Elementary particles as elastic deformations in space-time: spinning Planck-spheres

of temporal curvature coupled with Compton sized electric flux rings

Salvatore Gerard Micheal, Faraday Group (altphy.org), 08/NOV/2008

There are four sections to this paper: survey of literature, derivation of core parameters,
investigation of core equations, and an intuitive description. The first section has five
citations which indicate a desperate need to find an integrated semi-classical theory of
elementary particles. The second section is an exposition of the logical steps toward a
theory of that order. The third section takes a ‘deep dive’ into the equations which are
core to this theory. And the fourth section attempts to provide an intuitive approach to it.

Section One – Survey of Literature:

Presently, there is some disparate momentum in the literature to create a unified theory of
elementary particles based on an elastic-impeding theory of space-time. The purpose of
this paper is to conceptually unite that impetus. The motivation for this paper takes the
form of various texts produced for they lay-public. These texts are entirely unsatisfactory
for theoretical physicists. Ergo, the need for this paper; however, if the reader is inclined
to survey one, the most recent text can be provided electronically via email. Please
contact the author at micheals at msu dot edu. The text is called N and Ω.

The first citation comes from “The gravity of magnetic stresses and energy” by Bimonte,
Calloni, and Rosa. Page 2: “We then consider the field near a long solenoid, and we show
that the magnetically-generated gravitational field is different from zero, and as expected
it is equivalent to the newtonian field generated by a linear mass-density that is equal to
the instantaneous magnetic energy per unit length stored in the solenoid.”[italics added]
The first italicized statement shows magnetic fields can generate gravitation (the Italians
prove it theoretically but state explicitly the need for experimental verification). This is
an indicator for the need to integrate electromagnetism with gravity. The second
italicized statement highlights the need for the concept ‘per unit length’. We will return to
this later.

The second citation is from “EINSTEIN-CARTAN THEORY” by Trautman, page 7: “It

is possible that the Einstein-Cartan theory will prove to be a better classical limit of a
future quantum theory of gravitation than the theory without torsion.” This highlights the
need for an integrated theory that includes twist and spin.

The third citation comes from “On Dislocations in a Special Class of Generalized
Elasticity” by Lazar, Maugin, and Aifantis, page 26: “Unlike the nonlocal theories, where
these fields still possess singularities at the dislocation line, the quantities calculated in
the gradient theories are nonsingular. All fields calculated in the theories of gradient
elasticity or gradient micropolar elasticity have the correct limits to classical elasticity or
to micropolar elasticity.” This article indicates a local elastic theory of elementary
particles does not employ singularities. They have no place in the theory and hence this
reason for convention’s automatic rejection of semi-classical theories becomes invalid.

The fourth citation comes from “An elastoplastic theory of dislocations as a physical field
theory with torsion” by Lazar, page 27: “Obviously, the dislocation acts as the source of
an incompatible ‘gravitational’ distortion field and is its own source. Additionally, we
can say that a screw dislocation is a topological string with cylindrical symmetry in three-
dimensional gravity.” Again, this article highlights the need for an integrated theory of
elementary particles based on the elasticity of space-time. Conventional physicists may
see the article as laden with speculation. This illustrates the need for a concise theory
shown to be directly connected to physical reality.

The fifth citation comes from “On geometric discretization of elasticity” by Arash
Yavari, page 20: “A Discrete Theory of Elasticity”. This section of the text develops a
new theory of elasticity “with no reference to the continuous theory”. It’s theoretically
and practically very important because we need a rigorous connection between linear and
nonlinear elasticity. We also need a theory that is computationally feasible. Yavari’s
work provides the basis for this.

Section Two – Derivation of Core Parameters:

The simplistic theory is based on two quantities: Young’s elastic modulus of space and
linear strain of space, extension. We identify them with the symbols Y 0 and X
respectively. The following derivation comes from N and Ω, pages 20-22.

Due to expansion of the Universe, space is under tension. When a particle mutually
annihilates with its anti-counterpart, it's as if an ideal stretched string has been plucked –
two photons / e-m waves are emitted in opposite directions. Of course, space has more
qualities than just being under tension. It has permeability and permittivity.
c2 = τ0/λ0 (1) p3
wave propagation rate squared is tension reduced by mass per unit length
c2 = 1/μ0ε0 (2) p250
the speed of light squared is the inverse of permeability times permittivity
=> λ0 = τ0μ0ε0 (3)
So, a mass is an element of space (per unit length) under tension (or internal pressure)
subject to permeability and permittivity. Perceptive readers should notice (3) is a clever
rewrite of E = mc2. But it's more than that – it shows that masses are a product of the
three and only three qualities of space – elasticity, permeability, and permittivity:
τ0 = Y(Δl/l) (4) p72
tension is linearly related to extension through Young's modulus under the elastic limit
=> λ0 = Y0μ0ε0(Δl/l) (5)
(Page references are from Physics of Waves, Elmore and Heald, 1969, Dover.) .. Until
now, we have not made the 'per unit length' explicit. Let's do that and assign the Planck-
length:
λ0/lP = Y0μ0ε0(Δl/l) (6)
This is a place to start and we'll follow a similar convention when the need arises. Let's
replace lambda with the standard notation and move lP to the other side:
m0 = (Y0lP)μ0ε0(Δl/l) (7)
Multiply by unity (where tP is the Planck-time):
 m0 = (Y0lPtP)μ0ε0(Δl/ltP) (8)
Now, the first factor on the RHS is 'where we want it' (units are in joule-seconds). And,
the fact we had to 'contort' the extension by dividing it by the Planck-time should not
prove insurmountable to deal with later. Finally, let's assume the first factor is equal to
the magnitude of spin of electrons and protons, ħ/2:
m0 = (ħ/2)μ0ε0(Δl/ltP) (9)
By our last assumption, Y0 = ħ/2lPtP ≈ 6.0526*1043 N. To simplify and isolate the
extension:
m0 = (ħ/2c2)(Δl/l)(1/tP) (10)
=> (Δl/l) = (2c2tP/ħ)m0 = 2(tP/ħ)E0 (11)
So, the linear strain of space due to internal stress is directly related to rest-energy
through a Planck-measure. Later, if space allows (pun intended), we will show that (11)
reduces to an even simpler form involving only two factors. If our assumptions hold, the
numerical values for (11), for electrons and protons respectively, are approximately:
8.3700*10-23 and 1.5368*10-19.
The values are dimensionless – per the definition of linear strain. The meaning is:
'locally', space is expanded (linearly) by the fractions above (assumed in each
dimension). What exactly locally means – will have to be addressed later. The numerical
value of Y0 is extremely high as expected. All this says is: space is extremely inelastic.
The numerical values for ∆l/l will have to be investigated – perhaps as suggested in the
previous paper.

Section Three – Investigation of Core Equations:

The following text is taken directly from chapter four of N and Ω.

In this chapter, we take a deeper dive into the following table – in order to deepen our
understanding of space-time and energy:

m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm
hν ≡ h/Tγ2
((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C
Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe
ωe ≡ 10.905ωm
X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0
= 2tPωm

The purpose of this book is to show they are not just equations – that they have deep
meaning about basic structures in our universe. Anyone can scribble down a list of
equations, but it takes years of contemplation to truly understand the fabric of space-time
from scratch. What was my inspiration? In junior high, a gym teacher mentioned to me
that they thought elementary particles were confined photons. They said they could not
prove it, but they were sure it was true. This planted a seed in my mind – itching to
explain and understand. After years of paper research (at that time – no internet), I found
one man, published in Physics Essays, who seemed able to prove auto-confinement. Of
course, he is dismissed and ignored by convention. Since then, I have given up trying to
prove elementary particles are trapped photons. But over the years, in the process of
trying to prove and understand, I have discovered deeper and more fundamental
concepts/relations. Those are listed above.

The first line is Einstein’s discovery written differently. Some years ago, it was
discovered that the speed of light squared is equal to the inverse of space-permeability
times space-
m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm
hν ≡ h/Tγ2
((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C
Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe
ωe ≡ 10.905ωm
X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0
= 2tPωm

permittivity. And separately, that energy is equal to h-bar times omega, angular
frequency. Everyone agrees that h-bar is the fundamental unit of angular momentum. But
the physical meaning of omega – convention refuses to say. It’s simply the “amount of h-
bars”, a coefficient of h-bar, in particles – according to convention. So line one is
basically a rewrite of mc2 = E. What does it show? It shows that the energy in mass is
directly related to space-permeability and space-permittivity. Those two – are
components of Z0, the impedance of space.

Line two relates to Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It is a required definition to

keep things consistent in that respect. If we divide both sides by h, Planck’s constant, we
get frequency is identically equal to the inverse of period times gamma squared. Gamma
comes from special relativity and is equal to the square-root of one minus speed over
light-speed squared. It is a dimensionless fraction which typically amplifies rest values
when we divide those rest values by it. Nu, frequency, is a relativistic quantity – which
means it is amplified by speed. Period, T, is also a relativistic quantity. In fact, mass and
angular frequency, from line one, are relativistic quantities. We normally write m = m0/γ,
for instance, which means relativistic mass is rest mass divided by gamma. We omit the
term ‘relativistic’ to avoid confusion, but it is strictly required to be precise in our
statements.

Frequency is angular frequency over 2π, but convention ascribes little or no meaning to
frequency and period in this context. Normally, period is the inverse of frequency – and
this is true for many many systems. But because time slows down for speedy
crafts/particles, and because time slows down near strong gravity sources, we must
rationally explain this somehow. The causal deterministic perspective asserts they are the
same thing. In my theory, I explain them both as curved space-time. Convention assigns
no deep meaning to special relativity. Convention typically explains time dilation with a
particle bouncing between plates: at rest, it has a fixed distance of travel, frequency, and
period; at high speed, it has a longer travel path, lower frequency, and longer period. (The
direction of travel is parallel to the plates.) But this conventional perspective sheds no
light on the causal mechanism of time dilation.

Convention avoids this ‘messy situation’ (having to define the relationship between
frequency and period above) by not ascribing any physical meaning to omega, nu, and T.
h and h-bar (h-bar is h/2π) are most certainly not relativistic quantities (they don’t change
with speed). So if omega, nu, and T have any physical meaning, the ‘only room to move’
(the only quantities above that can be relativistic quantities) is in them. We know for a
fact that mass increases, energy increases, and time slows down for speedy particles. We
know for a fact that
m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm
hν ≡ h/Tγ2
((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C
Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe
ωe ≡ 10.905ωm
X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0
= 2tPωm

h, h-bar, and charge don’t change for any speed. So again, if omega, nu, and T have any
physical meaning, they must be relativistic quantities.

I propose omega-m (m for mass) is the angular spin rate of the core of elementary
particles. This is proposed to be a Planck-sphere with diameter of Planck-length. The
following is a list of Planck dimensions:
Planck-length = lP = 1.61608*10-35 m
Planck-time = tP = 5.39067*10-44 s
Planck-speed = c = lP/tP = 2.99792*108 m/s
They are conventionally considered to be absolute in the sense: nothing can be shorter
than Planck-length, no time can be shorter than Planck-time, and no speed can be greater
than c, the speed of light. Anything shorter or faster is physically meaningless.

h-bar/2 is the conventionally accepted value for spin of elementary particles. That’s why
it appears in line three above. (Actually, once you define X and C, the rest become easy
to derive.) I arrived at line three by listing and simplifying eight different ways to
describe energy. The identity symbol is really between X and C. Once you divide both
sides by h and multiply by tP, you find X ≡ 4πC. 4π is conventionally known as ‘a solid
angle’. Temporal curvature, C, through a solid angle is linear extension of space. This is a
definition.

Linear extension is defined in line two of the lower box. It follows from the standard
definitions of stress and strain in engineering. Y is the standard symbol for Young’s
modulus of elasticity. It is required for an elastic model of space. In practice, once Y is
determined, X can be calculated (and vice versa). The ‘per unit length’ must be decided
and once it is, the rest pretty much ‘flow’ from that decision; the choice of Y0 and ‘per
unit length’ determine X here.

Y is normally given in newtons. So, in deriving/defining Y0, I used that as a guide .. I feel
like I’ve pretty much lost all of you except the engineers at this point. Let me insert my
original derivation here. [Deleted for brevity – deleted text can be found above in section
two of this paper.] That concludes my original derivation of Y0 and X. It may help to read
it through several times noting the assumptions.

I could ride the fence like convention and say there is nothing inside Planck-spheres
except energy, but if we think about it very carefully – we are somewhat forced into a
position of proposing/accepting that there is structure inside. This is what I have been
avoiding for twenty-five years! :(

Twenty-five years ago, it was suggested to me to employ Planck dimensions. And I

believe I understood the danger at that time. That’s why I doggedly pursued a model with
Compton dimensions. But it simply doesn’t work with an elastic model of space.
Dimensions cannot be so large; force cannot be distributed over large areas because there
is not enough energy in e.p.s to balance that. The only model that seems to work is a
dual-sized model – Planck-size for mass and Compton size for charge.

