Time and Space

Time and Space
[singing] "Ti-i-i-ime is on my side, yes it is!"
No longer is it "space-time" anymore.. Einstein was wrong. It's more like "time and space". Space is 'merely' the domain where electromagnetic and mechanical events 'play out'. Time appears to be the central feature of our Universe. Further, there is an extra dimension called hyper-time which allows time to curve. So, time is much more complex than we previously imagined. (Pun intended.)

Minkowski space asserts time has an imaginary aspect. Minkowski also asserts our Universe is Minkowski-like. But the model is incomplete. It does not include a critical feature from engineering: impedance. Now, just as curvature need not necessarily apply to space, impedance need not be associated with space either: both may be associated exclusively with time. This actually is the simpler model and if we adhere to Occam's Razor, we should choose the latter.

But I refuse to 'blame' Einstein or assert his ignorance; rather, I propose he was 'on the right track'. There is mounting evidence Feynman was wrong about virtual particles, but I refuse to celebrate that fact. Feynman invented Feynman diagrams which are the modern shorthand for interactions. But there is something important here: just because they work - does not make them accurate models of reality (specifically, the concept of virtual particles). The tool works, but that does not make it an accurate depiction.

Confoundingly, there is actually some evidence curvature is quantized (see N and Omega), but again, that does not imply virtual particles nor virtual exchange. Everything in my experience, intuition, gut feeling, and holistic take on the subject impels me to reject virtual particles - especially when applied to gravitation, strong force, and curvature. The function describing curvature is smooth not full of discontinuities. Similarly, I assume space (and time) is not granular but smooth. Several dissidents propose granular space-time but I find the concept revolting. Granular space-time is just like virtual particles - anathema.

Unfortunately, the model described above does not 'tie everything together'. There is no unification between curvature and impedance other than an energy equation I derived. Other parameters relate them and this by no means implies unification. Unless we could PROVE electromagnetism was a kind of curvature, we are stuck at having two distinct forces in our universe: electromagnetism (associated with time-impedance) and temporal curvature. Admittedly, the model 'unifies' them through time, but this is not the same as previous conventional attempts at 'four force unification'.

So, Micheal space does well at 'setting the stage' for most (if not all) interactions. As an example, the Faraday effect requires the presence of a magnetic field. Micheal space allows it via temporal impedance. Can the same be said for Minkowski space? Minkowski appears to be dramatically deficient when considering events in space-time.

So, space-time may be a misnomer just as Einstein may have been wrong (about SR and GR), but that does not mean we should celebrate it. It just means he was missing something (like Feynman and the rest). I cannot blame them for a historical revulsion of the aether and anything aether-like. I cannot blame Feynman for rationally extending reduction and virtual bosons to something so eminently practical as Feynman diagrams. The only ones I can blame are the ones who ignore this essay - those that do not take it seriously. The ones who cover their ears or eyes are the only ones we should blame from now on. We now have an accurate model of our Universe. Let's put it to work.
salvatore gerard micheal, 22/FEB/2009