Hypergeometrical Universe Theory

[ny2292000]

This theory proposes that the Universe is a Four-Dimensional Shock Wave traveling radially outwards at the Speed of Light.

This hyperspherical shell is thin enough to preclude aberration. The proposed topology explains the 3-D Universe Expansion, Non-Constantness of the Hubble Constant, The Limiting Nature of the Speed of Light, What lies beyond the Universe...

In addition, additional papers in the site demonstrate how to Unify all the forces of Nature. One caveat; the lightspeed expansion implies that the nature of the nuclear energy E=mc^2 is Kinetic, thus precluding the standard interpretation in terms of Gluon Fields. This toss away Quantum Chromodynamics, Weak Force and many other things derived from that perspective.

Grand Unification is derived from the creation of a new Lagrangian Principle and from the Interference of 5-Dimensional SpaceTime waves (dilatons). Particles (dilators) are considered to be the result of coherences between 4-D deformation states of the 4-D space. Naturally, any deformation travels at the natural speed of the medium and that is the speed of light...

Electromagnetism, Gravitation are derived from the understanding the there is only one "Force" and two different reaction to it. The difference is in the type of particle that senses it. Spin zero particles will sense the same spacetime waveform but its reaction to it will yield Gravitation. Zero spin are coupled to "Hypersuperficial" spacetime waves and due to geometry, have a much smaller reaction to the interference. Zero Spin particle are only permitted to change their k-vector at the level that the perpendicular to the hyperspherical shell changes and since the radius of curvature of this shell is circa 15 billion light years, the change in k-vector direction is extremelly small.

Spin half particles couple with "Hypervolumetric" spacetime waves and will be permitted to change the direction of their k-vector at each de Broglie step in the Hyperspherical Expansion of the Shock Wave Universe.

Simple assumptions, matching results for Gravitation, Electrostatics and the derivation of the Biot-Savart Law support this theory. E=mc^2 is viewed as a kinetic energy and also as a Pythagoream 4-D momentum conservation equation.

Of course, the metric has what you now call moving dimension characteristics. It is composed of two rotations (one by a real angle arctan(v/c) and another by an imaginary angle arctanh(v/c)) and one radial translation. There is the introduction of an absolute time (a la Newton and Mach) which is a non-observable while keeping the relative nature of observed time flows.

The results are extensive and I will stop here but questios are always welcome.

The site is http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com

The papers are on the left panel and are pdfs..

Best,

Marco Pereira

[Epsilon=One]

Lots of good logic, which well may be original.

This theory proposes that the Universe is a Four-Dimensional Shock Wave traveling radially outwards at the Speed of Light.At this point there seems to be some questions that need answering.

What are the four-dimensions of the "Shock Wave"? Assuming that one of them is "time," how is "time" defined such that this expansion can be "smooth"?

If the "Shock Wave" is traveling "radially outwards" how is the force defined, without using concepts of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which the theory seems to "toss away"/outlaw, that is reactive to the force of the "Shock Wave"?

This this hyperspherical shell is thin enough to preclude aberration. The proposed topology explains the 3-D Universe Expansion, Non-Constantness of the Hubble Constant, The Limiting Nature of the Speed of Light, What lies beyond the Universe...The "Speed of Light" (SOL) requires "time"; how can there be time without some type of aberration; at minimum, a hyperspheroidal shell?

I can not understand how anything that comes from, or explains, "What lies beyond the Universe" can manifest as spherical without aberration. Such defies all observation.

I'm not certain what the "hyper-" refers to with the "spherical shell"; if it's hyper-relativistic and the SOL is not a limit on motion; then, it would seem, the theory has possibilities . . . with some tweaking.

Grand Unificatin is derived from the creation of a new Lagrangian Principle and from the Interference of 5-Dimensional SpaceTime waves (dilatons). Particles (dilators) are considered to be the result of coherences between 4-D deformation states of the 4-D space. Naturally, any deformation travels at the natural speed of the medium and that is the speed of light...I prefer "speed of the quantum" to "speed of the medium." Instead of "4-D deformation states," I prefer "resonances." I prefer "quantum" to "4-D space."

"5-Dimensional SpaceTime waves" seems to be an overly complex concept that needs a lot of defining.

Electromagnetism, Gravitation are derived from the understanding the there is only one "Force" and two different reaction to it.I too believe there is only one force; however, I believe there are more than "two different" fundamental reactions/manifestations; at minimum, the strong and weak interactions, and light (electromagnet waves). I understand gravity, as usually defined, to be a secondary force.

