temporal relativity, spacelet theory, and coherent processes
In honor of Richard Feynman, in sincere humility, i hereby found a new branch of science with three main branchlets: temporal relativity, spacelet theory, and coherent processes. TR is the theoretical foundation behind spacelet theory. ST is the fully deterministic theory of elementary particles. Coherent processes is the deterministic analysis of: lasing, superfluidity, and coherent structures in turbulent flow, as examples. Because the assumptions of these areas are in stark contrast with those of the Standard Model of particle physics, we cannot use the standard methodologies of quantum field theory and conventional quantum mechanics. We must necessarily develop a temporal curvature analogy of quantum field theory. In fact, it is argued the phenomenal success of quantum electrodynamics is actually due to this conceptual analogy between the proposed temporal curvature theory and quantum field theory.
Many erroneously declare the 'greatest physicist of all time' to be Albert Einstein. Although his faith in the theory described above and his contribution of relativity is fully recognized, most of convention recognize Richard Feynman as that person. There are two basic reasons why he deserves 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 he recognized, he himself, the need for a 'less haphazard' theory of elementary particles. Feynman was not as vocal about this as Einstein was but still believed we could find a better way of looking at things. The fact he had the mathematical and conceptual sophistication to develop modern QFT and QED, and the foresight to recognize their weaknesses, is the reason we honor him.
The inspiration for this theory comes from the inconsistent modeling approaches between conventional branches: nuclear chemistry and quantum mechanics. One assumes inherent stability and the other quite the opposite. This inconsistency within convention was one of the stimulants. However, the main impetus/motivation for it is the faulty main assumption of the Standard 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 that time, we did not have the level of engineering sophistication capable of 'pointing the way' toward unification.
In my estimation, it will take about 100 years for this theory to be established because of the conceptual inertia of the physics community. So by 2110, we should be looking back at at this time saying "how could we be so naive?" As stated above, it's not really convention's fault for not developing this theory previously. We simply didn't have the sophistication in perspective to be able 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 as arrogant. However, close to 40 years i've made it a lifetime discipline (humility) and approximately 30 years i've privately studied physics. Even considering these factors, many would still dismiss me as incapable. But it's always the 'fresh perspective' in science which 'solves the problem'. This particular perspective comes from engineering.
There are two engineering concepts and one relatively new area that contribute: elasticity, impedance, and wavelet theory. Within engineering, these concepts are well developed and deserve more attention from the physics community. Admittedly, specifically because of this deterministic bent and the fact impedance 'smells' something like the historical aether, physicists have 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 branch briefly described above has its roots in both general and special relativity - as much as the engineering concepts mentioned above. So it's not as if this 'new tree' of science does not have foundations / roots / conceptual inspirations .. The path to this tree/moment was quite convoluted and took me through territory mentioned above: from impedance to special relativity to general relativity to now. It's not so much i 'borrowed concepts' as began to see a clearer image of this view of elementary particles.. What's the famous quote.. "We see through a glass darkly.." Not exact but you get the idea.. So the main reason Feynman himself could not develop these ideas was because, i believe, he was browbeaten into submission by himself to follow a conventional path. How would we have received his proclamations had he followed this path? i believe quite derisively 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, the tenet is: conform or don't get supported. This is the battle any newcomer must face. Even Einstein faced great ridicule within the community because of his philosophy and later years. He was mocked and denigrated.. It's the sad unfortunate truth that even physicists are subject to normal human frailties.. ;) So much of my previous writings were about the philosophy of science, 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 (if something 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 quantum effects will be subsumed into various portions of ST or coherent processes. In lieu of any commendation, 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 to sanity.