC is 'far field residual' which equates with gravity. TCis mass because, if the model's correct, energy in mass is energy in 'the fabric of time'. TCexplains SR because a particle's kinetic energy is its relativistic energy which is amplified TC.And of course, if above is true, TC explains time dilation because that essentially is what it is.

How did i arrive at TC? By considering the 'expansion of space' (again an intermediate model ofelementary particles) which is caused by energy in the particle. i had proposed space is veryinelastic - very slightly elastic, that it takes tremendous pressure to distort it, but that distortion iscalculable/measurable. The logic is clear but totally depends on the 'fact' space is an elasticmedium. The final result, TC, may be correct, but the intermediate model may not be.

The intermediate model is a particle version of GR and supposes elementary particles areminiscule twists in space - a very interesting proposal .. but possibly incorrect.

The reason i 'take back' the intermediate step now is because: if temporal curvature is trulyfundamental, if it's the true cause of gravitation, strong force, mass, and SR effects, it operates in'flat space' and the rest is not required anymore (curved space is not required anymore to explaingravity or anything). That would be 'overkill' and denies the centrality of temporal curvature. One


22/33

of the final versions of Iam space includes Euclidean space which is totally flat and is mostcertainly not elastic. Euclidean space is flat and has no curvature. Euclidean space corresponds toR3 in mathematics.

Drum roll please. So, temporal relativity (TR), which is the name of the 'new branch of physics' i

gave it, makes a very specific prediction: no frame dragging. Here we have a definitive testbetween GR and TR. GR predicts frame-dragging; TR does not. If LARES unequivocally detectsframe-dragging, i must 'shut up' about TC and walk away, 'tail between legs' as a humiliated dogmight. On the other hand, if LARES unequivocally does NOT detect frame-dragging, that will bea 'feather in the cap' for me and TR.

Anyone wanna take any bets?

More or less evidence for Lense-Thirring

If you perform an arXiv search on Lense-Thirring, you get about 200 papers directly related tothe subject. Lense-Thirring is the GR concept purporting a 'twist in space' near massive spinningobjects. Contrary to the claims of Gravity Probe B staff, due to noise in the data, a clear signalconfirming the phenomenon has yet to be found. Many related experiments are proposed andsome are being financially supported namely the Juno mission. Unfortunately for GR, thatparticular mission has been delayed due to NASA budget restrictions. If the probe ever gets toJupiter, is not destroyed by mishap (knock on wood), and successfully performs an orbitalinjection braking burn, we may obtain definitive data supporting/rejecting GR/TR. For those un-initiates, TR stands for temporal relativity, a competing theoretical framework wrt GR thatexclusively depends on temporal curvature.

i've looked at six of the arXiv papers which range in topics. They indicate convention seriouslyleans toward accepting GR over any other competing theory of gravitation. This is good - to takea stand. i've always despised individuals who 'ride the fence' in any way.. Better to be wrong andmake progress than never to take a stand and eternally wallow in indecision.. So in this respect isupport conventions investigation into GR .. However, as implied above and covered in otheressays, i do not support GR directly: it sidesteps Occam's Razor.

As with the Standard Model and virtual exchange, GR is not the simplest theory which explainsreality. i firmly believe/state that science needs to take a good hard look at the currentassumptions of science and decide whether current investigations are actually worth theresources allocated. In my meager estimation, both the assumption frames and severalexperimental investigation themes are seriously questionable - only from the scientific standpoint

and Occam's Razor.

If we religiously adhere to Occam, we're forced to construct alternative theoretical frameworksrelative to the SM and GR both. The basic premise of the scientific method is observation andhypothesis, a recursive relationship: we observe, we induce, we observe, we refine.. This is theessence of the scientific method. But unfortunately for the SM, we started with a flawed originalpremise: elementary particles are not probability waves. There is nothing virtual about reality.GR makes an analogous erroneous assumption that space is elastic. This is not the simplest


23/33

explanation of gravitation as i've written in other essays. Particles may be viewed aselectromagnetic wavelets and so by their very nature (study wavelet theory) are uncertain. So ifwavelets are a good model of elementary particles, we don't need non-locality and complex timeand any other construct convention seems to prefer to embrace. Similarly, if GR is 'overkill' interms of modeling gravitation, we don't need elastic space as part of the model. Temporal

curvature is sufficient and minimal to explain gravitation - it also (by definition) rejects frame-dragging / Lense-Thirring. So we have definitive tests between competing theories.Unfortunately for particle physics, i have not devised a conclusive test between the SM and mymore simplistic models of reality. An intermediate model which impelled me toward TR is whati call 'GR applied to elementary particles' (they're dual flux vortices and mini-screw dislocationsin this model). And via Occam, i've rejected that in favor of TR.