The difference is in the type of particle that senses it. Spin zero particles will sense the same spacetime waveform but its reaction to it will yield Gravitation. Zero spin are coupled to "Hypersuperficial" spacetime waves and due to geometry, have a much smaller reaction to the interference. Zero Spin particle are only permitted to change their k-vector at the level that the perpendicular to the hyperspherical shell changes and since the radius of curvature of this shell is circa 15 billion light years, the change in k-vector direction is extremelly small.There is much here that I can agree with; however, the conceptualization and terms seem to be a bit far-fetched.

Spin half particles couple with "Hypervolumetric" spacetime waves and will be permitted to change the direction of their k-vector at each de Broglie step in the Hyperspherical Expansion of the Shock Wave Universe.How are there “de Broglie step(s)” in an expansion without “aberrations”? There is a much simpler explanation of the complex spin that is referred to as “spin half.”

Simple assumptions, matching results for Gravitation, Electrostatics and the derivation of the Biot-Savart Law support this theory. E=mc^2 is viewed as a kinetic energy and also as a Pythagoream 4-D momentum conservation equation.”Simple assumptions, matching results” may “support this theory”; however, the support for your support is, at best, dubious. I am not faulting BSL; it is to be praised; though, it is an example of an engineer’s contrivance . . . a limited tool, not an explanation.

Of course, the metric has what you now call moving dimension characteristics. It is composed of two rotations (one by a real angle arctan(v/c) and another by an imaginary angle arctanh(v/c)) and one radial translation. There is the introduction of an absolute time (a la Newton and Mach) which is a non-observable while keeping the relative nature of observed time flows.I agree with your “two rotations” concept; though, Why is one “angle” “imaginary”? Mach had a feeling for “time” that was well beyond Newton. Expand this “absolute time” concept; it may lead to some major tweaks to the theory.

[ny2292000]

Dear Epsilon,

Thanks for your kind evaluation...

Please read the replies within the text

At this point there seems to be some questions that need answering.

What are the four-dimensions of the "Shock Wave"? Assuming that one of them is "time," how is "time" defined such that this expansion can be "smooth"?

There are four physical dimensions and one Absolute Time Dimension. The Absolute Time, which I called Cosmological Time, is a non-observable. There are also preferential directions of propagation (e.g. Radial as opposed to oblique motion). Not unlike the Cosmological Time, the directions are also indistinguishable one from another. The only time observable is the relative time and the relative direction/velocity. Everything in the 3D Universe have no choice other than to propagate radially at the speed of light. Interaction among bodies will change their transversal state of motion. Rephrasing; Time is a fifth dimension.

If the "Shock Wave" is traveling "radially outwards" how is the force defined, without using concepts of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which the theory seems to "toss away"/outlaw, that is reactive to the force of the "Shock Wave"?
There is no reactive force in the same way there wouldn`t be a force acting on photons if there were a superradiant flash of light from a point in the tridimensional space. Similarly the photons would travel radially at the speed of light and be localized in time and space (bunched). In our case, the 'flash of light' is a flash of everything and the space is four-dimensional. The same bunching process that generates a traveling cresp (wave) of photons in three dimensions will generate a bunched 4D Shock Wave Universe. The fourth dimension is not observable (not aberration) if the Big Bang was localized in time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ny2292000
This this hyperspherical shell is thin enough to preclude aberration. The proposed topology explains the 3-D Universe Expansion, Non-Constantness of the Hubble Constant, The Limiting Nature of the Speed of Light, What lies beyond the Universe...

The "Speed of Light" (SOL) requires "time"; how can there be time without some type of aberration; at minimum, a hyperspheroidal shell?

I already pointed out the fifth time dimension and pointed out the mechanisms for 3D Universe bunching. Please let me know if there are still any questions on this.

I can not understand how anything that comes from, or explains, "What lies beyond the Universe" can manifest as spherical without aberration. Such defies all observation.

I'm not certain what the "hyper-" refers to with the "spherical shell"; if it's hyper-relativistic and the SOL is not a limit on motion; then, it would seem, the theory has possibilities . . . with some tweaking.

