Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Simulating Iam space

(x, y, z, Zt, C) where x, y, z are real numbers representing Euclidean coordinates in space, t is
non-negative real (a convenient convention), Z is typically complex representing media wave
impedance (for open space, this reduces to Z0i, the impedance of space times imaginary identity),
and C represents temporal curvature at (x, y, z). C typically takes on very miniscule numerical
values for elementary particles, is dimensionless, but can vary widely depending on local energy
density. Theoretically, it can even be negative. So as long as we keep clear which indices
correspond to spatial dimensions etc, we can reorganize the space for simplicity: R4xC (four real
dimensions plus one complex). This mathematical model is hardly unique but the assumption
that it corresponds to our physical universe is.

Electrons/protons can be thought of as: probability waves, particles, wave-particle dual


structures, flux vortices, screw-dislocations in space, and temporal distortions. Considering
tunneling and electron orbitals, perhaps it's best in this scenario to view them as 'electromagnetic
wavelets'. This view accommodates them to Iam space nicely. So consider an electron/proton
'living' in Iam space = (x, y, z, C, Zt). With c=1, C=EtP/h, E represents local energy density, tP,
and h Planck constants. Here's where things get a bit sticky. t represents time, but as we know
time progresses dependent on local energy density (the higher E is generally, the slower t
progresses). So in order to keep things clear, we must designate t=t(E), t is a function of local
energy density. Iam space becomes: (x, y, z, t(E), C(E), Z) where both E and Z are evolving,
dependent on position and time in any particular cosmology. It sounds recursively maddening but
is actually simulation feasible .. Iam space is getting bigger.. The minimal set becomes R5xC.

If we designate t0 the time index for flat-space (no curvature), then t(E) has the form tx=(1-C)t0.
The bold subscript emphasizes the fact time usually progresses differently dependent on location.
In a simulation, this would equate with local dependency on energy density - augmenting global
step size locally. If C is negative, corresponding to anti-gravity or perhaps anti-particles, local
step size increases relative to global step size. So for simulation purposes, Iam space becomes (x,
y, z, Cx=ExtP/h, tx=(1-Cx)t0, Zx) where again bold subscripts indicate location specific data. We
still have not defined Ex, local energy density, yet. That may be approached in a cellular way.
With sufficient resolution, our universe may be modeled by a cube of uniform cells. Each cell
has six neighbors. Instantaneous energy content for each cell can/must be tabulated, including
self cell, so that instantaneous local averages can be calculated. So the energy content of seven
cells determines average local energy density. So let's tentatively define local energy density to
be: Sum(neighbor cells, self cell)/7. Iamsim becomes (x, Ex, Ena, tx=(1-EnatP/h)t0, Zx) where we've
changed notation a bit: the first index is a vector indicating cell position in the 3D matrix, next is
cell energy content, next is neighborhood average, next is local step size, and finally last is local
media impedance. Iamsim relates to Iam space described above as 'minimal set' because Ena is
only there for computational convenience. The reason we need to account for local media
impedance is because waves/wavelets are typically impeded in physical movements (cellular
translation in this discussion); there are: boundary effects, group effects (coherence/interference),
and individual effects (momentum, spin, charge) relating to physical translation. Again for the
sake of clarity, impedance and associated translation 'machinery' equate with inclusively: laws of
optics, coherent phenomena (including lasing, superfluidity,..), interference phenomena (wave
cancellation, double-slit phenomena,..), and traditionally 'classic' phenomena (charge interaction,
mechanics,..). This may sound like a 'tall order' for the simulation but i assure: with some
simplifying assumptions, the requirements become computationally approachable.

Each simulation run would correspond to a cosmological instance (one possible universe of
many). We're not particularly interested in local physics unless a singularity arises and 'crashes
the simulation'. These should not be avoided rather - they should be studied to see what causes
them. A computational issue becomes cell size/number. We must provide sufficient resolution to
allow realistic containment/movement of elementary particles. We must experiment with
different particle distribution scenarios. Total number of particles is a 'good question'.. i suppose
it depends on what is computationally allowable presently. Ideally, there should be enough global
energy to form a neutron star but that's computationally unrealistic presently. There's probably an
optimal balance between cell size and total number of particles but we're concerned with realistic
cosmologies initially .. i suppose the real test of the paradigm will be when someday: we can
simulate star formation, life, and death in the scenario proposed above.

Re-reading this several times impels me to reiterate, temporal curvature can explain: mass,
gravitation, strong force, time dilation (both kinds), and relativistic effects. Impedance and
proper translation rules explain everything else. Creating this simulation faithfully will not only
be exciting and revealing, but 'tests the model' of Iam space. We're testing whether or not R5xC
is a good model for our universe. We're testing the importance of impedance and local curvature.
We're testing the fundamentalness of local temporal curvature.

One method for validating/correcting any translation rules are: does hydrogen form of its own
accord?, what about excited states?, can we stimulate them?, do they properly return to ground
state?, what about excited states of helium?, are they properly modeled?, what about spin-orbit
interactions?, are they evinced?, what about fusion?, testing spontaneous fission?, and of course
testing various coherent/interference phenomena..

It's interesting to note very few parameters are required with Iam space (contrast that with the
Standard Model). If the premise is correct, only two 'fundamental constants' are required:
impedance and t0, the rate time passes in flat space. Everything else is encoded in the dynamics
of particle interaction (based on impedance and temporal curvature) and self-characteristics
(again relating to impedance and temporal curvature).

Theoretically, i'm not up to becoming a 'TC Feynman' but with simulations.. i believe i can
implement the simulation above given proper access to capable equipment.. This essay is also a
request for others interested in physics simulations to attempt their own. Instead of automatically
dismissing me; prove me wrong - show no faithfully created simulations mimic reality. "Most
challenging!" .. "I wager one-hundred billion quatloos!" ;)