At this very moment of writing, it occurred to me – the possibility of torii within torii.
Bergman and his staff at commonsensescience.org have developed a quasi-torus model of
electro-dynamic flux. In the process of deriving the Planck-sphere model of mass, a step
in that process was proposing an ultra-thin torus. But that torus has to be thinner than the
Planck-length for that model to work. That’s why I rejected it.

I must concede that it is possible e.p.s may be torii within torii. But there are two reasons
why I don’t subscribe to that perspective right now: mass as ultra-thin torii requires extra
assumptions about geometry – assumptions we cannot prove now. And, do you see
Bergman’s staff willing to work with me? No. So what’s the point of me trying to
integrate models when the other party refuses to collaborate? They are also currently
dismissed by convention.

I believe that model would require a similar onion-like structure within the inner torus.
(Part of my model of the core is the proposal it is an onion-like spherical standing wave
of temporal curvature.) Except that it would have to be torii within torii. Until this
geometry can be proven to me and Bergman’s staff becomes willing to work with me, I
will defer accepting this model. The simpler model is sphere within torus.

m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm
hν ≡ h/Tγ2
((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C
 Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe
ωe ≡ 10.905ωm
X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0
= 2tPωm

I suppose we are ready to study the fourth line in the core equation table. Originally, there
was not an equal sign. The approximation comes from my discovery ħ ≈ Z 0e2. For about
fifteen years, I have stared at that ‘≈’ – trying to understand it. The factor that makes
equality is 10.905 on the right side. But every time I would try to explain/understand it,
required additional assumptions. In order to write and publish this book, I’m required to
‘take a stand’. To me, it’s better to take a stand and be wrong than ride the fence for
eternity. At least you have a chance for progress. Riding the fence does not.

m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm
hν ≡ h/Tγ2
((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C
Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe
ωe ≡ 10.905ωm
X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0
= 2tPωm

Can 10.905 be absorbed into any term on left or right? If on the left, we must modify
definitions of elasticity or extension (and justify it). On the right, we basically only have
two choices: Z0e2 and omega. If we choose the former, we are implicitly choosing some
geometry. If we choose omega, we must understand the consequences and any associated
assumptions.

If electric flux is a spinning ring with outer dimension of Compton diameter (h = mcλC,
where lambda-C is Compton wavelength), and if ωe = 10.905ωm, then tangential speed is
10.905c which is impossible – or is it? There are only two choices at this point: allow
flux speeds greater than c or change dimensions. Since allowing speeds greater than c
tends to throw a ‘monkey wrench’ into things, we’ll go with the latter. Let’s tentatively
change the outer dimension of the flux ring to λC/10.905. That way, the tangential speed
is exactly light-speed which agrees with the Bergman model.

Why do I bother to conform my model to Bergman’s? Again, it’s because in all my

searches, I have found only one complete deterministic model of elementary particles
which seems to make any sense .. A member of the Faraday Group, of which I am the
founder, worked on this model independently a decade or so earlier than Bergman’s
seminal paper. But I won’t give his name here to help readers discover this for
themselves.
The following are websites for Faraday Group:
unc.edu/~gravity/
msu.edu/~micheals/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/faraday_group/
Please join and contribute if you are so inclined. The group is “an association of
physicists and those interested in physics”. They are most definitely NOT working on
unifying my model with anything else; everybody’s working on their own thing. For
current updates of this theory, please visit:
https://www.msu.edu/~micheal/physics/

The reason I organized the table above – the way it is – is for the following reason.
Everything in the top box is actually the same thing; they are all equal to energy – they
are eight different ways of looking at energy! Mass has spin; it has frequency; it has
period; it is curvature; it is extension; it is spinning flux.

The fact we can look at energy (at least) eight different ways is not a testament to human
ingenuity and insight – it’s a statement about the elegance of our universe. Our universe
is a beautiful and wonder-full place. Just look up on a clear night.

Section Four – An Intuitive Description:

The following text is taken directly from chapter five of N and Ω.

True understanding does not come from regurgitation of facts; it comes from
internalizing concepts. It took me years to understand the electromagnetic wave, the
photon. And I still cannot bridge the gap between photons and e.p.s if they are indeed the
same thing. My original proposal was that radiation propagates through space by
changing form: from electromagnetic to gravitational and back.. In gravitational form, the
wave is much like a 3D soliton. The e-m part is well understood by engineers. In my
searches on the net, I could find only one other who developed a similar model of
photons. But as I mentioned before, focusing on a trapped-photon model of e.p.s is a
‘dead end’; physicists will auto-reject that idea faster than you can say “reject”. It’s better
to focus on a model with the minimum number of assumptions. That way, there’s at least
a small chance for consideration.

I visualize the core with layers – much like an onion. In a way, we must ascribe some
structure to the inside – or there is no way to differentiate between protons and electrons.
Electrically, there is no difference between a positron and proton; there is no electrical
difference between an electron and antiproton. The difference is about mass. If we can
accept that masses are spherical standing waves of temporal curvature, then the
difference between masses is simply a difference in wave number inside the sphere. The
real (next) question becomes: why are there only two stable (forms of) elementary
particles? (Why are there only two stable wave numbers inside the sphere?) If I could
answer that, to the satisfaction of convention, I would have the Nobel Prize.

For me, a more important question is about the physical link between core and ring of
flux. At this point, I can only speculate. If the core was distributed as a torus within a
torus, the physical connection between core and ring of flux would be easier to visualize:
one would be part of the other. Unless the core generates the ring of flux (or vice versa), I
see no other way to comprehend it (if the true situation is sphere within torus). The
differing spin rates is somewhat alarming. It would seem to make the physical connection
somewhat tenuous. I would expect the outer rate to be less than inner – if outer ‘dragged’
inner .. As you can see, even I – the theory’s discoverer, have trouble comprehending it.

From the core equations, spinning flux is an equal expression for energy of elementary
particles. It is just as important as core energy. For e.p.s, they are inseparable. Whether
the core is a torus or sphere, its spin rate is less than that of the flux ring. It must ‘drag’
the flux ring in a way. Or else spin rates would be the same. So imagine an elementary
particle as a new couple: the flux ring is the vibrant and energetic new bride; the core is
her dull and boring new husband. He drags his feet; he slouches (boy, does this sound
familiar;). He acts as if space impedes his way ;). His bride zips around – she moves at
the speed of light. All he can do to ‘keep up with her’ is spin around himself – watching
her. But he can’t; space impedes his very spin.

Of course, I don’t imagine e.p.s as ice skating newlyweds (maybe an old married couple
– hobbling around;). The problem with trying to visualize the system is that we don’t
have good macroscopic analogies for the electromagnetic field. We don’t have good
macroscopic analogies for charge flux. It’s difficult to connect to the model viscerally
when we don’t have everyday experiences to connect to it.

If e.p.s are torii within torii, imagine them as donuts within donuts. The inner donut is
very very thin and resides in the center – inside the flux-outer donut. Inside the very very
thin inner donut – it has layers and layers. Now imagine them spinning. But the spin rates
are different. The inner donut lags behind the outer donut. Its spin is impeded somehow.

Just today in a dream, an elderly black man asked me a kind of ‘trick question’: “A
building is falling off a cliff. What holds it up?” I replied “Gimme a minute; I need to
think about this.” Then he said “You’re supposed to answer these on the fly.” I heard him
talking to another guy about more questions – something about complex numbers. (If you
and I have the same amount of imaginary numbers, what do we have? Answer: the same
complex number.) And then I realized what he was looking for: “Oh I know what it is!”
(He raised an eyebrow toward me.) “Inertia! Inertia holds the building up!”

What keeps e.p.s spinning? Inertia. What keeps the disk drive inside your computer
spinning? (other than the motor to overcome friction and accelerate the disk initially)
Inertia. Inertia is the quality of matter that resists acceleration (whether it be linear or
angular). The deep question that ‘no one’ has been able to answer: what causes inertia?
No one is in quotes because many have tried to answer that question – just no one has
succeeded to satisfy convention with their answer. Some time ago, I explained inertia as
the smeared extension. But if we think about mass as confined temporal curvature,
inertia is simply the lack of energy to add or take away from the core. Accelerating a
mass adds relativistic energy to the core; decelerating a mass takes away. A particle at
rest has a fixed minimum amount of energy in the core.

What could be more elegant than that? Convention’s resistance to positive change is like
the inertia inside a baby – refusing to grow up .. One of my theories of personality is
about ‘emotional inertia’. When something makes us angry, really angry, it takes time to
cool down. When we love, truly love, it’s usually for a long time. Our emotions have a
kind of inertia. Of course, I’ve watched my baby change from crying to laughing in a
blink of an eye, but adults rarely do this. I believe the concept of inertia is important not
just to physics and engineering .. It could be said that the field of physics is all the
teachers, students, and researchers that care about physics. Their collective belief system
is important to the field. Their resistance to change, their ‘philosophical inertia’, is
important: if a new idea is wrong, take time to confirm it – and reject it; if a new idea is
right, take time to confirm it – and accept it. The central problem with accepting my ideas
is not the lack of math-lattice supporting them; it’s the fundamental disagreement in
approach. Convention has accepted the random-wave model of matter. It uses reduction
to break a problem into parts – then tries to solve them separately. Because of my training
in systems, I have a holistic approach to solving problems. Sometimes, problems are so
complex, you need the systems approach to solve them. In my book on systems, I define
complexity to be “the property of a system with the following features: a generous
frequency of distinct types of components, a non-trivial arrangement of those components
– in order for the system to function nominally, and some quantitative evidence of a
system-wide synergy.” Now strictly speaking, e.p.s are not complex structures, but their
behavior inside atoms and molecules suggests we need the systems approach to
understand them.

Convention cannot accept my ideas because it cannot integrate them into the current
framework – ideas clash. I’m not asking them to discard reduction – just amplify it with
the systems approach. But I am asking them to take a hard long look at the random-wave
concept, compare it to the elegance of temporal curvature, and decide. If they decide to
keep random-wave, that’s their business – their problem. They will find more and more
compelling evidence against it (such as exact atomic control – we can do it now).
Uncertainty in physics is becoming a relic of the past (the uncertainty relations used to
hold prime importance in physics).

When I was in university, it was my conviction that problem solving is a matter of

perspective: achieve the right perspective, the problem ‘solves itself’. What this means in
practice is: reformulate the problem in a clever way and the solution usually becomes
obvious. The book called Heuristics confirms this. It’s an excellent resource for problem
solving. I haven’t finished reading it; it’s very ‘heavy’ mathematically. The first two or
three chapters can be digested by science students; try it.

After years of conventional problem solving, I’m convinced the systems approach is
absolutely required for some types of problems: space systems engineering (in order to
avoid the Shuttle type disasters), human systems engineering (on a global scale such as
suggested by my book Humanity Thrive!), and ‘microscopic’ systems analysis. In the
first two cases, we are designing systems. In the last case, we are trying to understand it.
Microscopic is in quotes because the systems we are trying to understand are much
smaller than what’s viewable with a microscope. That’s part of the problem. We cannot
view them directly. We can only infer properties from various kinds of experiments. The
only technique that has any chance of viewing them directly is electron interferometry.
And that technique is currently in dispute .. So, a chapter on the systems approach is
advisable here.

Salvatore Gerard Micheal, Faraday Group (altphy.org), 08/NOV/2008

Salvatore Gerard Micheal, Faraday Group (altphy.org), 10/NOV/2008

List of assumptions for EDST (elastic deformations in space-time) model of elementary

particles (not necessarily ranked in order of importance):
1. the cores of e.p.s are Planck dimensions constrained objects
2. the cores are comprised of spherical standing waves of temporal curvature
3. internal energy density is balanced with external pressure; external pressure is
caused by the extreme inelasticity of space, Y0 ≈ 1044 N / 1022 N
4. e.p.s are dual structures: twisted cores of temporal curvature coupled with
Compton-sized spinning electric flux rings
5. the distributed nature of the flux rings causes self-interference phenomena
6. the geometry above and the two qualities of space-time, Y0 and Z0, are minimally
sufficient to describe e.p.s and their interactions
7. the strong force and gravitation are essentially the same thing – caused by residual
extension of curvature beyond the core
8. geometry explains instability such as with 8Be
The purpose of developing EDST is two-fold: to extricate/excavate physics from its self-
made prison/tomb consisting of an agglomeration of arcane math, untestable concepts,
illucid ideas, and a general avoidance of the scientific principle: propose, test, revise /
start over – and – provide a view of nature that is consistent, elegant, and verifiable.

The elegant nature of the model is exemplified by these two revelations: an explanation
of inertia and view of matter. Inertia is simply the lack of relativistic energy to add or
take away from a core at rest. View of matter: there are only two things in our universe:
space-time and energy. Life is a functional arrangement of these two things.