In fact; the theory says that everything in the Universe is running alway at the speed of light and that is the only speed allowed. Lateral motion (our 3D motion) will happens through the interactions of five-dimensional spacetime waves (dilatons) and a new Lagrangian Principle. The theory is inherently Quantum Mechanical and a simple new Lagrangian Principle based upon constructive interference between spacetime waves as a way to define the motion of their sources (dilators). Dilators are defined in analogy to electromagnetic waves as coherences between 4D dtationary deformational states of a four-dimensional double well. This double well is a 4D deformational double well potential. Difficult to explain since it is a real property of space. It defines how difficult it is to deform space.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ny2292000
Grand Unificatin is derived from the creation of a new Lagrangian Principle and from the Interference of 5-Dimensional SpaceTime waves (dilatons). Particles (dilators) are considered to be the result of coherences between 4-D deformation states of the 4-D space. Naturally, any deformation travels at the natural speed of the medium and that is the speed of light...

I prefer "speed of the quantum" to "speed of the medium." Instead of "4-D deformation states," I prefer "resonances." I prefer "quantum" to "4-D space."

"5-Dimensional SpaceTime waves" seems to be an overly complex concept that needs a lot of defining.

5-Dimensional SpaceTime waves are just spacetime waves (modulations of the metric in a five dimensional spacetime). They are necessary since I created a full Grand Unification based upon them...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ny2292000
Electromagnetism, Gravitation are derived from the understanding the there is only one "Force" and two different reaction to it.

I too believe there is only one force; however, I believe there are more than "two different" fundamental reactions/manifestations; at minimum, the strong and weak interactions, and light (electromagnet waves). I understand gravity, as usually defined, to be a secondary force.

Since there is a kinematic aspect in my work; it precludes the incluson of any other force; that is; E=mc^2 has a kinetic reason of being. I changed the paradigm by using a single interaction and using the characteristics of the interacting particles as the reason for the different outcomes (vis a vis Gravitation and Electromagnetism). Spin becomes a non-intrinsic parameter, that is, Spin becomes an actual spin as the dilators (particles) travel radially.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ny2292000
The difference is in the type of particle that senses it. Spin zero particles will sense the same spacetime waveform but its reaction to it will yield Gravitation. Zero spin are coupled to "Hypersuperficial" spacetime waves and due to geometry, have a much smaller reaction to the interference. Zero Spin particle are only permitted to change their k-vector at the level that the perpendicular to the hyperspherical shell changes and since the radius of curvature of this shell is circa 15 billion light years, the change in k-vector direction is extremelly small.

There is much here that I can agree with; however, the conceptualization and terms seem to be a bit far-fetched.

The support of the theory is the Math behind it. There is a PDF file which contains the Grand Unification of the remaining forces (Gravitation and Electromagnetism). I replicate Cosmological Constants from basic principles.
With respect to having place the Whole Universe in Motion at the Speed of Light; I only can reply

E pur si muove


Quote:
Originally Posted by ny2292000
Spin half particles couple with "Hypervolumetric" spacetime waves and will be permitted to change the direction of their k-vector at each de Broglie step in the Hyperspherical Expansion of the Shock Wave Universe.

How are there “de Broglie step(s)” in an expansion without “aberrations”? There is a much simpler explanation of the complex spin that is referred to as “spin half.”

Think about the Shock Wave Universe as if we were all surfing a wave. If the wave were step we would only see a clear image of each other. If the slope of the wave where not step, as we travel, I might see you in phase or slight of phase with me. That time or phase uncertainty is a reflection of the time taken for the Shock Wave Universe to be placed in motion. If the time is short, then there is no aberration.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ny2292000
Simple assumptions, matching results for Gravitation, Electrostatics and the derivation of the Biot-Savart Law support this theory. E=mc^2 is viewed as a kinetic energy and also as a Pythagoream 4-D momentum conservation equation.

”Simple assumptions, matching results” may “support this theory”; however, the support for your support is, at best, dubious. I am not faulting BSL; it is to be praised; though, it is an example of an engineer’s contrivance . . . a limited tool, not an explanation.

I beg to disagree. A change in paradigm as this is, will allow for simplification. I choose not to waste time in ellaborating the theory in terms of metrics and geodesics or to focus on Black Holes etc. They might not even exist and that would be a waste of focus. Instead, I created a competente theory with clear hypotheses; for which I cannot see any challenge since travelling at the speed of light radially is an inertial motion and cannot be detected. The fact that it reproduces Newton's Gravitation Theory as opposed to Einstein's Equations is also a choice. The Lagrangian Principle brings Quantum Mechanics to the problem and thus it is a better path.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ny2292000
Of course, the metric has what you now call moving dimension characteristics. It is composed of two rotations (one by a real angle arctan(v/c) and another by an imaginary angle arctanh(v/c)) and one radial translation. There is the introduction of an absolute time (a la Newton and Mach) which is a non-observable while keeping the relative nature of observed time flows.

