Cosmic Particle Set

Einstein in his later life kept contradicting himself so it was difficult for anyone to pay any serious attention to him. Brilliance has a way of leaning towards insanity. Both Einstein and Bohm suffered from this. Part of this is due to our reality: there are different ways of looking at it which correspond to different ways of modeling it. Believe me, i'd much rather plunge a knife into my heart than appear to be fickle to the world - that's how much i believe in human integrity. Or put another way: how much i Hate flakiness. With all that kept in mind, please review below. It may be Truth, it may be insanity, or it simply may be another way of looking at our universe..

Space is globally flat (or very nearly so). This indicates there's an even distribution between particles and anti-particles. If there were a preponderance of one kind, space should curve that way globally .. Let's tentatively propose ten stable fundamental particles:
WIMP proton electron neutrino photon anti-photon anti-neutrino positron anti-proton anti-WIMP
These are listed from highest positive curvature to highest negative. Contrary to Dirac, anti-particles don't travel in negative time. They 'simply' have two essential qualities: negative curvature and time speeded up relative to flat time. The property of negative curvature essentially equals antigravity (a repulsive gravitational force). Due to the extremely small elasticity of time, time does not travel backwards for anti-particles; it merely goes faster for anti-particles. They cannot aggregate because aggregation is a product of positive curvature. So they behave like a massless superfluid. It's assumed at the creation of our universe, all particles were created with a balanced distribution: number of WIMPs = number of anti-WIMPs etc. Detecting anti-particles or energy (anti-photons) should be extremely difficult because they, again, behave like a massless superfluid - only interacting when directly annihilating with their matter counterpart. Considering the sheer volume of our universe and number of particles estimated, direct annihilation should be rare .. Photons have very slight positive curvature; that's why i must propose the (ludicrous sounding) anti-photon. This could represent dark-energy or something else .. There are several assumptions which 'go along' with this picture of our particle set: when a particle and anti-particle mutually annihilate, they produce a photon and anti-photon pair of pairs or quad, in the unlikely event a quad combines to produce a particle and anti-particle - their products are also balanced curvature-wise, even stellar/fission processes are assumed to create balanced products: anytime an energetic photon is created from fusion/fission - it's assumed an equally energetic anti-photon is created to balance curvature, and finally an assumption about universal expansion. This co-assumption is that: along with the 'outward' throw of matter, there was also a balanced throw of anti-matter and anti-photons. It's quite possible anti-photons caused inflation and current expansion of our universe .. This is a 'tremendous amount' of co-assumptions and many would balk at the sheer number, but the model's consistent and balanced from a curvature standpoint .. In fact, anti-matter in general may be causing the expansion of our universe. If the 'explosion of a singularity' was indeed the beginning of our universe, matter and anti-matter should be roughly spherically distributed in momentum. Since anti-matter and anti-photons are not gravitationally bound by our 'normal matter', that roughly spherical explosion created an anti-matter and anti-photon wavefront which should correspond to the boundary of our universe. What would it 'look like'? The CMB? i can only guess..

The picture above and fact that pair production exclusively occurs within a magnetic/electric field indicates electromagnetic fields may be anti-photons in-phase with our normal matter. In fact, this is the simplest most logical explanation of e-m in the framework above .. No wonder my mother's favorite expression is "everything in balance"; the essence of that expression may be the overriding principle in our universe: balanced curvature. Again, this holistic balanced perspective of matter/anti-matter/photons/anti-photons could be the core concept of a scientific revolution .. Someone suggested this to me long ago .. i needed time (several years) to think about curvature, photons, and electromagnetism. i cannot remember his name but perhaps his (real) surname is Iam? ;) The 'fact' a quad is required to produce a particle anti-particle pair indicates e-m is mediated by anti-photons. So perhaps curvature is not the only principle operating in elementary particles. Perhaps there's a coherent process operating such that our normal matter somehow attracts anti-photons causing electromagnetism. Also, perhaps the claim spacetime is frothing at the Planck level is not so farfetched after all: that view goes along with the unlikely event a quad meets in spacetime to produce a pair from 'nothing' (or apparently so). If this picture's correct, our universe should be literally seething with photons and anti-photons. The real question is: how much and at what energy level(s)? The CMB? Or something else? This view is heavily Laden with assumptions/co-assumptions and somewhat contradicts the fact a single photon can create a pair (of particles) in an electric/magnetic field. While mutual annihilation always produces two regular photons. So from a balanced perspective, mutual annihilation must produce a quad. While pair production must only require a photon anti-photon pair. The deeper question becomes: why are anti-photons attracted to electrons and protons? Since they have slight negative curvature, it must be something else. Perhaps anti-photons are charged? At present, i have no other explanation.. Other than some underlying coherent process which would be very difficult to prove.. The fact regular photons are not charged presents a problem with this proposal.. Nonetheless, it's compelling .. What causes charge? Good question.. In our macroscopic world, we normally charge things with friction; perhaps e.p. charge is produced similarly: spin causes charge via 'friction' on impedance; charge moment is impeded spin. This actually is wonderfully frightening for me at the moment.. It does not explain neutral particles and why photons have no charge.. But it's still a compelling picture. Perhaps photons are charged after all - that might explain the Faraday effect. Or maybe i'm just totally confused. ;) Regardless, there's some deep value in the two concepts: balanced curvature / curvature conservation and anti-photons mediating electromagnetism. The two together would explain a Lot in our universe.

i'm going to attach an image of three illustrations: pair-production/pp, mutual-annihilation/mi / quad-production/qp, and 'spin causes charge via impedance' + 'cloud of anti-photons causes electromagnetism' (note: normally we use a double-arrow to mean 'implies' but here i'm using it rather loosely). In pp we can see two photons going in and two particles coming out; curvature is conserved and charge is conserved. In mi/qp we see again curvature is conserved and charge is conserved; two going in and four going out. As i wrote this and developed the illustrations, i realized i just devised a realistic alternative to Feynman's virtual particle scheme. It may seem no better than his but isn't realism better than virtualism? The real anti-photons must have some incredible properties as well: have three forms - positive, negative and neutral charge; they may not be bound by our speed limit: c (though i'm not sure if that's absolutely required). The mi/qp diagram should be augmented by another which depicts another allowable scenario: tri-production which replaces the two charged anti-photons on the left with a single neutral anti-photon. Please note that i added the two combining charged anti-photons producing the neutral one after realizing we need three types of anti-photons (to explain the electromagnetic fields of both protons and electrons - since they have opposite charge). Charge-monopoles have been a stickler from the beginning.. So i cannot blame Feynman for creating a virtual particle scheme .. We've made some circles above but honed in on some essentials: at least two (charged) anti-photons are required to explain electromagnetism, charge is usually caused by impeded spin so the fact regular photons don't have it but anti-photons must is a bit confusing, and conservation/balance of curvature is a core concept.