Immediate problems with the model: the dual-structure has dual-spin: ωe = 10.905ωm.
How? Why? Is it a result of how we measure spin? The core equations of the theory were
derived using the concepts of linear elasticity and the ‘ideal stretched string’. The value
for Y0 above has two values because of that and assumption 3 above. Derive Y0 based on
the former, you get the first value. Derive Y0 based on point 3, the second. Consequences
of this are: extension/strain increases drastically from mere fractions to 1/6 – and –
electrons and protons have different radii (as opposed to the former model which asserts
both have Planck diameter).

Decisive tests: a decisive test was designed about the corollary premise that e.p.s are
mini-dynamical systems which are disturbable. It is possible convention could dismiss
this test with the path-integral approach to QM. But since there are eight assumptions
above, there should be many decisive tests which can be designed. Dear reader, please
help.

Salvatore Gerard Micheal, micheals at msu dot edu

A Frightening Full Circle

14/FEB/2009

What’s scary is that these ideas have a way of taking on a life of their own and ‘revisit
you in the middle of the night’ bringing all kinds of startling revelations.. Echoes of A
Christmas Carol reverberate in my mind.. Which ghost is this? I pray it is the ghost of
‘things to come’..

Let me back up a bit. Some years ago, I had approached the TEW (transverse
electromagnetic wave), the engineering view of the photon, from the Poynting
perspective. (The Poynting vector deals with energy flow and is defined as ExH, the
vector cross product between electric and magnetic fields.) The real question is: where in
the heck is the energy when both are zero magnitude??? Has to be somewhere.. Engineers
don’t care because they call the TEW ‘self-propagating’. Physicists don’t care if you
bring up impedance (the impedance of space). So I was ignored by both camps.

I had speculated that energy was forced into space-time curvature and then back to
electromagnetic field (ad infinitum). Some others had proposed the same idea at that
time.. Nothing came of it.. All of us were ignored by both camps.. Until now.

What’s scary is not the ghost revisiting. What’s scary is that it is ‘finally coming
together’ almost of its own volition. When we focus on time, we get some startling
results. Time appears to be the central feature of unification. It is also the ‘elusive demon’
which refuses to ‘stay in one place’ to be identified exactly. It keeps changing character
(in a theoretical sense) and evades my concentration.. Until now.

You are witness to the birth of a ‘demon’ which will unify physics and simultaneously
bring down the assumptions of the Standard Model. It’s very scary.

Previously, I have developed a theory of gravitation and strong force which is based on
‘distributed temporal curvature’ exclusively. We don’t need gravitons, gluons, or virtual
exchange to explain gravitation and the strong force. We don’t even need spatial
curvature. Now, as implied above, physicists are repulsed/revolted by any mention of the
word impedance. It’s artificial to them. Engineers use it everyday, but physicists are
abhorrent toward it. Largely, it’s due to the historical rejection of the aether which
suspiciously has attributes similar to impedance. But I assure physicists: impedance and
the aether are two very different things. Ask any practicing engineer.

Now this is where it gets scary..

I occasionally take showers because I get pressure from family members (from the stink
of my greasy body) and because it becomes acutely uncomfortable after an extended
period (two days in a semi-tropical area is sufficient). During my shower today, I was
considering a post to the ‘complexQM’ yahoo group. Alex is the wonderful moderator
there. My post was about the possibility of time being complex (as in complex numbers).
I happen to Love complex analysis because it has such engineering potential and because
it simply is Fun. :) But today a demon was born in the shower..

It was frightening.. I had the graciousness to smile at his birth. He’s a very clever demon.
The ‘demon’ is this: since I was able to unify gravitation with strong force via temporal
curvature, the idea suggested itself: what about impedance? It doesn’t really matter where
you assign impedance, as long as you assign it somewhere.. Impedance is a fact of our
existence/universe. The fact gravitation and strong force can be modeled exclusively by
distributed temporal curvature suggests impedance could similarly be maintained.

Impedance is the summary characteristic of ‘electromagnetic’ media/materials (including

space). It includes permeability and permittivity (magnetic and electric components
respectively). In phasor analysis (frequency analysis in electric circuits), there is a ‘real
part’ and an ‘imaginary part’ (the so-called ‘imaginary part’ is just as real as the ‘real
part’ – we call the real part resistive and the imaginary part reactive). It simplifies
frequency domain analysis of electric circuits. Don’t let this terminology confuse you or
distract you from the point of this essay. These concepts are used daily by engineers as
part of circuit analysis and design.

Again, it doesn’t matter where you assign impedance – as long as it is somewhere

embedded in the model of our universe. We know that our universe is fundamentally
Euclidean (the simplest dimensional structure). Einstein ‘changed all that’ based on his
general relativity. He assumed (wrongly) that space-time must curve to explain
gravitation. His wrong assumption was: all of space-time must curve in gravitation. I
have since ‘built on’ and simultaneously dismissed his theory.. My ideas are based on his
incorrect assumptions, true. But I have learned that Occam’s Razor has more usefulness
than simply a ‘utility knife’. ;) If you can follow that, you understand that my ideas are
not truthfully based on Einstein’s.. They are a correction of them.

The ‘scary demon’ is this: time can curve; time can hold energy; and time may have
impedance. Time may be the summary characteristic that unifies theoretical physics.
Very scary but maybe true..

[The previous was sent as an email with subject: a new demon is born: the impedance of
time to various recipients including NPA, complexQM, Astrosciences, and extropy-chat.]
The Case for Complex Time

It’s not my pleasure to continually ‘stomp on’ the Standard Model .. People ask for it
with arrogance, ego, and continual dismissal of my ideas.. Let’s examine the case for
complex time (time based on imaginary numbers). “Imaginary time is a concept derived
from quantum mechanics and is essential in connecting quantum mechanics with
statistical mechanics.” from Wikipedia’s imaginary time. It continues: “Imaginary time is
also used in cosmology .. The concept is useful in cosmology because it can help smooth
out gravitational singularities in models of the universe..” “To make sense of this
mathematically we have to use Minkowski space-time rather than Euclidean space. In
Minkowski space-time, time appears as an imaginary form of space and enters the
equation as ict where i equals the square root of minus one and we have to multiply
temporal separations t, by c, lightspeed, the enormous ratio of space to time to put them
both on the same scale. Then by a simple extension of Pythagorean geometry the
separation between any two points in space-time appears as the square root of the spatial
separation squared plus the square of ict. As a result, large spatial separations with small
temporal separations appear as slightly reduced real spatial separations, whilst large
temporal separations with small spatial separations appear as imaginary 'distances'. This
seems a reasonable formulation when you consider that you cannot walk 'to' next
Tuesday.” from http://specularium.org

Now, the article above continues to ‘make a case’ for three time dimensions – not just
one or two. This becomes a ‘little’ mind boggling and I suggest employing Occam’s
Razor before ‘things get outa hand’. The whole purpose of extending time to include
impedance is the fact ‘space has impedance’. Impedance is represented by a complex
number and so has two coefficients (one for real and one for imaginary components). In
addition, complex numbers are sometimes more conveniently represented in polar form
which is: reiθ where r is magnitude and θ is the angle in the complex plane. The Euler
identity shows the relationships between polar and rectangular forms. Now again, ‘the
impedance of space’ is assumed to be isotropic. But when differing impedances are
encountered in different media, it affects energy propagation. Of course, if there is a
boundary involved, boundary effects propagate. I do not pretend to be able to explicitly
describe how optics relates to impedance, but I assure you – it can be done
deterministically. There is no need for virtual particles, virtual exchange, and any such
nonsense. Also, non-locality is not required. This may be an ‘intrinsic feature’ of
complex time. That needs to be worked out.

So I am approaching complex time from ‘the other way’ (the rational reasonable
engineering approach toward unification). I am not approaching it as a requirement to
bridge quantum with statistical mechanics and solve problems in cosmology. I see it as a
way to encode impedance in the structure of space-time. It’s a convenient and elegant
unification approach.

The implications still need to be ‘worked out’. As suggested above and in an article cited
above, there may be convenient implications that produce observed phenomena such as:
double-slit/self-interference, non-locality, and perhaps others.. Let me take a moment to
plug my father’s artwork. He’s a neglected author who will probably be known for his oil
portraits/paintings. Please allow me to suggest a new name for this space. Let it be named
the Micheal space-time for my father that includes 3 Euclidean dimensions, one fully
complex time dimension: Zt, and one final dimension to measure/represent temporal
curvature (this is normalized, c=1): (x, y, z, Zt, C) where these are listed in somewhat
standard Cartesian notation and C again here is temporal curvature. Do not confuse little
z which is a Cartesian dimension with big Z which is an arbitrary complex number
denoting impedance. Truthfully, you cannot get much simpler than that and still ‘tie it all
together’.

Braneless Higgsless Models

Did you read that right? Or did you read Brainless Hipless Models? No, this is not about
fashion models. This essay is about unification physics. Branes are usually associated
with multiple dimensions. They are extensions or multidimensional analogues of strings.
‘Unfortunately’, this essay is not about brainless models. It is about braneless models
(models without branes). It is about Higgsless models (models without Higgs bosons).
Models with Higgs (as models without hips) have become standard in the industry. But
unfortunately, these usually require multiple dimensions (as these models require ‘extra
dimensions’ to make things ‘fit’;). It sounds much like fashion modeling and perhaps it
is. Modern physics has become faddish and has been drawn ‘down a road which leads
nowhere’. Multidimensions are both faddish and fantasy. Branes are both faddish and
fantasy. Unfortunately, strings, superstrings, and supersymmetry are all fads and fantasy.

Some years ago, I was a string theory advocate just as I advocated the LHC (Large
Hadron Collider). String theory seemed to ‘tie it all together’ (forgive the pun). But soon
we realized superstrings required multiple dimensions and we joined a ‘wild goose
chase’, ‘running a rabbit’, or whatever colorful metaphor you wish to employ. We were
chasing something that didn’t exist.. Namely, the Higgs. That’s what the LHC is all
about. That’s why I chose to ‘deadvocate’ it. There are other projects much more
deserving, ITER for one. That’s the international fusion prototype. Look it up; your tax
dollars are much better spent there.

Just today, after many years of educating my family about systems and physics concepts,
my father proclaimed “That’s crazy! That’s a copout!” after I taught him what virtual
particles, non-locality, and conventional acceptance of them entailed. He could not
believe his ears. He could not believe that convention could swallow, hook, line, and
sinker, such ridiculous concepts. I professed “They have no alternative..” and indeed they
do not – within convention. It’s sadly unfortunate that I don’t belong to convention, am
dismissed by convention, am basically ignored..

We don’t need to write an expose of the ‘why’ I don’t belong. It simply is. Think of me
as a ‘black sheep’ among wolves. I look like a wolf, but I don’t act like one. I most
certainly don’t act like a sheep. So, they can’t decide to: eat me, ignore me, or what? The
‘wolves’ are the rest of the physics community. The ‘white sheep’ surrounding us – is
you. (Please forgive the analogy.) You don’t realize it, but the wolves prey on you and
your complacency. You assume the wolves know what they’re doing because after all:
they’re the hunters surrounding your civilization, are they not? They use jargon and math
you cannot understand. They confuse you and eek out your tax dollars (or perhaps grab
your entire wallets in the case of the LHC). They demand your adoration and respect.. All
the while, reaching behind you towards your wallet. Are you going to let them ‘pull the
wool over your eyes’? Are you going to let them take your hard earned tax dollars?

Please consider not. Please try to read the following two essays. The first is a quick
survey of Higgs alternatives. The second is a petition for engineers, technicians, and
advocates against Higgs bosons, models that include them, and models that include
virtual particles or non-locality. (In other words, against the conventional ‘physics
fantasy’ currently employed.)

Higgsless Models Become More Attractive

GeV ranges for allowable Higgs:

Theory:
Supersymmetry models predict: 120-1000
Corrections approach of SM: 129-285
Experiment:
Fermilab: 170+
LHC: -1000+

So Fermilab has already excluded the lower range of

allowable Higgs. This is significant. The higher experiment
‘pushes the range’, the less likely theory is correct. This
means Higgsless models become more attractive. (Source of
above data: Wikipedia, Higgs boson.)

Alternatives to Higgs:
Strongly interacting dynamics:
Technicolor models
Abbott-Farhi models
Top quark condensate
Higgsless models:
Moose models
Z0+TC-VP-NL

The first set of alternatives is listed on the same source

as above. The second set (first item) is from “Higgsless
Models”, p407-427 of a Workshop on CP Studies.. by CERN
published in ’06. The last alternative is ‘my baby’:
impedance of space plus temporal curvature minus virtual
particles minus non-locality. It is important to note: QFT
contains QPT implies VP: quantum field theory contains
quantum perturbation theory implies virtual particles.
(Source: Wikipedia, Virtual particle.)