I agree with your “two rotations” concept; though, Why is one “angle” “imaginary”? Mach had a feeling for “time” that was well beyond Newton. Expand this “absolute time” concept; it may lead to some major tweaks to the theory.

Imaginary angle rotation is the standard geometrical interpretion of a Lorentz Transform. The fourth spatial dimension also requires a rotation. All this reasoning is done from the chosen starting referential frame (zero lateral velocity) but could be done at any other referential frame.

Mach's Principle was beyond Newton but was also incorrect. It required non-local interactions to explain inertia. I decouple inertia from Gravitation in my theory.

[Epsilon=One]

I will reply in more detail in a day or so as time allows.

Before I do, a little more info will be helpful.

1.) Is your "Absolute Time" that you call "Cosmological Time" discrete?

2.) Is your theory dependent upon the Big Bang?

3.) You state: "...everything in the Universe is running alway at the speed of light and that is the only speed allowed." Is the speed of light constant in your theory? Why is this speed set at a precise limit? How do you explain non-local phenomena?

4.) You state: "...I created a full Grand Unification..." What is it that you have unified? Forces? If it is forces, is inertia included?

5.) You state: "The support of the theory is the Math behind it." In light of Gödel's (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Go) Incompleteness Theorem (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT), what supports your "Math"?

6.) You state: "...I created a competente theory with clear hypotheses..." What, succinctly, are the hypotheses?

7.) You state: "I decouple inertia from Gravitation in my theory." How is this possible?

[ny2292000]

Since you seemed to be able to talk about my theory without even knowing how many dimensions the theory uses, I will direct you towards a little bit more reading...:) Just read the theory before talking about it.. especially if you are going to make negative comments... Platitudes are OK...:)
Basic questions are always perfectly acceptable


Here are some fewe answers to your questions.


I will reply in more detail in a day or so as time allows.

Before I do, a little more info will be helpful.

1.) Is your "Absolute Time" that you call "Cosmological Time" discrete?
Read my next Blog.

2.) Is your theory dependent upon the Big Bang?
Read my next Blog.

3.) You state: "...everything in the Universe is running alway at the speed of light and that is the only speed allowed." Is the speed of light constant in your theory? Why is this speed set at a precise limit? How do you explain non-local phenomena?
I posted an answer to your question in my blog some time ago. Speed of light is aways constant, since the beginning. The natural speed of propagation of any disturbance depends precisely upon the medium where it propagates... Since the medium is the same, the speed is the same... The medium for propagation is a 5-D spacetime.
The solution to the so-called "Non-Local Phenomena" is also posted at
http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com

4.) You state: "...I created a full Grand Unification..." What is it that you have unified? Forces? If it is forces, is inertia included?
Inertia is explained as the resistence to torsion of 4-D Space. A geometric interpretation. I reproduce all the forces: Gravitation, Electromagnetism, including the derivation of the complex (vectorial) Biot-Savart Law for Magnetism out of simple interference of five-dimensional spacetime (dilaton) waves.

5.) You state: "The support of the theory is the Math behind it." In light of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, what supports your "Math"?
If you are concerned about your inability to make any sense of Number Theory for instance, just give me all your money... You will certainly never know what you are missing... :) Of course, one can never prove the hypotheses in a theory. One always have to live with that basic understanding. Hopefully the hypotheses will be palatable...

6.) You state: "...I created a competente theory with clear hypotheses..." What, succinctly, are the hypotheses?
They are presented in the blog and in the papers.

7.) You state: "I decouple inertia from Gravitation in my theory." How is this possible?
This should be already clear from reading the theory, but I will explain it further in a future blog.

[Epsilon=One]

Here are some fewe answers to your questions.You have directly answered almost nothing. Your answers are fraught with more error, lack of philosophical logic, and increased enigmas than your original statements.

I can see very little of value to your work, as you present it, other than it is alternative thinking; and, you may stimulate some thought from others. I prefer the logic of the Standard Models in comparison to your theories.

