Iam Space - a 5D bosonless model of spacetime
Iam space is a proposed alternative to Minkowski space. The latter does not permit curved space-time and is therefore an incomplete basis for comprehensive models of physics in our universe. More specifically, Minkowski space does not allow the theoretical framework of general relativity. Iam space accommodates this including electromagnetic theory. The formal structure of Iam space and comprehensive list of implications need development however, it is a promising alternative. The initial benefits include: better fit to reality than Standard Model 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 space-time can be modeled in five dimensions where 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 associated with spatial dimensions as assumed in general relativity. Curvature may exclusively be associated with time.
Conventional extensions of the Standard Model predict proton decay. No obvious examples of proton 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. Conventional Higgsless frameworks are ad hoc at best. They are not comprehensive nor realistic. It is proposed the Higgs itself is an ad hoc construction of extremely dubious benefits.
Benignly, convention has accommodated theoretical work over the decades - assimilating various constructs into the Standard Model: Casimir, non-locality, multi-state atoms and nuclei,.. But these 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 has been 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. No conventional mass is ascribed to the photon and a minority of physicists ascribe any to the neutrino. 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: μ0 = 1/ε0, Z0 = μ0, γ = √(1-v^2), lP = tP, E = m, and C/tP = E/h where tP = lP Planck-length, mu, epsilon, Z, and gamma are standard designations of permeability, permittivity, impedance, and relativistic factor.) It is proposed the anti-particles associated with each still exist in our universe accumulated in anti-galaxies or perhaps in a parallel anti-universe. That speculation is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion. Iam space does not depend on it.
The coefficients are surprisingly exact. The first two are known. The rest are derived from the pattern 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. If humanity had allocated resources toward experimentally investigating neutrino and photon masses instead of Higgs and others, they would have more hard evidence for them. This is an indirect consequence of the 'benignness' mentioned above.
Other surprising consequences exhibit if the pattern is continued. It's further proposed the curvature 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 undramatically labeled: dark-neutrino, dark-electron, and dark-proton. Assuming a balanced distribution 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 have slight negative curvature in this scenario.
The three paragraphs above are actually later developments/consequences of Iam space which are not especially integral to the theory. They're an illustration of implications mentioned in the abstract. Explicit predictions of the theory include: no Higgs nor graviton signatures, nuclear meta-stable states are controllable, 'multi-state' atoms/molecules are controllable, double-slit experiments are controllable via slit separation, slit size, and materials involved,.. Further research is required in at least two areas: theoretical investigation of implications of complex time including possible non-local effects - and - simulation runs of various media interfaces varying 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 are Euclidean coordinates, Z represents the impedance of the media at that location, i is the fundamental complex number, and the last is equivalent to C, temporal curvature at the same location. While impedance has a tendency to lengthen the period between electromagnetic events, curvature has a tendency to lengthen the period between mechanical events. This is the essence of the theory. It's equivalent to Feynman’s statement about understanding non-locality and QM.
The three basic assumptions of the Standard Model can be compared against those associated with Iam space:
1. quantum self-interference is caused by non-locality
2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that
3. forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying particles
1. quantum self-interference is caused by extended portions of the standing waves
comprising 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 and Minkowski space is contained in / a subset of Iam space. The lower three points are essentially a deterministic 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 defining characteristic of Iam space is essentially its deterministic counterpoint: there's only one force called electromagnetism mediated by electromagnetic flux, impeded by 'temporal impedance', and mechanical events are delayed by temporal curvature. Matter is essentially temporal curvature. Gravitation is distributed temporal curvature. The strong nuclear force - similar. And, relativistic/gravitational time dilation is enhanced temporal curvature.