So the burden becomes: provide viable alternatives to VP

and NL. Quantum chemistry provides a practical alternative:
density functional theory. When implemented on computers,
this approach satisfies both deficits. Multi-state systems
and atom-atom interaction can be simulated with arbitrarily
high precision. My proposal is that density functions
represent space-time-averages of electron distributions. As
was the problem from QM inception, we cannot observe
individual electrons because any observation disturbs them.
Also, individual electrons possess unknowable
characteristics that can affect behavior. I propose an
alternative to the SM electron: a non-local entity capable
of sensing its ‘life-path’ environment. Viable alternative:
a stable mini-dynamical system with an extended component
that appears to cause self-interference. Also, symmetrical
decay processes appear to exhibit non-locality. This is a
fully deterministic and local theory without the need for
virtual particles.

The Case for an Engineering Approach Toward Unification

10/FEB/2009

Engineers must be practical otherwise customers will not buy their products and services.
We are trained to be practical both by universities and experience. Our equations and
models might not be the most elegant, but they work. They have to work from necessity.
As physics is the core science, so systems theory is our core discipline. Systems
integrates concepts across disciplines from electrical to pneumatic to mechanical. Control
and linear systems theory play important roles in this. But so does the principle called the
systems approach. It is essentially a set of four perspectives which may have to be
invoked iteratively, recursively, or both: boundary, feasibility, reliability, and
maintenance. It is a holistic principle, but it is more. It recognizes that brute reduction
does not always work alone. It is an attempt to discover the synthesis in systems which
produces more than the sum of the parts. It is an engineering attempt to utilize our
creativity, intuition, insight, and inspiration to develop robust designs.

Typically, engineers and technicians work for physicists in creating machines such as the
LHC (Large Hadron Collider). Incidentally, that machine may be the most expensive
from human history. We appreciate the work and confidence you have in us. And in
reality, we find the following essay most distasteful in practice. We regret to say that you
may be ‘running a rabbit’ (chasing something that may not exist). The Higgs boson may
not exist. In addition, the application of reduction so ubiquitously, such as with forces
and virtual exchange, has caused physics to become sidetracked and lost in a forest of
misapplied concepts and assumptions. Specifically, the concepts of virtual exchange,
virtual particles, and non-locality have dragged the physics community down a path of
confusion, wastefulness, and downright delusion.

We, as engineers, don’t know what a magnetic field is – but we certainly know how one
behaves – and we certainly know it is not made of virtual photons. The magnetic field is
real. To us, there is no such thing as virtual anything. The concept is an intellectual crutch
for ignorance. To state otherwise is deception. We agree it may be a clever intellectual
crutch, but a crutch is a crutch. Again, we are forced to be practical. We use the concept
of impedance to denote the summary characteristic of media that determines its
permeability and permittivity. It is not artificial. It is a practical concern. We cannot
design RF circuits without considering impedance. Impedance is a fact of our practice
and practicality. Further, we recognize a factor called the impedance of space, denoted
Z0. This is a kind of base value, substrate, or baseline for all others. All permeabilities are
gauged with respect to the permeability of space. All permittivities are gauged with
respect to the permittivity of space. Therefore, all impedances are gauged with respect to
the impedance of space. The impedance of space holds prime importance in engineering.
It is a basic quality of space with the same importance as dimensionality. To insist
otherwise is to deny reality.

We recognize that Occam’s Razor is a fundamental principle in science. Nature does not
have to obey it, but we should. It states that: all things being equal, the theory with the
least number of assumptions (the simplest theory) tends to be the correct one. It is the
intellectual knife of science to cut away ‘fatty theories’ (fat being the theories with
excessive assumptions). We employ it in this essay.

Let us restate the basic/core assumptions of convention (the Standard Model):

quantum self-interference is caused by non-locality
multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that
forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying particles

Let us state some plausible alternative assumptions more in line with engineering
principles and determinism:
quantum self-interference is caused by extended portions of the standing waves
comprising elementary particles
multi-state atoms/nuclei are actually different representations (distinct instances) of
possible equivalent energy states
there are two distinct forces in our universe: electromagnetic and another ‘mediated’ by
temporal curvature

Before we compare assumptions, allow me to discuss temporal curvature. Please allow

me to copy-paste a section from a previous paper that was ‘less formal’ about the same
subjects.

What is my explanation of the ‘weak force’? To me, there are three things that define a
nucleus: vibration, rotation, and geometry/arrangement. What tends to rip/push apart a
nucleus: electrostatic repulsion between protons. The only reason protons can ‘live’ near
each other in such close proximity are because of the ‘adhesive force’ from neutrons and
the three nuclear characteristics listed above. We don’t know when an unstable nucleus
formed; we don’t know its geometry; we don’t know its rotation or vibration; we know
nothing about internal characteristics of any particular nucleus. Therefore, it could decay
at seemingly random intervals determined by: when it was formed and the three
unknowable nuclear characteristics. To me, the ‘weak force’ is not a force – it is simply
electrostatic repulsion combined with the four unknowable nuclear characteristics.

So, in a sense, I have just unified electromagnetism (in my own way) with the ‘weak
force’. Step one .. Now we will unify the ‘strong force’ with gravity. I contend the strong
force is not mediated by gluons. That’s an unnecessary artifice. The strong force is what I
call: ‘near field’ temporal curvature. And gravitation is ‘far field’ temporal curvature. In
the process of investigating ‘my model’ of elementary particles, I have discovered that
gravitation can be modeled and described by ‘distributed temporal curvature’. We don’t
actually need space-curvature to explain gravity. So this is why I said GR was a step in
the right direction. The bottom line here is that distributed curvature ONLY IN TIME is
sufficient to FULLY DESCRIBE gravitation. Again, virtual exchange of particles is not
required. It’s unnecessary. Temporal curvature is minimally sufficient to explain ‘strong
force’ and gravitation. Of course, you need a function (math description) to describe the
exact radial curvature with respect to a proton/electron. Many conventionalists would
balk at this point: “That’s artificial! That’s more assumptions!”, but I contend – less than
theirs.

At this point, we have unified ‘electro-weak’ and ‘strong-gravity’. Can we go further? I

contend they are fundamentally different and so – we cannot. Electro-weak is based on
electromagnetism. Strong-gravity is based on temporal curvature. They are
fundamentally different things. Is there some energy level where they appear the same?
That’s like saying: you’re juggling apples and oranges – the faster you juggle them – the
more they appear like a blur of apples and oranges. But that does not change the fact they
are DISTINCT and very DIFFERENT fruit.

As far as requirements to ‘stretch the imagination’, isn’t 5 better than 11 dimensions?

One universe vs many? Temporal curvature and photons vs 5 virtual particles? Instances
of equal-energy states vs multi-state systems? Extended waves vs non-local particles?
The latter requires you to stretch and Stretch and STRETCH your imagination beyond
rationality. The problem with ‘physics of today’ is not just reduction and fantasy – but
‘back patting’ and reward for promulgating the status quo. As long as you reinforce
convention, your ‘research’ will be rewarded with either money, accolades, or status (or
all 3). That’s why I will never be funded, praised, or recognized for proclaiming the truth
– I threaten the illegitimacy of conventional physics.

That ends my copy-paste from the previous paper. Of course, there are deeper
assumptions hidden within both sets of three above. The paragraph just above attempts to
address those. Convention knows better than I the full account of assumptions and
parameters associated with the Standard Model. The assumptions and general
specifications of parameters associated with this engineering model are listed above.
There is one however that is not: hyper-time. It is the quality of space-time which must
exist for this model to be real.

This engineering model of our universe is assumed to be sufficient to describe elementary

particles and their interactions. It is based on: 3 dimensional Euclidean space, the
impedance of space, temporal curvature, and hyper-time (which allows temporal
curvature). If this model is correct, we live in an exceedingly simple and elegant universe
where elementary particles are dual manifestations of energy residing in an extended
‘electromagnetic wave packet’ and localized temporal curvature.

We, the undersigned, representing the engineering community, challenge the physics
community to an ‘intellectual duel’: develop a simpler, more concise, more elegant, and
more realistic model of our universe. We appreciate the business and confidence
associated with projects such as the LHC, but we feel resources are better spent on
projects more aligned with reality and needs of humanity.

Letter to David de Hilster:

Dear David,

I want to support your cause, but at the moment – I have no job, no income, and no
assets. :( I was about to fill out the non-disclosure agreement but .. I have no funds to
allocate/promise. :(

But :) I DID write a special essay that relates directly to your documentary. I will include
it with this cover letter. My language gets ‘foul’ at certain points so prepare yourself. I do
not mince words – I’m so TIRED of doing that.. I’m so tired of ‘tiptoeing around egos’
for what??? Do they care about my feelings???

I agree with your basic premise – to show how idiotic conventional physics has become.
But, I have some important points I disagree with here (in this cover). True, Einstein is
‘the star’ / the messiah / the savior / the 2nd Newton of modern physics and so I
understand why you ‘go after him’. But.. I personally think his ideas have merit
(especially GR and SR – as you will see in my essay). There are reasons I support some
of his ideas. They are steps toward a rational and deterministic unification in physics.

I know it makes good ‘airplay’ to go after Einstein but the real culprits are: Feynman and
the Standard Model (which I ‘go after’ in my essay). I understand ‘going after’ the
Standard Model does not get much attention (like going after Einstein) .. It is rather
boring compared to ‘bringing down the star of physics’. But it has benefits (as you will
see if you read the essay). Going after the Standard Model includes going after things like
the LHC which is probably the most expensive single machine humanity has ever built.
But it is a FRAUD.
Long ago, I actually supported construction on the LHC. I supported it because ‘physics
is physics’ and I supported any research into physics. But later – I found out the true
purpose of the machine and realized – the money could be better spent elsewhere.. Hell,
they could have built two or three fusion prototypes for the price-tag of the LHC. :(

So where are we now? What will they DO with the LHC after they DON’T discover the
Higgs??? Weapon? Try in vain to find some short-lived particles??? What a freaking
waste. :(

I LOVE discovery. I LOVE investment in science/future. But.. The LHC seems more like
convention trying to justify idiotic theories – more than anything else. :( It breaks my
heart how many lives / brilliant minds / dollar-resources were WASTED on it.. Please
God – help us spend our dollars more wisely in the future. Please help us reveal Truth.

Hyper-time
Machine Consciousness
and the Systems Approach
salvatore gerard micheal

Preface

What do time, consciousness, and the systems approach have in common? Is this essay
about some unified theory of consciousness and physics? NO. And I do not endorse such
theories. This essay, as my previous publications, relies on the core (and presently
neglected) concept in science called Occam’s Razor. That is basically an intellectual
knife with the purpose to cut away theories with excessive assumptions. But you need
more than Occam’s Razor to ‘do’ good science. It requires creativity, inspiration, and
insight. Now, we may never understand these qualities, but thank God – we have them.
And yes – I believe in God. I do so NOT out of insecurity or need – but because I happen
to see the ‘signature of God everywhere’ I look. Am I projecting this ‘wishful thinking’
onto our universe? I don’t think so. It’s there. You just need to know where to look and
HOW to look. But this essay is not about God’s signature; this essay is about using
Occam’s Razor, human creativity, inspiration, insight, and the systems approach to
ATTACK two problems we have faced for about 100 years. Those two fascinating
problems are: machine consciousness and ‘four forces unification’ in physics. Many will
proclaim me insane or fringe because I threaten their livelihood or ego or both. But I do
more than that: I proclaim ‘modern physicists’ are FRAUDS. And ‘computer scientists’
are no better: EGOMANIACS.

If you say “Those are fightin’ words”, you’d be absolutely correct. I challenge both
physicists and computer scientists to an ‘intellectual duel’. I challenge both of them to
produce a simpler, more elegant, more concise, more explanatory, more realistic, and
more ‘common sensical’ theory of consciousness and force-unification. Again, my ideas
are not based on fringe or insane concepts – THEY ARE BASED ON SOUND, TRIED
AND TRUE, ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES. What is the systems
approach? I will teach you. Open this paper. Let us begin.
My Qualifications

No, I do not have a PhD in physics. No, I do not have a doctorate in computer science.
But what I DO have is more valuable than both: mentors. Who were my mentors? Many:
Rudy Rucker, Socrates, Da Vinci,.. Need I go on? Do I claim those people were actually
my personal mentors? Obviously a gnat could comprehend this: NO.

I happen to have some formal education which makes me more than qualified to
comprehend the enormity of ‘my two chosen’ problems: BS in probability and statistics
with dual major in psychology, approximately half an MS in systems science, and many
graduate coursework in other engineering areas. I have taken and passed coursework on
quantum chemistry – so I understand the principles and concepts behind modern quantum
mechanics. I also understand the inadequacies and ‘concepts clash’ of various parts of the
Standard Model (this is the conventional hodge-podge of theories, ‘experimental
evidence’, ideas, concepts, and math that comprise the accepted paradigm in physics).