There is so much to consider in appraising something that is so askew from logic and observation that I hardly know where to start. It is difficult to do so succinctly. I will give it thought as time allows. To think about a little bit of it for the moment; none of your hypotheses appear to be very fundamental; your use of terms is bewildering; and, I would guess obfuscating that which you don't understand; you seem to not understand the concept of time; it is impossible to hold any such scheme together without relating gravity's illusion with inertia; it is an impossibility for the speed of light to be constant (Besides what is obvious, how can light not have acceleration and where does its mass come from to qualify it as a true force in your scheme).

Do not just wily nily add dimensions where there are none to cover up irreconcilable conclusions . . . most of which you seem to have derived from mathematics rather than the Natural environment.

I'm sure I will follow with more; though, in light of your recent reply I doubt if the time is worth it; except for other viewers they may not be as biased by ridiculous hypotheses.

Epsilon=One query: 2.) Is your theory dependent upon the Big Bang?
Reply by ny2292000: Read my next Blog.I'm not sure if your "next Blog" exists or not; or, where to find it. I'm not interested in your usual obfuscation. A simply Yes or No is all I was looking for. If this is not possible, you might answer with a "qualified" Yes or No; and, I will follow up if I need clarification.

I posted an answer to your question in my blog some time ago. Speed of light is aways constant, since the beginning. The natural speed of propagation of any disturbance depends precisely upon the medium where it propagates... Since the medium is the same, the speed is the same... The medium for propagation is a 5-D spacetime."5-D"; "Speed of light always constant"; "spacetime"; they all are garbage phrases with no physical logic for anyone that understand concepts of dimensions and time.

I think you get the drift of my thoughts for now. Explain your theory in terms a good high school student can understand without meaningless, undefined catch words.

[Epsilon=One]

Sorry about the above diatribe; I was probably a bit too direct.

It was very late at night; and, I have been dealing with academic, idiot theorists for the last several days.

Then, I ran into your cross-discipline claptrap.

You are drawing many profound conclusions from postulates that are far from fundamental. In short, you must shore up your base, before drawing alternative conclusions from the overworked Standard Model concepts that your theory depends upon.

You must set/define fundamental concepts before building anything as grandiose as you are attempting.

First, be able to describe your theory in three-dimensional geometric constructs. Don’t go further until this model is logically workable against most of what is observable.

Second, then add constant accelerating motion in a logical manner by explaining where it comes from and what its effect is upon the geometric model. Try to keep away from referring to this as a dimension. It may well be that it is a dimension, depending upon your definition of dimensions; but for most persons, three-dimensions is about the most that they can visualize.

Third, after the above has been accomplished in a simplistic manner, figure out what time is from what you have to this point. Determine how its “clock” is constructed and what is its “unit.” This fundamental concept of time must be intrinsic to what you have already rationalized; and, its unit must be constant to avoid fundamental chaos unless you can figure some way to avoid such constancy.

Fourth, next make sure that your theory can account for the size, container, and genesis of the Universe without the Big Bang unless you can explain how one “bang” imparted acceleration.

Fifth, now, with the above construct, explain non-local phenomena.

At this point, your theory should be able to rationalize most all observed phenomena . . . including the emergence and distribution of life and intelligent consciousness.

Until now most symbolic manipulation has been avoided because it is very difficult to prove, in itself, until you have progressed beyond the fundamental concepts. Sorta like circularly proving something with itself. However, now it is time to fill in your theory and test it with advanced mathematical concepts; which in turn will be given a good test with your theory. From here on out, each will require some tweaking and feedback from one another until they settle into a mutual equilibrium of reciprocal proof.

Remember, the more complex the required mathematics, the less probable that they are describing fundamental Nature, which description seems to be your quest. The more fundamentally you probe, the simpler the rationaization should become. This is unlike current Standard Model performance.

If what you have proposed, herein above, is standing after you have constructed a foundation for it, I will be applauding you from somewhere as you receive your Nobel.

[ny2292000]

I value your comments...:)

In any event, some of your misunderstandings are my fault. I wrote 30 blog entries explaining the theory. It is difficult not to rely on them when I explain my theory in another environment - this site for instance.

I went into the net in search of intelligent dialog and tried as hard as I can not to put people off for being critical of their misunderstandings... I believe that it is from discussions that enlightment is created and I would be the last person in the Universe to run away from a critic...