So in a sense, if Lense-Thirring is not found, that's also evidence for the TR model of elementaryparticles (they're dual electromagnetic wavelets coupled with temporal distortions). The Lense-Thirring effect seems to be the core/decisive test between competing theories.

If it exists and is real, we may have to take a step back in the modeling process. We may beforced to embrace 'GR as applied to elementary particles' as briefly described above. This iscertainly preferable to the house of cards currently evinced by the SM.

We've covered a lot in this brief essay but identify Lense-Thirring / frame-dragging as a criticaldefinitive test between competing theories: SM vs TR-e.p. and GR vs TR. We've also identifiedan intermediate alternative to the SM that, if frame-dragging is unequivocally detected, allowsconvention to move toward a more realistic framework following the scientific method andOccam.

Juno, the angular momentum of Jupiter and the Lense-Thirring effect, Lorenzo IorioThe Shape of an Accretion Disc in a Misaligned Black Hole Binary, Rebecca G. Martin, J. E.Pringle and Christopher A. ToutEvidence for GR rotational frame-dragging in the light from the Sgr A* supermassive black hole,B. AschenbachRecent Attempts to Measure the General Relativistic Lense-Thirring Effect with Natural andArtificial Bodies in the Solar System, Lorenzo IorioABOUT THE LENSE-THIRRING AND THIRRING EFFECTS,ANGELO LOINGER AND TIZIANA MARSICOPhenomenology of the Lense-Thirring effect in the Solar System, Lorenzo Iorio, Herbert I. M.Lichtenegger, Matteo Luca Ruggiero, Christian Corda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(spacecraft)

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/OR+au:Lense_Thirring+all:+EXACT+Lense_Thirring/0/1/0/all/0/1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor


24/33

Exploring planetary structures via Lense-Thirring and more

If general relativity is correct, one of its implications, Lense-Thirring / frame dragging, should beable to be used to map planetary interiors. The Lense-Thirring effect is basically a twist in spacenear massive bodies such as planets, stars, and black holes. If proven, it may also have

elementary particle implications..An approved NASA mission called Juno will be launched soonand when it arrives to Jupiter, (one of the mission experiments) will map its gravitational field.

The reason Lense-Thirring works is because of spherical-asymmetry. A perfect sphere isspherically symmetric. Earth (for example) is not. Earth's shape is basically an oblate spheroid(flattened sphere). The 'opposite' of that is prolate spheroid (cigar shaped sphere) .. The theory ofLense-Thirring predicts an asymmetric gravitational field determined by the differential twist -further determined by mass-spin distribution. There is more mass spinning / distorting spacearound the equator so the effect should be greatest there. Near the poles, there is very little massmoving / distorting space - so twist is minimal there. Since space is continuous (like drawing aline with a pencil without lifting it), any twist in one portion affects nearby portions. So eventhough polar effects are smaller than equatorial effects (twisting forces (torque) on space isuneven), since space is continuous, Lense-Thirring effects are smoothed out around a planetarybody..

Again, the fact Lense-Thirring effects are spherically asymmetric in very exact ways allows us toconfirm/deny the effect - and also - use it to map planetary interiors. Very exciting stuff. It'salmost like using radar (or some other wave) to penetrate deep into a planet's interior to 'see thelayers'. Essentially, every planet has some kind of internal structure - like an onion but withdifferent kinds of layers and thicknesses. Each layer has its own thickness and density. Thatcauses a different 'signature' (which can be detected statistically) using Lense-Thirring theory.Lense-Thirring theory is the 'crystal ball' we use to peer into planetary interiors.