A note about ‘the messenger’ (me): I’m not God, I don’t claim to have God’s vision, I’m
not the reincarnation of Einstein (although he was another mentor of mine), I’m not some
egomaniac touting impossible theories or ideas,.. My name is Sam Micheal. My parents
are retired teachers. But that does not define them – JUST AS MY QUALIFICATIONS
DO NOT DEFINE/LIMIT ME.

The best of ‘me’ is not me: my son’s name is Arthur, my wife’s name is Yui,.. They are
the light of my life. They give me reason to live. They are so full of life and joy. If you
met them, I would have to fight you for them – for you would want them. I have never
met two more enchanting people than Arthur and Yui.

I wrote a poem the other day based on a scene in Babylon AD. Some of you might say
“It’s not a poem.” or “He’s stupid.” Well, this is what I say to that: FUCK YOU. You
want to denigrate/dismiss/demoralize me? You don’t exist. You are God’s nightmare.
And when God wakes up, you will disappear like a fart in the wind.

I am the tiger staring back at you from inside the cage. To you – I’m a curiosity. To me –
you are food. You see me panting – my breath stinging the air. Remove these bars; we
will see who is king of the jungle. Foolish child – it is you who is inside a cage.
Everything you do is a cage for your mind and spirit. The cage is inverted yet you cannot
see it. It is you who is inside the cage; open it; free yourself.

I’m not TRYING to be profound. I’m not TRYING to be anything. I’m being very
LITERAL in the ‘poem’. We live in a cage. The cage is our ASSUMPTIONS. The only
way to break free – is to ATTACK OUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS. This is true for both
problems.

I’m sorry to have to be so ‘point blank’ but .. I have had to deal with SUCH ego and
INSECURITY in my discussions with professors, educators, ‘researchers’, ‘dissidents’,
and ‘friends’ .. People who’s only resort is to dismiss me and label me crazy. Why?
Again, I threaten their livelihoods/security/egos by proclaiming they are ALL FRAUDS.

You see, if they convince you ‘they know what they’re talking about’ by using jargon and
math ‘above your head’, you ASSUME THEY KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING
ABOUT. But it is not-so-clever deception. It is a con. It is fraud.

Now, I’m not saying EVERYONE in physics and computer science are frauds – just the
ones who want your money to perform their ‘research’ to ‘validate’ their silly ideas.
LIKE THE LHC – THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER in Geneva, Switzerland. Don’t
get me wrong – it’s a wonderful international endeavor – to work together for a common
goal – developing some interesting technology that may be used for say NUCLEAR
FUSION. But the purpose of the LHC is to detect these non-existent particles
euphemistically called ‘God particles’ or Higgs bosons. These are HYPOTHETICAL
particles that are supposedly exchanged between ‘real’ particles which when exchanged,
give mass. It’s insane. It was originally made up ‘ad hoc’ to explain some feature of the
Standard Model that didn’t quite make sense to conventional physicists.

Reduction, in science, is the process of ‘breaking down’ a problem into parts – solving
them individually – then combining those solutions to form a ‘grand unified’ solution.
But.. the parts may not work together. They may have incompatibilities. This is the basic
problem with the Standard Model. We have used reduction so faithfully, it has led us
down a ‘blind alley’ where we cannot see where we are going – or the fact it’s a DEAD
END.

Dead end means – no resolution in sight. No unifying principle to ‘make things work’.
Why? Is it because GR (general relativity) is wrong??? NO! General relativity is
PERFECT! It is a step toward unification of forces. Another step is SR (special
relativity). The third and final step is proposed in this essay.

Breaking Down the Standard Model

In an argument, you don’t win by showing evidence supporting your claim is correct.
You win by showing your opponent’s assumptions are incorrect. Of course after that, you
show off your creativity by proposing your alternative. This is what we do with the
Standard Model. There are three basic assumptions in the Standard Model, but they are so
well hidden – you have to ‘dig and dig and dig’ to find them.

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

Feynman was a Genius, but he was deluded by convention to swallow and regurgitate
conventional idiocy. He did his part to ‘establish’ the Standard Model by showing off his
math prowess: by developing QED (quantum electrodynamics) and PI-QM (path-integral
quantum mechanics). Feynman was a genius. Feynman was a Genius. Feynman was a
GENIUS. I CANNOT DISPUTE THAT. But..

All he really did was devise math frameworks to DEVELOP or ‘flesh out’ those three
assumptions above. HE DID NOT PROVE THEM CORRECT. THIS IS CRITICAL TO
UNDERSTAND.

Now in this essay, I cannot prove his logic was inconsistent – or even that the
assumptions above are mutually inconsistent. They are likely mutually consistent.
Feynman’s logic is likely flawless .. Pondering 1 and 2 above for a moment shows me
they are interdependent on the concept of non-locality. But three is somewhat
independent of the others and is ‘caused’ by our rabid tenacity / ‘death grip’ on reduction.
(Or, we could think of it as an indestructible ball-and-chain/yoke.) Reduction is so much
a part of modern science – it permeates it and ‘infuses’ it with ‘life’ and ‘vigor’. Really it
is death and stagnation. Our only salvation is the systems approach. The systems
approach is more than holism. It is a combination/recursion/iteration of four perspectives:
boundary, feasibility, reliability, and maintenance. I will not teach you the full-blown
systems approach now. I will save that for later. What we need to investigate now are
those three assumptions above.

Let’s start with number 3: forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying
particles. What does it mean? What does it imply? It means the Standard Model supposes
gravity is caused by gravitons, strong force is caused by gluons, electromagnetic force is
caused by photons, and weak force is .. ‘the W and Z bosons’. Fairly recently, the last
two were theoretically united into ‘electro-weak’ so convention no longer has to unite
four forces – now it is three. But again, this does not PROVE their assumptions are
correct; all it does is theoretically unify their concepts to a degree.

It should be clear that ‘my ideas’ do not propose ‘free energy’, extra energy, alternate
energy, or any other form of silliness frequently advocated today. This is not a scam to
get you to invest your hard earned dollars into it. This is about honesty, integrity,
simplicity, and realism.

Now of course, I must propose alternatives to the three assumptions above. If I don’t (if
all I do is criticize), then I’m not worth the salts in my body. Let me try:

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

Deep within those assumptions is another: space-time ‘rests’ in another dimension which
allows temporal curvature. So we have 5 dimensions in our universe. Two are unseen:
time and hyper-time. Just remember, you saw it here first. ;)
Before we discuss the other assumptions of convention, let me make a few predictions
based on ‘my theory’: we will never detect the Higgs because it doesn’t exist – and – we
will never detect gravitons because they don’t exist. Photons are packets of
electromagnetic energy. In engineering, we identify them with the TEW (transverse
electromagnetic wave). They have spin, helicity, direction, and two components: electric
and magnetic. They have differing speed through different media. Each media has
different characteristics: permittivity and permeability. Together they form impedance.
EVEN SPACE HAS IMPEDANCE. We call it Z0. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
IT IS PART OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. Don’t throw up; don’t pass out; don’t
stop reading. Please.

Implicit in this discussion is that space has impedance. It is an inherent characteristic of

space. Space is not just 3 dimensions. Now, and this is VERY important: THIS IS NOT
AN ETHER THEORY. This Is Not An Ether Theory. This is not an ether theory. Many
will say “Sam, it is equivalent to an ether theory – so it is!” Wrong. Just because I was
trained as an engineer and borrow some concepts from engineering, does not make it an
ether theory! :( This is not an ether theory! :( This is an engineering theory of matter!

Does it make me arrogant to propose? After all, I’m not a PhD. I’m not even a physicist. :
( Here we return to the ego thing. Physicists cannot endure being ‘told what to think’ by
anyone ‘outside’ physics. But it has been proven time and time again: progress, in the
modern world, is made by synthesis or SHIFT OF PERSPECTIVE. One or both. Physics
is STUCK. Everyone recognizes this: physicists, non-physicists, alternative physicists,
engineers,.. Everyone. Do we stand in place ‘spinning our wheels’??? What a waste..
Let’s make some progress! :) Let’s put our assumptions aside for a ‘moment’. :) Let’s
consider the implications of some viable alternative assumptions! :)

My bottom line here; my final point is: resources: human and Earth. Do we REALLY
want to waste resources/lives/brilliant minds on: looking for the ‘God particle’ when it
does not even exist!?!? What a WASTE! :( If they don’t find the ‘God particle’, what can
they use the LHC for??? A weapon? EVEN MORE WASTE! :(

The LHC is a perfect example of modern physics and the folly of modern man. They
most certainly won’t find the Higgs, but they will find something. Then they will say
“See! We found something important!” and attempt to justify the BILLIONS spent on the
machine. It’s insane! Just insane! A bunch of egomaniacs puffed up by their own
illusions of their self-importance – spending BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on a thing that
won’t find its intended purpose! :( It just boggles my mind – the level of idiocy and
arrogance we are capable of.. :(

Enough ranting and raving .. I think I have made my points. Convention has made certain
clever/idiotic assumptions. The nature of assumptions is that you cannot prove/disprove
them (they must be taken on faith). It’s like the existence of God: God exists or does not
exist – there is no ‘in between’. You believe or you don’t believe. You can say ‘maybe’,
but it is riding the fence – no progress was ever made by riding the fence. If you were
wrong, you graciously admit it and move on. If you were right, you graciously admit it
and move on. Either way, you move on.

My point about assumptions is: there are realistic ones and there are ones that resemble
fantasy. 11 dimensions, parallel universes, virtual particles, multi-state systems, non-
locality,.. THESE are more fantasy like. My proposals are deterministic. Sure, many say
“determinism is dead”, but.. It is more like the imagination associated with determinism
is dead. Determinism is ‘alive and well’ and most likely – how our universe actually
operates. As Einstein so aptly put it (paraphrased): we just don’t get it.

Before we leave physics and delve into consciousness, I must address the other two
assumptions of convention. The first assumption listed above: quantum self-interference
is caused by non-locality – is there because of the centrality of one critical/crucial
experiment: the ‘infamous’ double-slit experiment. The astounding results of the
experiment seemed to leave ‘no escape’ for determinism (from elimination): it seems that
single photons/electrons/nuclei can self-interfere via a double-slit arrangement which
appears inconceivable/unexplainable deterministically. My explanation was evidently
dismissed many years ago. Perhaps it was the inconsistency of point-particle with
extended effects.. Whatever the case, my proposal was dismissed and non-locality ‘won
the day’. The other assumption: multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that – is a kind of
extension of non-locality. If electrons can behave as if they are many places at once, they
most certainly can behave that way in orbit. Nuclei can behave similarly. So, non-locality
and virtual particles appear to require less assumptions on the part of convention – BUT
(and this is a BIG BUT), it requires you to assume virtual exchange for EVERY physical
operation/process. :( This is TOO MUCH for me.. :( Virtual exchange .. Non-locality ..
They sound more like voodoo than science to me.. When will we ever return to science;
when will we ever return to rationality; when will we ever return to realism. :(

As far as requirements to ‘stretch the imagination’, isn’t 5 better than 11 dimensions?

One universe vs many? Temporal curvature and photons vs 5 virtual particles? Instances
of equal-energy states vs multi-state systems? Extended waves vs non-local particles?
The latter requires you to stretch and Stretch and STRETCH your imagination beyond
rationality. :( The problem with ‘physics of today’ is not just reduction and fantasy – but
‘back patting’ and reward for promulgating the status quo. As long as you reinforce
convention, your ‘research’ will be rewarded with either money, accolades, or status (or
all 3). That’s why I will never be funded, praised, or recognized for proclaiming the truth
– I threaten the illegitimacy of conventional physics. :(

This last section may sound silly but.. I have faith someday my words will be vindicated.
Most likely not in my lifetime but someday.. Truth has a way of exposing itself
(humorously – like a ‘flasher’ exposing himself). To me, one name of God is Truth. God
will reveal Itself in due time.. In due time..

Letter to Dr. Hawking:

Dear Sam (Dr. Hawking’s assistant),
My previous letter was not attacking Dr. Hawking in any way. It was not trying to accuse
him of being atheist or anything silly like that.

I have a couple of analogies that I'd like to express:

1. imagine you are trying to fly but cannot - you are tethered to the earth, you keep
beating your wings in vain, you cannot escape the tether
2. imagine a baby desperately clinging to its mother's breast, it suckles and cannot
conceive of anything else - mom is the baby's universe
3. imagine a baby inside its mom; mom is in fact the baby's universe at that time; there is
no way out; there is no 'outside'; there is only warm 'inside mom'; further a cord connects
baby to mom

Three different analogies for the same thing: Standard Model assumptions.

We cannot escape our assumptions while we think in terms of the Standard Model.

Unfortunately, unification will only come from 'outside' the Standard Model (outside
Standard Model assumptions).

This is the only way to proceed.

I just had this conversation with my 82 year old mother. Dr. Hawking could be the one
who 'transforms physics' if he only opened his mind to me.

If he let go the Standard Model assumptions just for 'a moment'.

I will explain.