I have to thank you for asking me the question about the non-local phenomena...:) I solved that problem and published it in the blog... http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com

I have to make a note about that requirement. No theory out there explains non-local phenomena, thus it would be an unfair test for my theory... Since I solved the problem, I shouldn't mind it and should thank you for that...:)

Let's limit the number of elements in this iteration. I will focus on a few elements of my theory and my review of Action at Distance Phenomena.

a) The first hypothesis is that the whole Universe is a hyperspherical surface expanding at the speed of light. This is supported by the equation E=mc^2 which is the energy of a body traveling at the speed of light. Further analysis of this equation show that it can be recast as a Pythagorean addition of two linear momentum components: one equal to p (3D linear momentum) and another perpendicular to the first one and equal to m0c (where m0 is the rest mass). Of course, this motion cannot be denied nor easily proved since it is an inertial motion and one cannot detect inertial motion. This topology is also what one would expect from conservation of momentum after a explosion, constant speed of spacetime deformations etc... It is aesthetically pleasing to know that everything in the Universe is treated equally - like traveling deformations of 4-D space). It also provides a simple explanation on the why the speed of light is the limiting speed. It becomes clear that everything we send in our glorious 3-D shell is just a change in k-vector or a lateral change of direction of a constant magnitude lightspeed vector. Since this is just a change in direction and not in modules, it becomes clear the speed limitation. The maximum speed one can observe in the 3-D shell is c, which would correspond to a local rotation of the lightspeed vector by 45 degrees with respect to the Radial direction. Please see the link to the cross section of the Universe.

Hyperspherical Universe Cross-Section (http://www.geocities.com/ny2292000/cross-section.jpg)

b) The theory is a geometrical representation of the Universe and thus Mass, Force etc has to have an equivalent representation. Some constructs might be not relevant to this first theory, hence they are not recreated. The theory anchors itself on Lorentz transforms on a non-compact five dimensional spacetime. This means that the metric describing this spacetime can be easily constructed by a translation -due to the hyperspherical expansion and two rotations. One around the direction perpendicular to Cosmological Time Phi and X by an angle arctanh(v/c) and another around the direction perpendicular to Radial Direction R and X by an angle arctan(v/c). This reasoning is done for simplicity starting from a preferred referential with X perpendicular to R - relaxed local spacetime - but could be done on any initial inertial frame.

c) The 3-D Universe is considered to be the expanding hyperspherical surface traveling outwards at the speed of light. All the elements of the Universe are represented in terms of metric waves (dilatons) and metric wave generators (dilators).

d) Standard Quantum Mechanical Description of 4-D space deformational potential is used. Particles are modeled as coherence between two states of a four-dimensional rotating double well. This is a simple quantum mechanical picture which has perfect analogy on the coherences that gives rise to electromagnetic fields. Electronically excited molecules contains coherences at the moment of light emission. These coherences generate a time dependent observed electric dipole - like an antenna. This oscillating electric dipole is dephased through interaction with surrounding electromagnetic fields.

e) In the case of protons and electrons, the theory states that they are the two states of the same coherence, thus being the same particle. How come this is possible? It should be clear, but if now, you will have to await until I publish the pictures. It is difficult to explain something like this in words... although it is quite a simple hypothesis... Let me emphasize what I just said: Proton and electron are the same particle; they have exactly the same mass, with a caveat.

They have exactly the same mass as probed by their 4-D space trajectory while they perform the Radial motion. When they interact with the rest of the 3-D Universe, they have the mass associated with just one of the sides of the potential well. A Neutron is just a dimmer and thus all basic matter is made of the same stuff, a coherence between the two lower states of deformation of the 4-D space. An unconstrained deformation will propagate and the propagation will always be the speed of light. Spin is modeled as a tumbling motion as the radial expansion takes place. In my blog, "The Meaning of Material Existence" I explained the constraint on spin. For anything to exists, that is, to be able to interact with the rest of the Universe, it has to be in phase with these dilatons and traveling the same shock wave Universe. The phase requirement also applies to spinning motion, thus the quantization of spin.

f) Time driving the Radial expansion (motion of the Universe perpendicular to the 3-D space) is Absolute and continuous. Continuous in the sense that I did not find anything that would absolutely require a quantized time, although I came close to it. Since this is a 5-D spacetime, relative velocity creates two rotations: a) one is a rotation perpendicular to R and X by an angle arctan(vx/c) and b) a rotation by an imaginary angle given by arctanh(vx/c).

g) In my theory, there is an Absolute Time - in addition to local time projections or proper time and a Preferential Direction in Space but these cannot be easily determined, they are not observables. The only thing one can easily observe is the relative angle between proper times. Thus one can only observe relative time flow as required by Relativity.

