Iam = TOE?
I wasted some time fretting about curvature .. 'correcting' my curvature function to conform to conventional 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 boundary effect. So i really needn't have 'got my panties in a twist' about it.. About five years ago, i ran a nuclear simulation based on that and electrostatic forces - it seemed to perform well. What i was curious about at the time was beryllium-8 - why it's unstable .. Other re-modifications of the theory 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-interference but it can be explained in other more simplistic ways. Since i'm now viewing particles as electromagnetic-temporal wavelets, self-interference is not surprising. Wavelets require complex number and function theory but that can be accommodated in T - not required in the subspace of Iam representing spacetime. All this may be 'gobble-dee-gook' for many but it amounts to partitioning Iam space into segments: those that require complex number/function theory and those that do not.
Also, constructing Iam-sim as a discrete space may be 'overkill'. As mentioned before, computer simulations 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 be modeled and simulated by a single function. The fact 'nuclear glue' and gravity are both attractive forces 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 and assumptions.. 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' (a kind 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 statistical analysis (which was one of my majors at university) - not physics. True physics is based on understanding underlying principles and valid constructs - not probability.
There was a time when students tried to understand intrinsic spin - trying to 'wrap their head around 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 / our universe / reality balanced, heuristically, and with rabid attachment to Occam, we arrive at Iam space and temporal curvature .. Admittedly, Iam space has 'transformed itself' conceptually revamping itself to come closer to reality - but that's nothing more than strict adherence to Occam and the scientific method .. Think of me as just the pencil and hand that writes about the living Iam space that wants us to discover who She really is..
Forgive the analogy but sometimes it feels that way..
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 produce and 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 more concerned with cosmologists and particle physicists taking a serious look at Iam space rather than their religious beliefs .. Several years ago, i spoke with a physicist in Michigan about some simplistic beginning ideas relating to Iam space .. During the conversation, we determined (at that stage of simplistic modeling) particles were self-interacting in 'my scheme' .. He was repulsed by that and did not want to speak further about it .. But renormalization in physics is exactly the conventional tool they use to 'get over' self-interaction.. How could he complain about 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 more than a better way to look at particle physics .. So there was little advantage in trying to force convention to accept it .. But that was before discovery of temporal curvature .. After that, i'm convinced 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 have been done, it would have been done." (remarking about physics unification and conscious machines) .. But that seriously neglects the fact transformations in science typically come from shifts in perspective. With the world economy in such tragic shape, with the Standard Model ready to fall flat on its face, with the predictions i made as a child coming true (that we're entering 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..