My ideas are based on engineering principles. In Germany, there is a gentleman

researcher Markus Lazar. He has developed the formalisms of my model. I have
developed the concepts (independently of Dr. Lazar). I was lucky to find him. He has not
corresponded with me at length. He has not confirmed our unknown 'collaboration'. But,
both of us have some interesting points: elementary particle duality such that they are
elastic deformations in space-time as well as vortices of electromagnetic energy. This is
one view - the engineering view.

Since then, I have worked on the space required for such a 'thing'. I have ended up with a
5D space which was the simplest form I could invent which still preserved the essence of
our models. It is a 3D Euclidean space plus fully complex time (encoding local
impedance) plus temporal curvature (light speed normalized): Mi = (x, y, z, Zt, C) where
Z is a complex number representing impedance at point (x, y, z) and C is the temporal
curvature at the same. I named it Mi = Micheal space in honor of my father, W. Jean
Micheal.

There is now a contested Wikipedia page: Micheal_space which is 'headed for deletion'.
I'm a member of NPA (natural philosophy alliance) and I'm sure Dr. Hawking is familiar
with it.

Because I don't have the skills of Dr. Hawking or Dr. Feynman, I have not been able to
determine all the theoretical consequences of the model.

I have proposed some simulations and experimental investigations (stated on the Wiki
page).

I have also not worked on the structure (as compared to Minkowski space) since that is
not my area of expertise (my area is systems science and probability).

Should I list out Standard Model assumptions compared to 'my' assumptions? Perhaps
so..
Let us restate the basic/core assumptions of convention (the Standard Model):
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
Let us state some plausible alternative assumptions more in line with engineering
principles and determinism:
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
Now, .. That's enough for now.. I do not want to burden you or Dr. Hawking with 'my
ideas'. I think that's about as simply as I can 'state my case'. Please consider it. Please
allow Dr. Hawking to consider my ideas.

Sincerely, Sam Micheal

 mH = 0
qH = 0
sH = 0
vH = 0

Higgs d.n.e.

(mass of Higgs = 0)
(charge of Higgs = 0)
(spin of Higgs = 0)
(speed of Higgs = 0)
(implies both ways)
Higgs does not exist

salvatore gerard micheal

Physicists are deep and creative thinkers. They are excellent applied mathematicians.
They have successfully identified sections of physics theory which correspond to
structures in pure math (such as Abelian groups). But these factors do not suggest, in and
of themselves, that the assumptions of the Standard Model are correct. Further, they do
not give credence to implications of those assumptions. The faulty assumptions of the
Standard Model create a literal house-of-cards where the slightest breeze knocks them all
down.

Some have compared me to a “gaseous expulsion from the lower rectum”. But I suggest
those naysayers are tantamount to the same thing. I suggest they also compare to a
nightmare in the mind of God. What happens when God wakes up? ;) Ridicule, ego, and
flaming aside, I have been unjustly dismissed by convention for the simple fact I buck
convention. I question their allocation of funds (research projects). In particular, I
question the validity of the LHC (large hadron collider).

The LHC will look for ‘signatures of Higgs’ (directly and proposed decay products of
Higgs). They will find something. But I assure you: it will not be Higgs. The reason is the
faulty assumptions of the Standard Model. Let’s list them out:
quantum self-interference is caused by non-locality
multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that
forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying particles

In previous essays, I have discussed the meaning of them. We don’t need to rehash that
here. Recently, I have developed a special space called Micheal space, in honor of my
father W. Jean Micheal, which seems to incorporate critical engineering concepts for a
valid alternative to Standard Model assumptions. Those are briefly discussed on the
Wikipedia page Micheal_space.

Now, in reality, assumptions 1 and 2 above are not unreasonable considering Micheal
space. There is a deterministic view of them not unreasonable and not contradictory with
observation. I don’t waste much time arguing about those two assumptions. The
assumption I take issue with is number 3: that is based on over application of reduction
and ‘boson theory’. It is assumption number 3 which implies Higgs. It is assumption
number 3 which I categorically state is unequivocally WRONG.

As developed in my previous essays and publications, gravitation can be reduced to

distributed temporal curvature. Similarly, so can the so-called strong force. They are
essentially one and the same. The critical engineering concept mentioned above is called
impedance. But that need not be associated exclusively with space. Just as gravitation can
be theoretically (and possibly more concisely and realistically) ‘assigned to time’, so can
impedance. Space need not curve (or impede) to explain gravitation (or e-m propagation).

It is time which may impede and curve (exclusively). This is the essence of Micheal
space.

Let me copy-paste a section from the Wikipedia page:

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 is equivalent to Feynman’s statement about understanding non-
locality and QM.

Some time ago, Feynman stated that if we could understand non-locality (for instance as
exemplified by double-slit phenomena), we would understand quantum mechanics. He
also stated something critical about our search for a unified theory (something like): we
must look in the corners we have neglected in order to find valid cogent seminal ideas for
unification.

Micheal space deserves a serious look.

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 Ω), 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
Dark Matter Solved
It is a bit scary when you're in the shower and a 'demon' rears its 'ugly' head revealing
itself. It's even scarier when you have to teach Stephen Hawking something about
physics. The 'demon' I refer to is the truth about space-time. And, that I can teach Stephen
something about physics has nothing to do with 'smarts' but everything to do with
perspective and assumptions. As things go, I got an email yesterday about 'one of my
ideas' (an experiment to verify elementary particles retain some kind of disturbance
energy temporarily), but the author was writing to me about using the same setup to
verify space-time has some kind of resonant structure 'built in' which should be
observable. Of course, this got me thinking and I was able to calculate the mass of the
neutrino in a few steps after 'I saw the light'. Before I delve into that, let me remark that I
think Christian Scientists are 'right on' when they say one synonym of God is Truth.
You'll see why as I develop this essay.

A bit more about that. I'm not religious but I do have faith. Faith in the best of us, faith in
God, faith in Love, faith in Truth,.. These words are capitalized because they are
archetypes of the meme. They are the 'penultimate' of each concept. And I change the
meaning of that word (which I frequently do with warning) to mean Ultimate. Since God
is Infinite, we have no hope of understanding It without some kind of communion with It.
Get my Drift? ;)

(As you note, I make frequent use of single quote marks to adjust the meaning of a phrase
or word but that's usually clear by context. The reason smarts is in quotes above is
because I don't consider myself that smart - just well informed.;)

Jokes and witticisms aside, I ascribe all my developments to prayer, discipline, and
perspective. I confess: I do pray for insight - just as I pray people can understand these
words and ideas and that the Truth spreads. There is no joke in this paragraph; it is
straight from my heart.
Enuf about faith, let's deal with the discovery (which truly belongs to God - one final
plug for It;). Okay, so I got this email about that experiment and I looked at my recent
booklet called N and Omega (freely available on scribd.com). There's a section about
temporal curvature near the end where I needed some numbers I had previously
calculated curvature for proton and electron. Then, as I was bleary eyed and had woken
up and could not sleep in the wee hours of the morning (after several hours of writing
letters to dissident physicists), and I double checked and triple checked my calculations to
make sure I was not going to announce a mistake, I arrived at precisely one sixth of one-
1000th of the mass of an electron.

For those who are curious how I actually arrived at this number, please refer to the
booklet. Suffice it to say I noticed a pattern in the numbers. Then I extrapolated down to
the proposed mass of the neutrino. That's about it: perspective, prayer, and discipline.
(And of course, thanks to the author of that one email: John Heath.) Now John does not
endorse any of 'my ideas'; he simply finds them intriguing. This is another plug for
friendly collaboration.

Normally, I write "I" de-capitalized because it assumes a kind of arrogance in the

structure (my father is of the same philosophy on this topic). But if i did that in this essay,
it might confuse and distract you, so i avoided it. Again, i owe my perspectives to God. If
you can understand and appreciate that, you Understand Humility. I sincerely Hate
bringing religion into a scientific discussion but i wanted to make it clear who was the
discoverer in this case. Not me: God. And there could be no clearer case of God
discovering Itself.

You see, when you deal with the Truth, it's difficult to separate it from God. That is the
'horrid' truth of our existence. Appreciate that gift/grace/benevolence.

So you can see some of my mother coming out in my words (she's a devout Catholic).
And, as the saying goes: "the sum is not merely the sum of the parts" (i'm more than a
'product' of my parents). There is some synthesis going on which i am respectful and
cognizant of. I thank God for both my parents: W. Jean Micheal (who Micheal space is
truly named after) and Julia F. Micheal - the heart of the family. And to prove a point (as
promised to John), i will sign this essay with a different name to emphasize i don't want
credit for the developments:

sam iam (i DO eat green eggs and ham;)

ps - next up on the agenda: (and this one in particular requires the Discipline of God)
attributes of hyper-time, magnetic moments of the three elementary particles, and
identifying the actual make-up of a magnetic field. please say your prayers for me; i will
need them.
pps - i'm not sure if dark energy is on the agenda; the need for that construct/idea is
debatable
hyper-time and dark energy

properties of hyper-time? at this point i can only guess..

there is the pattern of numbers (temporal curvature associated with elementary particles):
1/9*10^-27 6/9*10^-24 11/9*10^-20

and associated magnetic moments:

mu-nu mu-e mu-p

now remember, those magnetic moments have within them - how convention
measures and calculates magnetic moment.

there is something called 'the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron' (plz
familiarize yourself with it before progressing).

also, remember curvature number one above is calculated based on the latter two
numbers (curvature number one corresponds to the mass of a neutrino). and perhaps it
should be 1/9*10^-28 - you tell me. :) it all depends on if the coefficients are 'tied' to the
base-10 power or not.. 'tied', then above. not 'tied', then below. again, there should be
some rationale which we can explore below..

so..

what are the properties of hyper-time? we know it is at least CxR^+ but that in itself does
not restrict us in any way.. (there are no 'modes' specifically implied by CxR^+ .) modes
here refers to something / some property of hyper-time that produces the pattern above ..
'modes' can refer to some statistical distribution .. it can also refer to states of a dynamical
system .. or perhaps settings on your home stereo.. ;)
today, a small voice in me said "the answer is staring you in the face" .. what that exactly
means is questionable.. i was considering photons and how they 'fit' in the picture above ..
how do they fit in the picture above??? what coefficient do we assign to them based on
the pattern above??? that is a very good question..

for the mathematicians reading this, there is obviously a pattern going on above (in
temporal curvature) that i'm 'oblivious' of .. perhaps it's geometric related .. if it is, then
perhaps there are hints in those numbers about the 'structure' or properties within hyper-
time - that i'm missing..

that's why i'm writing you folks now .. i'm missing something .. it's obvious .. but i'm
missing something .. where does the photon fit (if at all)? do we give it 0/9 for its
curvature coefficient? or something else? -4/9??? (that might explain dark energy but
introduce a hell of a lot of other problems.) wow.. that's almost scary.. let's think about
that for a moment.. let's assume i made a mistake for neutrino.. let's assume the pattern is:
-4/9*10^-32 1/9*10^-28 6/9*10^-24 11/9*10^-20

that's actually very scary now that i think about it (scary in a good way) .. that would
imply photons have a very slight negative curvature or mass .. (this is very scary for
me;) .. what are the implications of negative photon mass/curvature? admittedly, it's very
slight but .. would it be enuf to 'tip the scales' of universal expansion? this is where we
need the help of theoretical cosmologists.. it's very small and probably immeasurable ..
but on a grand scale.. i'm unsure.. also, what about speed? does negative curvature/mass
allow/demand speed-of-light??? that's another very good question i'm unqualified to
answer..

also, "who's to say" the pattern does not continue 'forever' in both directions??? what
would that imply??? perhaps 'magic numbers' in the table of nuclides??? here i'm only
guessing (obviously) .. what about 'the left side'??? if particles had higher and higher
negative curvatures, could they coexist with 'normal' matter??? would they have a
tendency to mutually annihilate or what??? is that dark energy???

but..

i still have not answered the fundamental question - what is the nature of hyper-
time? what are its properties?

all i've done in this letter is raise more questions..

can we try to solve them together? ;) sam

ps - 'magic numbers' in the table of nuclides does not seem to fit.. perhaps the pattern
stops there (with protons) .. but .. my question now is: if the pattern stops, why? and if it
stops on the right, where does it stop on the left? notice curvature does not 'originate' at
zero .. the 'zero' is our photon/something .. and on the left, if it continues, the curvatures
are not quite negatives of the ones on the right .. if i'm correct about the exponents, then
the negative curvatures might not impact appreciably because their magnitudes drop by
factors of 10000 for each .. or perhaps the exponents start to increase again .. this is
obviously all speculation..
pps - let's suppose for the sake of argument, the pattern is:
-19/9*10^-20 -14/9*10^-24 -9/9*10^-28 -4/9*10^-32 1/9*10^-28 6/9*10^-24
11/9*10^-20
is that enuf to tip the scales for dark energy? or is it too much? if so, where does it reside
in our universe??? it would seem to fit the picture that most of the 'matter' in our universe
is this so-called 'dark energy' .. we would then have seven stable particles in our universe:
three with negative mass comparable to neutrino, electron, and proton .. hey, let's give
them names (why not? convention does it.. ;): nega-neutrino? nega-electron? nega-
proton? i know .. so unimaginative :( but it's better than sam, paul, and phil (the names of
the three brothers in my family;) .. how about arthur instead of nega-neutrino? (after my
son) .. well, let's stop with the names and get on with the physics.. ;)
list of stable particles in our universe:
nega-proton nega-electron nega-neutrino photon neutrino electron proton
and remember the masses of the 'nega' particles are not quite exactly negative of our
'conventional' particles..
and where they reside is a HUGE question.. do they fly about at the speed of light? or
faster? are they 'gravitationally bound' to the rest of the matter in our universe???
Brief History of Iam Space
for NPA members
sg micheal, 27/FEB/2009

previous to 94: developed a model of elementary particles comprised of one wavelength

of one photon (TEW) with topology: ring - twist and fold. Incentives: can explain spin,
antimatter, and handedness. Problems: cannot explain the seeming preponderance of
matter, charge, why one wavelength, auto/self-confinement, specific topology, magnetic
moments, and why only 3 stable e.p.s.