Every event human eyes perceive is a direct consequence of either: temporal curvature or temporal impedance. Essentially, it's a comprehensive yet simple model of our universe that explains matter and interactions holistically. There's no need for virtual exchange because all forces are accounted for.. The seeming omission of 'weak nuclear' is there because it's believed humans 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 barely understood. 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 are examples of so-called quantum fluids. It is believed the conventional understanding via 'successful application' of PQM is simply due to statistical analogy of some not yet understood deterministic coherent process. There is little doubt in the author's mind that if humanity put as much 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 least action) through curved space - or - is following a path of same temporal curvature. An object in free-fall is following a straight-line path to the maximum of spatial curvature - or - is following a path to the maximum of temporal curvature. Gravity can be analyzed exclusively as a distributed compression of time. (All trajectories can be treated as a linear combination of those two orthogonal trajectories. They are fundamentally different in terms of temporal curvature. All extended objects experience a gradient on different parts of their extension - it’s not just the ‘steepness of the hill’ which pulls them down. In the same way, time is infinitesimally slower on the ‘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 as associated with string theory, was finally overcome in discovery of Iam space. Occam's Razor was employed consistently in development/discovery. 5D or 10D, only time will decide..
Another Possible Curvature Pattern (edited)
[deleted section] Of course, with only two data points (associated with proton and electron), the curvature pattern could be anything: linear, non-linear, random,.. [deleted section discussing a symmetric distribution about zero curvature] These could indicate several things. They could be anti-particles or dark matter. The fact is we're talking about negative temporal curvature which indicates anti-particles according to Dirac. But, the first element in the second pattern could correspond to dark-energy (photons with slight negative temporal curvature).
[deleted section] Any dark-matter described above may behave like a massless superfluid (since their negative temporal curvatures correspond to anti-gravity - a repulsive gravitational force). i leave it to cosmologists to figure out the 'nitty gritty' of particle distribution patterns. The fact we see nearly perfectly flat space indicates a balanced pattern about zero curvature.
But of course, that does not acknowledge any stellar/nucleosynthesis processes that disturb initially balanced distribution patterns. Our ways of measuring dark-matter and energy are just emerging as parts of science. Many scientists regard cosmology as a very speculative field. So we have a lot of work to do: formally develop Iam space as Minkowski has been, derive all implications of complex time where the coefficient represents complex media impedance, and formally determine full implications of Iam space. This is the fundamental shift in perspective Feynman was calling for when he designed QED.
Deleted sections above indicate the danger of embracing any particular particle distribution scenario. Quantum cosmology is a field in science so rapidly evolving and subject to empirical revelations that typically restructure the field every time a new significant discovery is made. In order to make progress in this new branch, we need to focus on Iam space and implications as described above. Later, we can work on particle distribution patterns.
What do we call this new beast?
For quite a few months i've labored to accurately label this new branch of physics which combines ideas from: general relativity, electromagnetism, and special relativity .. We can't keep calling it "bosonless particle physics" because that only says what it's not. i've posted two websites 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 a new branch of science. We can't call it part of quantum cosmology because that area depends on conventional quantum mechanical techniques which employ constructs in direct conflict with this approach. It's not quantum 'anything'. We could call it relativistic cosmology or electromagnetic relativity but there has to be a stipulation: we're using a modified form of relativity that does not curve space - only time. So strictly speaking, general relativity has to be reformulated from the temporal curvature perspective, or temporal curvature must be developed formally as general relativity has, then this must be conceptually combined with complex time and Euclidean space to formally justify Iam space. This is the 'bottom up' approach. The 'top down' approach takes Iam space as is, and develops cosmologies without benefit of any conventional quantum mechanical techniques. Both approaches are formidable because they require 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 formulation of QM .. (It was argued previously that the reason Feynman's QM/QED is so successful is because it's actually an analog of a yet-to-be developed TC approach to particle physics.) So "TC particle physics" or relativistic cosmology - you decide.. Regardless of what we call it, i predict it will 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 particle physics, CTCT (complex temporal curvature theory), relativistic cosmology,.. you decide. But let's move forward regardless.