But it has nothing to do with magic - the theory makes very specific exact predictions aboutgravitational fields .. Unspoken in most of the literature are two assumptions about space: it mustbe somewhat elastic for L-T theory to work and somehow - mass is 'coupled' with space so that itcan exert torque. Very little attention is devoted to these two assumptions. More on that later..

Back to mapping planetary interiors.. Jupiter (for instance) may have around 5 to 10 layersinternally (an educated guess). Each layer/shell has its own thickness and density. Each layerproduces a unique 'L-T signature' detectable by Juno. Those signatures may, depending on thetrue set of layers, interfere with each other (constructively or destructively). So we mustnecessarily use statistics to determine the likeliest layer scenario that fits the data best once weget it from Juno. This is an example of how Lense-Thirring may be used to determine internal

structure.

Okay, back to our assumptions and implications. If GR is correct, L-T is assumed correct. If wedetect the effect to a certain level of confidence, we assume it's a fact. But as stated above, wehave two associated assumptions that are not discussed much: elastic space and matter couplingwith space. The effect cannot manifest without both. Space cannot be twisted unless it'ssomewhat elastic. Matter cannot twist space unless it's somehow 'connected' to it. Theseunspoken assumptions associated with GR are actually applicable to elementary particles.


25/33

During the course of my discovery of TR (temporal relativity), i developed an intermediatemodel of elementary particles that are dual structures: electromagnetic flux vortices and screw-dislocations in space. The math describing both are have some intriguing parallels. Markus Lazarhas looked into this. If TR is incorrect, if GR is, elementary particles must have some

relationship to it .. Quantum gravity is the 'SM approach to gravity' but .. Rarely has aconventional physicist tried the other way. (To go from GR to particle physics.) What wemeasure as 'spin' may simply be our observations of screw-dislocations in space; elementaryparticles may 'simply be' very small 'twists in space'. This is somewhat new.. Couple thatperspective with another: wavelet theory, and you've basically reconstituted the Standard Modelwithout all the mumbo-jumbo.

(Wavelet theory has 'built in' uncertainty. In that sense, we don't need any of the SM constructsthat produce uncertainty: quantum foam, complex time, non-locality,.. If indeed elementaryparticles are electromagnetic wavelets-screw-dislocations, we don't need to add uncertainty to themodel structure.)

The model above also 'solves'/addresses one of the unspoken assumptions: coupling. If matter isindeed little twists of space, we don't need to ask the question of how space and matter areconnected because they are one in the same (matter is distorted space-lets). Coined a word?Okay, elementary particles are spacelets. We could even call this ST, spacelet theory. :)

During my path to Iam space i was Sure i was onto something fundamental .. TR seemed theinevitable destination.. But if GR is correct (over TR), then we must back-pedal a bit. ST seemsthe default theory if TR is incorrect .. Isn't this preferable to 10 dimensions (associated withstring theory)?

Inertia and proton/electron mass ratio

There are two kinds of conventional physicists: those that have open minds about the physics ofour universe and those that dogmatically adhere to probability theory. There are many of bothkinds.. So it's unfair of me to accuse the entire physics community of the latter.. This essay is anappeal to the open-minded kind and the general public who also lean that way.. The other kindmight as well just skip to another essay/story..

i just wrote a letter to NPA, the Natural Philosophy Alliance. It was about one page long. It wasabout inertia. It was also about the structure of space/time. If space/time has structure, we maynever know because the size of that structure may be beyond anything we can ever measure or

detect. That may be unfortunate reality. Of course, that does not prohibit us from trying to guessthe structure or determine which structure best fits observations. Unfortunately, there's a largegroup of mathematical physicists who are hell-bent on determining that structure, even at theprice of our sanity. What i mean by that is if they determine the structure of space, if that modelis essentially incorrect but fits Standard Model assumptions, then we become a delusional societylooking at the universe in distorted ways based on our incorrect philosophy of science and nature.


