Quantum Realism Roadmap-Checklist

[ ] formally develop Iam space as described below

[ ] formally develop curvature theory ala Feynman minus virtual exchange
[ ] formally develop e-m theory minus QFT / virtual exchange
including a comprehensive theory of photons
[ ] formally develop spacelet theory based on above
[ ] prove above is minimally sufficient to explain nuclear and orbital structure
[ ] prove TR is equivalent to GR minus L-T
[ ] successfully explain magnetism based on above
[ ] successfully simulate nuclear stability, instability, metastable states, atomic orbitals,
'multistate' orbitals, nuclear excitation, atomic excitation, and simple molecules
[X] disprove Bell's Theorem; Caroline H. Thompson

Motivation: the Standard Model based on inherent randomness and virtual exchange fails to
explain successfully realistically: magnetism, e-m forces, and most notably gravitational forces.
Anyone can postulate virtual particles with some set of no-less-than magical properties which
convey the forces above. While no lack of imagination is ascribed to that development, realistic
imagination and understanding is sorely lacking. [edit] After discussion and contemplation
with/of Don Briddell of NPA and fieldstructure.org, who's the unconventional alternative to
string theory and 10 dimensions, i'm forced to ask myself the question: what's the simplest
model/structure which can explain our observations? It's not that nature obeys Occam's Razor,
but we must in our modeling process.

A simplified representation of Iam space is {{R5, Y0, Z0}, p, p0, T} where the first part
represents spacetime, curvature, elasticity of space, and impedance of space, second is cosmic
particle set, third is their initial positions and momentum, and fourth is particle translation
machinery. (An attempt at determining T is performed in a previous essay.)

An attempt at curvature theory: The Feynman diagram 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.

An attempt at photon theory: The Poynting vector in engineering indicates power flow in an
electromagnetic field. Engineers view photons as 'self propagating transverse electromagnetic
waves' that are polarizable in two ways: circular and linear. So photons 'self propagate'
somehow.. Almost no one addresses how they do this. Several alternative theorists propose
energy propagates because it changes form: from electromagnetic to mass-equivalent. If TR is
correct, mass-equivalent is a temporal distortion or curvature in time, so photons move because
they change form between electromagnetic energy and temporal energy. Alternatively, if GR is
correct, mass-equivalent is/are really little 'twists in space' (i call them spacelets), so photons
move because their energy transforms between electromagnetic field and spacelet. (An
interesting view of photons is as screw-dislocations boring their way through space.)
An attempt at spacelet theory: A simplified version of above (dual flux-vortex-spacelet) is two
bits of charge orbiting a spacelet. Each bit of charge has no mass but only mass equivalent
energy. They orbit the spacelet at the speed of light. It's proposed each bit has mass equivalent of
E/4 so combined it's E/2. The other E/2 resides in spacelet/time. The mechanics of bit energy is
h-bar/2 = (E/2)cr which explains why we determine the spin of elementary particles to be 1/2.
Whether r is 'classical electron/proton radius' or something else must be determined.. Spacelet is
short for spacetime wavelet. It's an engineering representation of twisted spacetime or screw-
dislocation. The theory is well developed within engineering. The math describing screw-
dislocations and vortices have surprising parallels. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has a
surprising parallel in wavelet theory. So it's natural, from an engineering perspective, for us to
model elementary particles as dual spacelet e-m vortices.

A heuristic proof TR = GR - L-T: One way to think of gravity is as curved space. Another way to
think of gravity is as curved time (only). An object in a circular orbit (around Earth) is following
a 'straight line' path (of least action) through curved space - or - is following a path of same
temporal curvature. An object in free-fall is following a straight-line path to the maximum of
spatial curvature - or - is following a path to the maximum of temporal curvature. Gravity can be
analyzed exclusively as a distributed compression of time. (All trajectories can be treated as a
linear combination of those two orthogonal trajectories. They are fundamentally different in
terms of temporal curvature. All extended objects experience a gradient on different parts of their
extension - it’s not just the ‘steepness of the hill’ which pulls them down. In the same way, time
is infinitesimally slower on the ‘low side’ of an object in orbit. Objects move to maximize time-
dilation.)

.. i predicted it will take about 100 years for us to firmly establish the theory above.
i explained the main reason for delay is not lack of skills among theoretical physicists but
philosophical inertia: the general resistance to change due to entrenchment of prevailing
paradigms. [edit] (Perhaps it's more like magnetic reluctance which avoids a direct return to
magnetic state requiring a more circuitous path.) My previous version of this was immature in its
approach toward physicists. i broke my own rule of attacking them personally vs their ideas.
Please forgive this. i realize i lack the formal training/capabilities examined below. But that does
not mean i don't have valid insights to offer the physics community. No one owns a patent on
inspiration. If you read my essays with an open mind and heart, you'll realize i only have
humanity's best interests in mine (along with Occam's Razor).

[edit] An Israeli mathematician wrote asking me to 'prove' atomic structure based on the theory
above (just two simple atoms and excitation states). But that task, proving atomic structure can
be derived from the model above, is something that takes generations of physicists to complete.
It's an unfair request. i can perform simulations, but that's not proving anything. All it does is
provide numerical evidence the theory can work.. In the first place, i'm not a theoretical physicist;
i have graduate engineering training and some technical experience. At best, i can 'point the way'
for physicists to take (an avenue they've sorely neglected). If we consider we've been working on
the Standard Model for about 100 years, it's truly unfair for anyone to ask me to 'prove it'. All i
can do is ask in return: will you help me develop the theory? (Btw, he said "no".)

My gut tells me: it's the path we need to take to make true progress in science and understanding.