You are on page 1of 2

More about T, the translation operator; curvature theory Please forgive the religious bent of my last essay ..

There are times when inspiration is coupled with the Divine .. and times when She is more secretive.. Because i'm not an expert at visualizing temporal curvature, i cannot develop a formal theory for that presently. What's required for that area, at minimum, is a curvature analog of Feynman diagrams (minus virtualness). i'm more fluent in operator theory / linear transformations. So i may discuss that now. i can guess the basic structure of T. i can tell you it must be n-by-5 to operate on x5. Also, it must have three basic sections: strictly individual translations, strictly group translations, and inseparable/mixed translation. So the matrix operator will look something like this: [Mi Mg Mm] (transpose of that) where each sub-matrix corresponds to a set of translations described above. At first, i thought it should be n-by-3 and operate strictly on location but that's too restrictive. It must also be able to operate on time and curvature coordinates. Curvature encodes mass and time is affected by that so we must necessarily allow T to be n-by-5. When a particle is isolated, or effectively so, Mg and Mm will contribute nothing and so will equal identity, I5x5. Mi will encode such things as momentum, spin, electric field, magnetic field, and stipulations for self-interference. Mg will encode coherent phenomena including: resonant conditions, group reinforcement conditions, and group interference conditions. If you study differential equations, you find some problems are characterized as 'inseperable'. The final operator refers to these conditions: phenomena stipulations which cannot be segregated into the other operators. It sounds overly simplistic and determining the solution to a set of (usually) nonlinear differential equations can be quite formidable. Linearizing and determining the valid domain can also be quite challenging. It's essential the defining characteristics are not lost during linearization. So even though i've laid out the basic structure of T, we cannot assume every solution can be found and appropriate linearization. A good illustration of matrix identification problems concerns self-interference. That necessarily requires precisely defining the conditions when it will occur and only then. A particle cannot self-interfere in 'wide open' space. Also, we've neglected to mention particle generation. When a photon enters a magnetic/electric field of sufficient energy, pair production can occur. This a mixed process. So each matrix must be comprehensive and precise about conditions that can generate a certain effect .. It's also important to note T does not contain probability matrices. Every effect, such as the Faraday effect, is fully deterministic. When conditions can produce multiple outcomes of equal probability, we will make utmost effort to encode this deterministically - respecting each outcome but making sincere effort to determine any nonisotropic influence, for example .. Most of the time, Mg and Mm will equal identity and for initial simulations, for the sake of simplicity and 'getting things going', we will likely have to assign this. Even the section within Mi that encodes self-interference will likely have to be omitted initially. We're interested in creating realistic orbital and nuclear scenarios, for example. We're not especially interested in creating a fully realistic T initially - just one that grabs essentials of our reality.

This brief introduction has illustrated the difficulty of constructing T. If we think clearly about the exact conditions for each phenomenon concerned, we may be able to create a comprehensive operator which translates particle position (including time and curvature) realistically.

A possible approach toward curvature theory i was able to briefly glimpse a possible approach toward curvature theory which i've claimed previously is the true root of why Feynman's QFT (heuristically depicted by Feynman diagrams) is so successful. If we consider Yukawa's application toward nucleons, we can share that glimpse. The Feynman diagrams for two nucleons attracting each other proposes a virtual exchange of pions that keep the nucleus together. However, if we consider from the curvature standpoint, those virtual pions are actually 'in real life' (assuming we're correct) representations of shared curvature. The shared curvature is not virtual - it's real. So as i stated previously, we can conceptually convert QFT (at least the diagrams) to be used (without virtual particles) in Iam space and curvature theory. Anytime we deal with an attractive force (such as gravity or strong force), we may employ shared curvature. Any time we deal with electromagnetic forces, we may employ shared/interacting flux (or the magnetic fields created by flux). 'Waving my hands' and declaring flux / distributed charge is the culprit (for electromagnetism), i realize, is a bit contrived.. But it's much better than virtual particles. In classic electromagnetics, we usually consider surface charges. In Bergman's model, it is a surface charge (the surface of a torus/donut). In my model, it's a 3D distribution of charge - a charge vortex. The exact composition of that charge is in question (what the heck is it???), but i have confidence, with time, we can figure it out. i believe this weakness in conceptual understanding can be resolved without virtual particles. For instance, if we consider a permanent magnet, convention states the field is mediated by virtual photons (wow, if you really think about that - it's such a cop-out!). But i contend it must be something real. If we put as much research into this phenomenon as we do Higgs/W/Z bosons, we'd have a realistic answer by now. That just shows the arrogance/blindness of convention; they assume virtual photons are the culprit without even bothering to investigate.. (Same for why a radiometer spins.) It's sickening but that's our current situation. .. Some time ago, i considered looking at electromagnetism as a form of curvature, but because of its non-isotropic nature, is difficult to visualize. This may be artificial or real; that's more for us to investigate .. But again, aren't these difficulties (most challenging!) preferable to virtual exchange and inherent randomness???