26/33

The basis of the Standard Model is that physics is random: forces are based on virtual particleexchange. Taken to the extreme, even spacetime is filled with random virtual particles. This isthe 'dogmatic view' mentioned above. But this rabid adherence to randomness is historicallybased on the Copenhagen perspective which was philosophically anti-deterministic. What thatmeans is: in the history of physics, there was a group that could not stomach determinism

(because it violated their beliefs about freedom), so they devised a physics that supported theirphilosophy. That physics is what i call probabilistic quantum mechanics. PQM and thephilosophy behind it have dominated physics for near a century.

i agree that freedom is paramount but we do not need to devise a quantum theory of physicsbased on freedom just out of human insecurity. Freedom can be achieved in other moresophisticated ways.. For instance, chaos theory is the branch of math that investigates randombehavior. Interestingly, some 'governing equations' for chaos are actually deterministic. So somelevel of randomness/freedom can be achieved deterministically. This is actually an astoundingmathematical truth..

Another favorite area of mine is turbulence. Turbulence is 'kind of' the opposite of order.Turbulence is the natural phenomenon which happens when fluid flow exceeds a certain criticalspeed depending on the fluid. Laminar (smooth) flow is the contrasting kind. So we have anotherexample in nature where randomness can occur completely by itself. We don't really need to'build in' randomness into the universe out of human insecurity..

There's a relatively new area of engineering called wavelet theory. Surprisingly, there are somelimits in 'perfection' which resemble Heisenberg uncertainty. The real question becomes: doesengineering mimic nature or the other way around? ;) Or have engineers simply discovered someproperties of nature that physicists have purported for decades? This sounds circular and i couldstop right there but engineering has some valuable insights which need expounding.

One thing physics neglects is media impedance - even the impedance of space - they ignore andconsider trivial. 'Strangely', it was the impedance of space which impelled me on the path ofdiscovery about 'alternative views' of nature. So can it be so invalid as physics claims? One ofmy first discoveries was that the impedance of space relates charge to spin. i sent the result to ajournal and they said "interesting" but would not publish.. i kept at it .. Over the years i'vedeveloped 'engineering' models of elementary particles which are more realistic and respect theirdual nature. Dual in that they exhibit electromagnetic character and 'mass' character both. Mass isin quotes because we all know about Einstein's famous equation of mass-energy equivalence. Sowe all know that mass and energy are 'interchangeable'. This concept and the fact elementaryparticles have electromagnetic attributes forced me to try to find some way to 'unite' these twofeatures.. Why do electrons and protons exhibit these dual characteristics? Could it be because

space has two features which allow them? This is the simplest explanation and i pursued itdoggedly. i reasoned that the only possible way that e.p.s could exhibit dual character is becausespace allows them. Space must have two unspoken qualities which allow electromagneticbehavior and 'mass' behavior. 'Amazingly', all we need to do is look toward engineering..Impedance and elasticity are the two concepts which designate 'what we need' to understandelementary particles.. Many physicists scoff and walk away at this point in the discussionbecause it smacks of determinism and the aether - which they've rejected years ago - both.


27/33

The 'bizarre' thing is: when we pursue this path to it's eventual conceptual end, we arrive at anelegant theory of spacetime and elementary particles including general relativity / gravitation. Socould it be so wrong? As mentioned above, the main reason physicists cannot stomach thistheory is because it relates to concepts they've rejected as wrong .. In my most recent letter toNPA, one of the things i unequivocally state is that we need to be able to discuss things

conceptually. If we cannot do that, it indicates we really don't understand. A conceptualdiscussion forces you to imagine/visualize concepts. It forces you to relate ideas at a higher levelso that others can understand. Without conceptual understanding, we have no hope ofunderstanding our universe.

After years of study, i surmise the Standard Model is based on virtual exchange. That is thecentral concept/assumption of the SM. Alternatively, the theory i've developed/discovered iscalled temporal relativity, TR for short. TR is based on one critical assumption: time can storeenergy like space. With that one assumption, you can explain quite a few things in nature.. Ofcourse, i couple that assumption with electromagnetic theory to be comprehensive. Butessentially TR is the simplest theory which explains conceptually: gravitation, strong force,special relativity, and mass. If it's wrong, we can 'fall back' to a more complex model which isthe elementary particle version of general relativity.

Finally, we can discuss inertia and proton/ele

a compilation of documents relating to iam space

Documents