94: discovery of h-bar ≈ Z0e2 relation. Incentive: shows relationship between spin and
charge. Problem: why approximate? Imported concept of impedance from engineering to
physics (space).

04: imported concept of elasticity from engineering to physics (space). Conceptually

developed the idea.

07: developed precise definition of elasticity in terms of linear strain (all taken from
engineering). Applied it to space. Discovered linear uncertainty relation between energy
and position.

08: discovered relationship between impedance and elasticity (as applied to space).
Discovered 'core equations' relating various forms of energy in elementary particles.
Attempt at explaining approximate relation above. Development of 'elastic
deformations'-'flux vortex' dual model of e.p.s. Discovery of Markus Lazar, German
resident who formally developed a similar model. Developed temporal curvature
approach toward gravity and strong force.

09: Invented Micheal space (an extension of Minkowski space) to accommodate

impedance and elasticity as qualities of time - not space (using Occam's Razor as a
guide). Made Micheal space more precise: (x, y, z, Zit, EtP/h). Calculated mass/curvature
of neutrino. Discovered pattern in curvature set. Extended Micheal space to allow
negative curvatures: nega-particles (negative energy comprising/explaining dark energy).
Implications: dark matter (neutrinos), dark energy (largely nega-protons, negative energy
particles corresponding to (but not exactly the same mass magnitude as) protons), and
slightly negative energy photons. Problems: the why of 7 stable elementary particles
(presumably a property of hyper-time), magnetic moments, charge, and neutrality.
Renamed Micheal space Iam space.

The Origin and Ultimate Fate of our Universe

sg micheal, 28/FEB/2009

The simple and accurate answer to both of those questions right now is: we don't know.
For your entertainment and total confusion, look up 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' on
Wikipedia. Supposedly, according to convention, our Universe is made up of 74% dark
energy and 26% dark plus normal matter. What dark energy is, convention does not
know. What dark matter is, convention does not know as well. There is total confusion
and disagreement about the nature of both. But.. As destiny would have it, this 'little
simpleton' suggests an answer to both. (I promised my mother not to keep denigrating
myself but .. it's irresistible considering how I have been dismissed my whole life by
convention. Incidentally, I'm a very active member of NPA, the Natural Philosophy
Alliance, which is a consortium of 'dissident scientists'.)

Recently, I have developed an extension of Minkowski space renamed Iam space which
incorporates the engineering concepts of impedance and elasticity specifically in the time
domain. As I love to say, I have used Occam's Razor as an artist's spatula rather than a
utility knife. ;) So.. what is Iam space? Please consult other papers at
scribd.com/sam_micheal

My proposal for the origin of our Universe? I have no idea. ;) I think that's best to say..
Was it two brane-universes colliding? Was it a Big Bang? Was it the rebound from a Big
Crunch? Was it always there? We simply do not know.

The ultimate fate of our Universe? Now that I have an opinion on: spread out 'cold death'.
What else is there? If our Universe is currently accelerating in expansion, there is no
reasonable mechanism to stop it. Our Universe may be unique. It would take an edict
from God to stop it. ;) That is the ONLY mechanism that could.

Okay, here is my simpleton explanation of how the Universe began. According to

Stephen Hawking, infinite information density is not allowed in normal space-time.
Before god became God, there must have been a creature that could become God (unless
God always Was). But I believe that is silly to assume. What is more reasonable is that
some creature existed that had the capability to become God. I call that creature god.
Now, we all know God is Infinite. But Stephen Hawking says infinite information density
is not allowed in normal space-time.. So.. when god said "I Am", he/she/it Became God
and our Universe was born. ;) Very silly and simplistic, I know, but.. Can you offer a
better explanation?

And since infinite information density cannot exist in any specific location in our
Universe, God must exist everywhere! :) God must Be ubiquitous! :) We must be inside
the Mind of God; there is no other answer! :) What a trip.. ;)

Okay, I stop preaching and start talking science.. There are implications of Iam space.
One is that there seems to be 7 stable elementary particles: nega-proton, nega-electron,
nega-neutrino, photon, neutrino, electron, and proton - all ranging from extreme negative
energy to positive. This equates with temporal curvature. And the curvature coefficients
are not symmetric: -19/9, -14/9, -9/9, -4/9, 1/9, 6/9, and 11/9 respectively. The
magnitudes vary by factors of 10000: 10^-20, 10^-24, 10^-28, 10^-32, 10^-28, 10^-24,
and 10^-20 (these are assumed to have symmetry about the photon). The coefficients
were calculated from the two known values for protons and electrons. The same for the
magnitudes. At first, I made a table of strictly decreasing magnitudes but this did not
seem to make sense. Symmetry about the photon seems to fit reality better. Let me
explain why..

When we construct the list/table of curvature values as above, we end up with some
interesting consequences. Apparently, there are two ways to calculate resulting
proportions of dark energy and dark matter. One is assuming equal distribution of all
types of particles (equal in number). The other is what I call a 'balanced distribution'
where we simply drop the magnitudes. Let me present all 3 schemes: convention, equal
number, and balanced distribution.
DE(%) DM+NM(%)
Convention: 74 26
Equal Number: 63 37
Balanced Distribution: 72 28

Not bad for an idiotic 'raving mad' simpleton, right? ;)

Now you see why I try to push NPA to make a judgment about me..
I'm either insane/delusional/totally wrong .. or .. I'm divinely inspired. ;)
Which is it?
Only you and future history will decide. :)

In the 'equal number' scheme, nega-protons and protons dominate. You end up with 19/30
for the proportion of dark energy. In the balanced scheme, you end up with 46/64 and no
particles dominate.
Of course, there is the whole beautiful question about: why 5/9? Why 10000? (for the
differences between coefficients and magnitudes) Now if I could answer that, I would be
one of three things: God, Satan, or dead (fully One with God). Since I cannot answer that
question, it's safe to say I'm none of those things. ;) You see, even 'pseudo scientists' can
have a sense of humor..

One of my points with all these essays is that we need to stop labeling ppl that. Stop
denigrating dissidents and calling us "fringe" or "stupid" or "quacks".. It's not right; it's
not fair.

Convention has just spent 7 BILLION dollars equivalent on the LHC. Will they find
Higgs? I doubt it.. Further, I estimate they will spend another 7 plus 5 on maintenance
and operation. That totals about 20 BILLION dollars invested in non-existent particles. :(
That's not including all the lives and students' time wasted on wrong concepts..

Who is insane? Convention or me?

Only you and time will decide..
About Time (some letters to NPA about time)
sg micheal, 03/MAR/2009

Subject: [NPA_Dissidents] a first step in theory of time

Hello Roger,

I thought that time was a straightforward concept with which we have

no problem. Now I am not sure at all.

1. Newton assumed a natural flow of time forward and never thought

about it seriously. Under assumption he defined traveling in space as
a continuous function from time to space.

2. If we assume space time symmetry, then it must be possible to

consider traveling through time. Then Newton's basic assumption of
the natural flow of time must be definable as traveling through time.
But how can we do that? I do not know how to define natural evolution
of time as a mathematical function from time to time. The problem is
that time is continum and so there is no such thing as next time.
dear dr. kanda, employing Occam's Razor, this f(t) you speak of can be constructed
thusly:
(t, f(t)) as a traditional ordered pair.
i rename f(t)=C=EtP/h where C=temporal-curvature, E=energy-at(x,y,z), tP=Planck's
(time) constant, h=Planck's constant
notice that f(t) does not actually contain t :) which is good (thank God) .. it's a
measure of energy density at (x,y,z)
now E is obviously the 'stickler' meaning it is critical to determining f(t)=C
if there is 'normal matter' there, we simply take the energy equivalent of the particle
there..
if something else is there (such as the interior of a neutron star), we have difficulty..
but i believe that is not insurmountable
you may point out "sam, time is in there via Planck's time constant", but.. i contend
that constant is actually a constant and not variable..
of course, we must rigorously define 'these accepted facts' (of Planck's constants)
quite apart from the theory .. i have tentatively accepted conventional definitions for
right now (until i come up with something better) .. so for now, i see f(t)=g(E) so..
(t, g(E)) becomes the ordered pair
(of course, the energy, E, at (x,y,z) is normally a function of time (what particle is
where at any given time), but.. i believe this does not cause a tautology or recursive
problem .. this is my faith in the method - of course - based on faith - there is always
an element of faith in science)
(perhaps this is where Feynman's self-interaction comes in? C is not that great for
normal matter (calculate it) so it is not a huge leap of faith to assume matter is not
self-affected greatly by time displacements .. of course it is .. but only minutely ..
perhaps this will be the basis for a 'new quantum mechanics' based on temporal
curvature .. who knows..)
about my statement above regarding faith - we employ it every day:
Godel's theorem - we assume logic is consistent and incomplete - not the other way
around
so my assumption about temporal curvature being the basis for a new QM is this:
temporal curvature is a self-interacting phenomenon just like Feynman's virtual
particles, but..
just like virtual particles, the self-interacting phenomenon is recursively orders of
magnitude diminishing..
the reason Feynman's scenario works is because it is a particulate version of
temporal curvature
(for anybody interested in Feynman's ideas, plz read QED, available in any
bookstore)

3. As we have no idea how to define traveling forward in time

naturally, how in the world can we consider traveling backward in
time.

Best regards,

Dr. Kanda

Subject: time reversal

reverse time sounds like a reversed light sphere

it sounds plausible to me

phil
-----------------------------------------------
time reversal is only possible/plausible with negative temporal curvature
at first, i dismissed this as pure fantasy
but..
IF we accept the need for dark energy, then it MAY exist
but ONLY because of dark energy (which i question question question)
i recently proposed an explanation of dark energy (based on negative temporal curvature:
nega-particles)
but this may be my mistake of allowing convention to brainwash me into accepting
their fantasy about our Universe :(
at this moment, i cannot know..
all i know is many things convention says about our Universe is WRONG (that is
obvious from recent posts)
so, chances are - they're also wrong about dark energy..
so..
my proposal may just be a good idea twisted/contorted into something ugly (based
on conventional pressures)
i truly believe i have been 'lucky' (i would say divinely inspired) to find this concept of
temporal curvature
it will replace Feynman's ideas in QM
but don't give me credit..
anyways .. i'm still trying to understand if my tentative concept of photons having very
slight negative curvature 'makes any sense in the big picture'..
(if this picture of photons 'proves to make sense', then there may be indeed nega-particles
and dark energy..)

sam

Subject: Feynman vs Sam

1st let me say Feynman was a Brilliant man

sam is just so so ;)

my wife knows nothing about physics and i was trying to explain some things to her
(about how i 'waste' my time here)

i compared an elephant with physics

we can look at the elephant many ways
if we're a vet, we can even look inside it
but.. what i was trying to say is this: looking at the elephant in many different ways only
gives us different perspectives of the same thing

now let's compare Feynman and me

of course, my son Arthur has much energy
we can compare Arthur to a proton
Feynman would say Arthur gives me $ and i give him $ (virtual exchange)
but..
i contend there is no $ (and indeed $ is purely fictitious in our world)
the reason there is attraction to Arthur is simply because he has so much energy
his energy affects his 'flow of time' (as proposed in a previous letter)
and of course, this 'flow of time' affects time (but only minuscule) and recursion is
limited
another way to say is temporal curvature affects time but only in a limiting sense
so they are mathematically equivalent but conceptually completely different

indeed, there is no such thing as money (it is a virtual concept in our minds)
we waste too much time pursuing it
just as we waste too much time pursuing virtual particles in the lab

let's pursue things of value

let's pursue things that are real

let's pursue temporal curvature

;) sam

the deep and 'scary' insight is that energy is temporal curvature

if accepted and confirmed, this will be the next QM and perhaps TOE
Two Ignored Letters to NPA
sg micheal, 15/MAR/2009