h) Using Dilators and Dilaton fields generated by One Kilogram of Matter and One Kilogram of Charge, I was able to recover Gauss Law of Electrostatics, Newton's Law of Gravitation and the complex vectorial Biot-Savart Law of Magnetism. They are all derived from the aforementioned assumptions and that is an indication of a highly physical (as opposed to a Mathematical Stratospheric Digression) theory. Everything people do in this field is to guess a metric, guess a meaningless Lagrangian and derive Black Holes related geodesics... over and over again, without the benefit of Physics Intuition. When I say physical intuition I am not referring to some sixth sense, but to an emsemble of well grounded and logically supported hypotheses, which can replicate what we already know. Current theories cannot say anything about reality.

The last item of my current essay is the answer to what you asked me before:

What is Action at Distance or Non-Local Phenomena?
My answer is simple... They do not exist.
Non-local phenomena as in the photon polarization experiments will be taken as an example. In the experiment that gives rise to this kind of speculation, an excited medium is placed between identical two arms, each arm having a polarizer and two detectors. Light excitation is kept low such that coincident photons can be counted. Photons are emited by the excited medium in pairs with k-vectors defined by the physical setting of the experiment and are polarization correlated photons. Their polarization is correlated by the short lifetime of the electronic transitions with respect to rotational periods and by the angle between transition dipole moments in the molecular frame of reference.

The paradox arises when one uses the following hypothesis: Quantum Mechanics dictates that photons will not define their polarizations until there is a measurement. In this experiment, the measurement event is the interaction between polarizer and the incoming photon. Under those conditions, information of one photons polarization choice has to reach the other instantaneously. Implicit in this hypothesis is the other hypothesis that the emission occurs through dephasing of the electronic coherence by the interaction between the oscillating dipole and zero point randomly polarized vacuum fluctuations. I reached the conclusion that the implicit hypothesis is incorrect.
I know that the detectors have resonances at the photons energies they are suppose to detect. This means that they will emit radiation at those frequencies through Black Body or Thermal fluctuations. This field together with the extreme selectivity of the experimental design assures that the dephasing event is driven not by randomly polarized zero point fluctuations of vacuum but by polarized Black Body radiation from the detectors themselves. They are polarized from the perspective of the emiting molecule. The molecule is "seeing" the detectors through polarizers!

This means that the polarization of the outgoing photons is defined at the moment of the emission and thus there is no need for any non-local phenomena.

I hope you will appreciate the simplicity of the argument and let me know if you disagree.

[ny2292000]

As promised, I posted the solution to the Non-Local interaction and the Quantization of Time (Pseudo)..

My theory makes use of a Fat Electron in my calculations. A one atomic mass unit electron was used.


The explanation on why I used such a fat electron is shown below:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5010/1965/320/RotatingElectron%20spin%20-0.5.jpg

The red dot indicates that the coherence is on the Proton side (2/3, 2/3,-1/3)

The green rectangle indicates that the coherence is on the Electron side (0,-2/3,-1/3)

I proposed that whole Universe (or most of it) is composed of different polymers of a single dilator: the Proton-Electron Dilator, shown above.

The dual particle is both a Proton and a Electron (like a Siamese twin)...:)

Spinning around it end up showing a skinny face to the 3-D space (along the Horizontal Line) as the particle travels along the Radial direction (Vertical line)...

Since we know that an electron weight less than a proton, that means that the time is quantized ...:) or appears quantized from the 3-D perspective.

I defined 3D and 4D masses since the rotation creates these skinny profiles...:) and masses are modeled as being proportional to 4D volumes. The fact that the theory reproduces the Gravitation, Electromagnetism and a few Cosmological Constants, I consider that the requirement of a fat electron and the reproduction of all the forces of Nature (according to me)...:) supports a pseudo-time quantization.

Please check the site, it is difficult to fully replicate all everything perfectly here...

http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2006/10/time-quantization-and-fat-electron.html

Of course, it will be a pleasure answering any questions.

Cheers,

MP

[Epsilon=One]

As promised, I posted the solution to the Non-Local interaction and the Quantization of Time (Pseudo)..

My theory makes use of a Fat Electron in my calculations. A one atomic mass unit electron was used.I can find no logical rationalization in your theory that simply explains observed non-local phenomena at either the Cosmic scale or quantum scale. Your explanation may be among the confused bable of undefined, pseudo terms that I was unable to coherently decipher.

