Five Dimensional Curvature Model

[devin553344]

PDF File: See the following thread in this forum for the pdf file: http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36269-explaining-the-electromagnetic-fields-of-the-earth/

 

I'm proposing a new idea using 5 dimensional n-spheres. First it defines the fine structure as a curvature of space which is the origin of matter. All curvatures of space carry the elementary charge as a quantum value. And then that curvature exists 5 dimensional as Planck's constant. This allows all curvatures of space (including particles) to carry the elementary charge and the DeBroglie wavelength:

 

h / (2π) = (e^2) / (ε * c/2) * 8/15 * π^2 * RZ(5)

 

Where h is Planck's constant, e is the elementary charge, ε is the permittivity of free space, c is the speed of light, RZ is Riemann zeta function.

Edited December 26, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

Another idea is that the bending of space carries the elementary charge as a charge per bend which forms for particles, also there may exist a bend energy that carries the Planck energy. Then we might calculate that with the natural logarithm of 45 degrees and the infinite charge plane solution. Also 5 dimensional n-sphere volume is used:

 

h/(2π * 8/15 * π^2) * ln(π/4) = (e^2)/(2εc)

 

Where h is Planck's constant, e is the elementary charge, and ε is the permittivity of free space, c is the speed of light.

Edited November 16, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

There should be multiple solutions since Planck's constant describes waves and particles. And I found one last solution which might make sense for particles and perhaps waves, it uses the strong force adjustment:

 

h/(2π * 2π^2) = (3Ke^2)/c * 2exp(π) * (1 + 1/(4πexp(2)))

 

K is the electric constant.

Edited November 16, 2019 by devin553344

[inverse]

external approach

 

 

as a mathematician ,I do not think that specifications of dimension has been obtained when it  has been accepted / assumed that dimension was higher than 3.

 

visualization/appearance and/or usage is a core reason to claim this.

Edited November 16, 2019 by inverse

[devin553344]

external approach

 

 

as a mathematician ,I do not think that specifications of dimension has been obtained when it  has been accepted / assumed that dimension was higher than 3.

 

visualization/appearance and/or usage is a core reason to claim this.

 

So you don't think electromagnetic is 5 dimensional?

[devin553344]

I was looking for a solution where the bend angle was 360 degrees for a single wave packet. The only thing I could find that related was this:

 

a = ln(2π)/252 * S

 

Where a is the fine structure constant, Riemann zeta -5 is used, S is the black hole entropy adjustment (see below, not actual entropy of course). This may indicate a mechanical strain potential of 2 pi and a point particle from the Riemann zeta -5. All of which apply to Planck's constant from electric force-energy.

 

I'm pointing to black hole conditions since Planck's constant is similar due to the wave being a type of event horizon at the speed of light. The S value (stated below) is derived from Bekensteins contribution to Hawking radiation, which was replaced by Hawking.

 

The purpose of using the natural logarithm with an angle was to describe something similar to deformation physics. Stating that Planck is higher in energy than electric due to deformation of space-time. Which is just an idea I was kicking around.

 

The value is off slightly on the 4th digit, and the alignment for greater precision appears to be matching a black hole entropy condition:

 

S = 1 + ln(2)/(8π) * 8/15 * π^2 * 1/252

 

This value is similar to the fine structure constant divided by four pi.

Edited November 17, 2019 by devin553344

[inverse]

So you don't think electromagnetic is 5 dimensional?

particularly it might contain some relevant contexts but I do not think that we thought the same.

 

I recommend that you consider some external contexts too.

 

the thing  that would cause absence is , to think in only classic manner / aproach.

 

tips

 

consider please,where could we see the option which provides us independent area from t-time parameter?

 

collaborational support might be required for this work.

[devin553344]

particularly it might contain some relevant contexts but I do not think that we thought the same.

 

I recommend that you consider some external contexts too.

 

the thing  that would cause absence is , to think in only classic manner / aproach.

 

tips

 

consider please,where could we see the option which provides us independent area from t-time parameter?

 

collaborational support might be required for this work.

 

I don't follow the idea of independent area from t-time parameter. Could you point me to a reference article please?

 

 

My general thought is that particles with matter are bound to relativistic effects, but waves are not since charge is "invariant" and Planck's constant does not appear to have relativity involved either. Since I'm trying to relate charge to Planck's constant and then relativity is out of my scope.

 

So it appears that there are two types of space-time curves, one for matter velocity and gravitation which is relativistic, and one for waves which is none relativistic. In fact I'm not even sure it is space-time bending for waves and perhaps is something similar. I'm calling it space-time for lack of a better idea.

Edited November 17, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

So then I found two directions to relate Planck to charge and charge to Planck:

 

h / (2π) = (e^2) / (ε * c/2) * 8/15 * π^2 * RZ(5)

 

and

 

h / (2π) * ln(2)/2 * 8/15 * π^2 * 1/252 = Ke^2/c

Edited November 17, 2019 by devin553344

[inverse]

 

 

I don't follow the idea of independent area from t-time parameter. Could you point me to a reference article please?

 

 

My general thought is that particles with matter are bound to relativistic effects, but waves are not since charge is "invariant" and Planck's constant does not appear to have relativity involved either. Since I'm trying to relate charge to Planck's constant and then relativity is out of my scope.

 

So it appears that there are two types of space-time curves, one for matter velocity and gravitation which is relativistic, and one for waves which is none relativistic. In fact I'm not even sure it is space-time bending for waves and perhaps is something similar. I'm calling it space-time for lack of a better idea.

I respect all types of ideas.

there are many articles mentioning t-time parameter. (not sure whether you would like only for independent area with it.)

if yes,then this explanation might be suitable: it is currently not in hand (or not possible in other words) to interfere it.

 

so,here currently I think we can accept that specific area which accepts (but uses!) time differently, as independent one.

 

but most of given examples are not realistic (to me).

 

all in all there are many signals that can cause us to think again independent time.

 

(lets consider: why the time is passing more quickly than normal times when we are happy. or think the inverse case)

 

would someone like more complex example? okay!

 

lets try to explain,whether you are able to remember the time in your dreams. but how is this happening?

Edited November 17, 2019 by inverse