Subject: nature of photon

if we borrow the TEW (transverse electromagnetic wave) from engineering and call that
a photon, something is lacking (two things)

that it responds to gravity is lacking

its particulate nature (in some circumstances) is lacking

so if we start with TEW (as many don't like), we must modify the picture to
accommodate above

just because many don't like starting with TEW doesn't make it wrong .. it's a
practical/engineering approach

engineers are oblivious to the question: what happens to the energy when both
components are gone??? they don't care..

by all accounts, the energy is gone, the photon should disappear..

ahah! wrong! :)

there is momentum which keeps it going! :)

just because the photon is massless, does not imply it lacks momentum.

we can calculate a photon's momentum, based on frequency.

now this is what makes a radiometer turn! :) (i wish convention would just 'get over' that)

(is it so inconceivable a radiometer turns from photon impact/absorption???)

this still does not explain 'where the energy goes' when both vectors are zero.

gee, i wonder what we can do .. ;) (this is a bit sarcastic - obviously)

let's take another thing from engineering called the Poynting vector which indicates
power flow! :)

now, if we consider the Poynting vector, we must assume (we are forced) the power flow
must go somewhere! :)

this is wonderful! :) nature itself has given us a hint about the nature of photons! :)

where does the energy go..

where does it go! ;)

let's see .. hm .. photons interact with gravity .. and .. things cannot interact without
'common ground' .. hm .. i wonder .. ;)

gee, photons must interact with gravity because they produce weak gravitational fields
out-of-phase with their e-m fields! :)

gee - i'm a 'genius'! ;) hehe..

no, i just borrowed two concepts from engineering: TEW and Poynting

the rest just 'flowed' ;)

okay .. so .. now if we can accept TEWs are photons and Poynting indicates weak
gravitational fields .. then .. where does this particulate nature come from???

good question..

let me think about it..

;)

well, when a photon is absorbed, we cannot know the phase of its existence (how much
energy is in weak gravitational field and how much in e-m vectors). that is an unfortunate
fact of life.
but - total energy never changes! :) that is the beauty of the model above! :) it simply
changes form continuously! :)

so, when a photon is absorbed (its 'particulate nature'), the energy translated is always the
same - regardless of phase at time of absorption! :)

wow! we just 'solved the nature of the photon' in just a few lines of logic! :)

Dr. Kanda, plz plz plz don't automatically dismiss every dissident about our
'theories of photons' plz.

it should be clear above is well thought out and based on sound and practical engineering
principles.

this is not 'mere speculation' as many would like you to believe (from conventional
physics and engineering).

and here is the beauty of above.. it relies on impedance! 8) wow! 8)

impedance, the quality of space/time which determines the period between

electromagnetic events! 8)

if that is not a holistic theory of e-m/photons, what is???

is there something wrong with my brain or .. perhaps something wrong with others'
brains???

8} sam
---------------------------------------------------------
Subject: nature of proton and electron

if we can accept that model of photons, we can actually move forward with protons and
electrons too! :)

qualities of electrons/protons:
1. mass
2. charge
3. spin
4. magnetic moment
5. chirality
6. maximum speed based on impedance of media

qualities of photons:
1. speed based on impedance of media
2. momentum
3. spin
 4. helicity

my original picture of protons/electrons was one twist-and-fold of one wavelength of

TEW: spin of protons/electrons = spin-of-photons/2

but..

convention totally ignored me because of all the unknowns associated :( (these are listed
in a previous post)

and because i'm nobody :(

...

i admit - it is difficult to tie all those properties listed above together .. to somehow make
sense of all those properties..

especially charge - charge is what is called a speed/energy-invariant property. no matter

what the speed of an electron is, its charge remains the same.

this is called charge invariance and was one of my first posts (article entries) on
Wikipedia (look it up).

i wrote that article ;)

so.. i know something about it.. (or rather - i know what we don't know about charge
invariance)

8|

how can we tie all those properties together .. hm (no sarcasm here) .. what is the
common ground between the two categories? look above..

impedance.

impedance is the common ground between them and that is where i started! 8)

(how many years ago..)

...

after many years of contemplation and mistakes :) (be Proud of your mistakes!:)

i arrive at Iam space

Iam space is named after 'the creator' (my idea of the creator) .. you don't have to
believe in god to accept Iam space..

that is very important.

it is simply a name .. it's better than Micheal space for sure! 8)

Iam space is: (x,y,z,Zit,C) which is Euclid + Time, here Time is a complex vector: where
Z is the impedance of media at (x,y,z) and C takes on one of seven values:
-19/9*10^-20
-14/9*10^-24
-9/9*10^-28
-4/9*10^-32
1/9*10^-28
6/9*10^-24
11/9*10^-20
why seven values? why the pattern? ask the next generation of geniuses.

the 'bizarre' fact is the set of last two values: for electron and proton. that is what led me
to propose the rest..

so..

is it any wonder i propose we take the following as tentative TOE?

Joe + Ingvar - f(nu)>>c + Iam space = TOE?

is there something wrong with this proposal?

can we try it? sam i-like-green-eggs-and-ham

A Semi-Classical View of an Electron in Hydrogen Orbit
Salvatore Gerard Micheal, Natural Philosophy Alliance, 21/MAR/2009

Many within NPA won’t understand or appreciate this model because of a lack of interest
or appreciation of engineering perspectives. Most conventional physicists will dismiss it
for standard reasons which don’t need to be rehashed here. This general neglect is
unfortunate because here we have an idea that has been ‘lurking in the wings’ for many
years but dismissed for various reasons by various groups and individuals because of
their own delusional rationalizations. This idea has the potential to resolve, once and for
all, the electron orbital question and more. Not only is this a model of hydrogen but
implicit is a model of all atoms and molecules. In addition, implicit in the model is a
nuclear model and model of improperly named space-time (better called Time and
space).

A wonderfully intelligent computer scientist turned her attention toward physics in the
last years of her life; her name was Caroline H. Thompson. Her work in physics
culminated with the result that, in layman’s terms, locality is not dead. Her work
basically indicated that non-locality is not the exclusive and ultimate truth of our
existence. Please study her research if you doubt my words.

Over the years, I have developed my own view of time and space culminating in a
construct I refer to as Iam space (with obvious spiritual connotations). Essentially, I have
borrowed concepts from engineering, importing them into my study of physics, and
adapting them to the study of elementary particles. When I say elementary particles, I’m
very restrictive in my phrasing: I mean only proton, electron, neutrino, and photon. These
are the only truly stable particles and no direct evidence indicates otherwise.

When we smash beams of particles together in the ‘heart’ of a synchrotron, such as the
LHC or Tevatron, what are we doing? We are creating short-lived particles and trying to
understand speculated constituents. Quark theory and QED (quantum electrodynamics)
are amazingly successful at predicting the outcome of these experiments. But that in itself
does not make the Standard Model correct or even desirable. Many conventional
physicists have expressed their displeasure with the Standard Model calling it ugly or
other appropriate colorful adjective. Unfortunately, machines such as the LHC are very
expensive toys for the elites of convention to play with. Unfortunately, the public ‘paying
the bill’ has been led astray by jargon and fancy theories which appear comprehensive
and rational but are actually delusional and ego-reinforcing for the aforementioned elites.

This essay is not about the history of how we have been led astray. It is about this model
that has been around for many years disregarded and dismissed by convention and more
recently – even so-called dissident groups such as NPA. The model occurred to me after
studying models of orbital electrons created by: Bruce Harvey, David Bergman, and
Markus Lazar. Whatever their affiliations or religious beliefs, these are practical men.
They essentially employ engineering perspectives in their approach toward the atom.
They inspired me. So if any accolades are forthcoming, it is they who should receive.

(It should be noted that David Bergman is not the originator of his ring model of atomic
structure just as John Koza is not the originator of genetic programming. However, they
are both good examples of academics popularizing neglected useful concepts. In this
respect, they both deserve mention.)

One more final remark and I will dive into the model with you. Richard Feynman was
perhaps the greatest physicist of all time. He did more for quantum mechanics, the
Standard Model, and physics in general than any other human in history. I am like a
flickering candle next to his enduring beacon. I’m very serious here. This man deserves
our ultimate praise and respect. However (and I’m sure you anticipated this), he was
restricted by conventional motif. He simply could not think outside the box; his brilliance
was confined. His particulate theory was so successful because it is a self-interacting
theory mirroring a more accurate picture of reality: Time and space.

This is the core of the model and deserves some explanation. In this view, space is
somewhat secondary and is simply a ‘playground’ for electromagnetic/mechanical
events. Space is strictly Euclidean and has no properties other than dimensionality. Space
is flat and no speculation is offered regarding any proposed ‘containing space’ such as a
hyper-Mobius loop or hyper-sphere.

Time, on the other hand, is perhaps the most important quality of our Universe. Time
may be complex (in the sense of Minkowski). But it may have more features than
convention supposes. It may contain the quality typically called ‘impedance of space’ (or
simply impedance). It may also possess elasticity. Combining these two qualities
mathematically is somewhat straightforward if we adopt engineering approaches. The
simplest construct embodying both qualities is Iam space: (x,y,z,Zit,C) where (x,y,z) is a
point in Euclidean space, Zit is the factor encoding the impedance of media at (x,y,z), and
C represents temporal curvature at (x,y,z). These are developed and explained in other
papers and booklets available at scribd.com/sam_micheal

For simplicity, let c=1. This is fairly standard in the study of elementary particles. I won’t
go further in simplification because I need to show how the fundamental constants
display themselves within the atom. Bohr was right about the size of hydrogen. And this
essay is not about why. Simply, I’m not God; I didn’t design the Universe; I don’t know
why the ‘fundamental constants’ are exactly the values they are. But I can tell you how
the constants fit together ‘in the big picture’ such as the relationship between elasticity
and impedance (the ‘core equation’ in N and Omega).

In hydrogen, the electron is spinning at speed 1. It has angular momentum h-bar/2. Think
of it as a donut or torus. The Compton diameter comes into play and directly relates h-
bar/2 and mass (which is actually temporal curvature). As Lazar has pointed out, there is
a one-to-one correspondence between regularized vortex and screw dislocation (toroidal
surface charge = temporal elastic deformation (different manifestations of the same
energy)). There is an insidious spin-factor which relates the two. This model is complex
and presumed dynamic but preferable to the hideous Standard Model.

So the electron-donut is an example of the only perfect ‘perpetual motion machine’ in the
Universe. As it moves, it ‘reinvents’ itself. It’s like a smoke ring you can blow (if you’re
a smoker). Or a bubble-ring you can blow (if you’re a diver). Except for the fact the ring
never changes size nor dissipates. I propose the speed of ‘donut turning’ (point on inner
torus surface moves to point on outer torus surface) is alpha, the fine structure constant.
This is also the orbital speed.

This has no relationship to spin whatsoever and is arbitrary. (And so a beam of electrons
can have any speed desired less than 1.) The so-called ‘speed of light’ is dependent on
media impedance = permeability = 1/permittivity. Here, mass = energy and curvature wrt
Planck-time = energy wrt Planck’s constant. So Planck is fundamental.

The donut orbiting a proton may have a slightly distorted shape and be larger on the
outside than on the inside (however, a beam of electrons should be symmetrical). This
may be a way of testing the theory wrt donut shape.

Of course, there is interaction between magnetic moments. Of course, there is spin-orbit

‘interaction’ (hyperfine splitting). But this paper is not about those concerns. This essay
is about a deterministic and fully local view of an electron in hydrogen orbit.

It is proposed an electron exists in definite position, shape, and geometry wrt to central
proton. That much heavier (greater temporal distortion) particle has the same basic shape
as an electron but different geometry (size) or perhaps similar size with different wave
number inside a Planck-sphere – these are issues that need resolving. So the theory needs
resolution – not fleshing out. These issues are presented more fully in N and Omega.

They say electrons behave as point-masses but protons do not. This says nothing about
the charge distribution of each. Bergman proposes some interesting models of atomic
structures but .. I hesitate to adopt his view for several reasons: he has no desire to
integrate theories with me, he’s a creationist and bound by those values, and I cannot
commit to a theory which may contradict mine on certain levels. There is also the issue
of: if proton and electron have same (but opposite) charge (and by all accounts, we
presume they do), then why do they have differing mass? If I state above that energy in
surface charge = energy in temporal distortion, why is it different for electrons and
protons? This is something that I attempt to address in N and Omega, but without
satisfactory resolution.

This does not mean the basis for the theory is wrong. It simply means I have missed
something critical in my analysis of the situation. That is another ‘beautiful’ aspect of the
theory: a brilliant theorist with clever insights may complete this theory ‘in one whack’. I
present it to the public not only asking for consideration but also assistance. My
‘flickering candle’ may be getting brighter (with your help).