You should be able to explain the gist of non-local phenomena in a simple sentence of words each of which have limited connotations . . . without referring to overweight electrons.

In a prior post you state that non-local phenomena do not exist; now you seem to attempt an explanation.

You are correct that action-at-a-distance, referring to a non-direct force, does not exist. You are wrong if you are still contending that non-local manifestations do not exist.

If only it were possible to just deny all the enigmas of observation . . .

[ny2292000]

Overweighted electrons have to do with your other questions about time quantization.

With respect to non-local phenomena, I just explained that the Universe is not a large metalic box (thus having reflective boundary conditions for electromagnetic waves) and thus cannot have electromagnetic vacuum states. If it cannot have stationary vacuum states it cannot have fluctuations or zero point energy associated with them.

I pointed out that the source of electromagnetic noise that generates the dephasing on the electronic coherence at the moment of the photon emission was polarized black body radiation as seem by the excited molecule while it looks at the detectors through the polarizers.

This flies in the face of the standard interpretation that decay happens through the interaction of the electronic coherence with the fluctuation of the vacuum bath or zero point noise or whatever you might call it.

The fact that there was a paradox means that this implicit hypothesis should be revisited. I opt for my interpretation that the dephasing field is created from zero point or black body electromagnetic field associated with the detectors themselves. Since radiation from the detectors passes through the polarizers, it is not suprising that the emitted photons have well defined polarization at the moment they leave the molecule (or atom).

Since the polarization is defined at the moment of excitation, there is no non-local phenomena and thus there is no paradox.

The interesting side conclusion of the elimination of this paradox is the questioning of the existence of electromagnetic (emphasis on electromagnetic) vacuum states. As I mentioned the Universe is a lousy metalic box and as you might know free or propagating waves have no zero point fluctuations. Zero point fluctuations exist only on finite, localized systems with reflective boundary conditions.

Please feel free to ask any questions.

Also could you please explain something you said about some existing non-local phenomena... I would like to learn about it.

Thanks,

MP

[ny2292000]

Dear Epsilon,

I cannot help if you cannot articulate a question. The theory is simple (relatively speaking) and you call yourself a Senior Member for some obscure reason - I don't see any place where I can qualify as such.

Just to say that you cannot find any rationalization to my theory doesn't make is less rational.

Ask a question or show me the failure in logic. I presented an argument that is an alternative explaination for action at distance in the framework of the correlated photons experiment.

Please tell me what is wrong with my answer as opposed to just making empty statements.

Cheers,

MP

ps- By the way, I posted the continuation of the theory at my site. Presently I am describing the hyperon family and representing them as dilaton chords.

"I can find no logical rationalization in your theory that simply explains observed non-local phenomena at either the Cosmic scale or quantum scale. Your explanation may be among the confused bable of undefined, pseudo terms that I was unable to coherently decipher.

You should be able to explain the gist of non-local phenomena in a simple sentence of words each of which have limited connotations . . . without referring to overweight electrons.

In a prior post you state that non-local phenomena do not exist; now you seem to attempt an explanation.

You are correct that action-at-a-distance, referring to a non-direct force, does not exist. You are wrong if you are still contending that non-local manifestations do not exist.

If only it were possible to just deny all the enigmas of observation . . ."

[Talvi Watia]

b) The theory is a geometrical representation of the Universe and thus Mass, Force etc has to have an equivalent representation. Some constructs might be not relevant to this first theory, hence they are not recreated. The theory anchors itself on Lorentz transforms on a non-compact five dimensional spacetime. This means that the metric describing this spacetime can be easily constructed by a translation -due to the hyperspherical expansion and two rotations. One around the direction perpendicular to Cosmological Time Phi and X by an angle arctanh(v/c) and another around the direction perpendicular to Radial Direction R and X by an angle arctan(v/c). This reasoning is done for simplicity starting from a preferred referential with X perpendicular to R - relaxed local spacetime - but could be done on any initial inertial frame.

I hate to rehash old posts, but I find this genius...

I have 2 questions regarding this...

a) you have Phi solved for theta(x), but what of theta(xyz)? I'm wondering how the right-hand rule might relate to this...

b) I am curious as to where you derived the radius ratio of the electron of 2000 to 1 from... Instinctively, it makes sense to me, but I am having a hard time seeing where you derived that answer.