## New ideas

This theory takes many radical departures from accepted physics, such as:

- space and time are quantised
- time is multidimensional
- there are more than the four known forces
- the universe is a mathematical object
- the structure of space and time is nested
- particles are eddies made from vectors

## Evidence

Are there any indications that these radical seeming properties are true?

Space and time are considered continuous, although particles are known to have quantised spin.

We know that an electron does not retain its spin state when rotated through 360 degrees; it requires 720 degree to do that. This means either than an electron has a 1-bit memory that tracks its rotation, or that it is not a 3-dimensional object, because we know that in 3-dimensions a 360 degree rotation is a congruent operation.

Current physics gives particles spin-like properties called isospin, spin and weak isospin that are spins in some abstract space. What abstract space?

Clearly our universe is governed by hierarchy. The strengths of the known forces as well as the large scale structure of the cosmos are strong indicators. Strangely current physical theories appear to look for definite arbitrary numbers instead of the rule creating the hierarchy. If a string theory could be shown to be consistent with observations that requires 10 space dimensions, it would merely replace the question “why are there 3 space dimensions?” with the question “why are there 10 space dimensions?”.

Just as clear is that “particle” is a human-made concept, and that a cellular-automata-like pattern of vectors spinning in a hierarchical vector space is a much better way of describing them. After all, scientists have been transmuting particles into other particles for decades. The property that makes them considered to be particles, their countable nature, is also valid for spinning patterns.

This is especially clear when you consider radioactive nuclear decay. Why should certain patterns of protons and neutrons be more stable than others?

## Levels of abstraction

In this diagram we show an open ended scale that starts at zero. Our theory, marked as TWTWW, is valid for all scales but only applicable at the grid scales, modelling subatomic particles. Quantum theory is applicable at the particle scale. Newtonian physics is only applicable at human scales. Relativity is applicable at high speeds and large scales. Since small particles exhibit relativistic effects we could have shown the validity to extend down to particle scales, but let’s not argue about the precise positioning of the bars. The point is that these theories are orders of abstraction. There may well be higher orders of abstraction still to be developed as indicated by the last grey bar in the diagram.

TWTWW is the underlying mechanism for everything, but because of the huge computational requirements it is impractical to use it to model larger systems.

## Potential explanations and verification

In the introduction we listed a number of outstanding problems in physics. Our theory has at least the potential to address these questions.

**Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory are not compatible.**

Relativity theory and quantum theory are different levels of abstraction. Special relativity is a phenomenon of the 6-dimensional structure of space and time and gravity is a phenomenon in the 30-dimensional structure.

**Where does the universe come from in the first place?**

The universe is an ordered mathematical set.

- Since it is expanding now, was there a big bang at the beginning? Why a big bang?

The universe appears to be expanding because each space dimension grows linearly with generations.

- Where does the zoo of particle types come from?

These are patterns stable along the time direction in our ordered set. We speculated how some of these patterns might look.

- Why do the particles have seemingly arbitrary properties like charge or mass?

These are properties of the patterns. Mass is the intrinsic energy of the pattern.

- Why is there an uncertainty principle?

The positions of particles, which actually are the centre points the patterns that they represent, are precisely determined in a multi-time-dimensional space. The uncertainty is in the minds of the observers.

- Why a Pauli exclusion principle?

Patterns cannot overlap.

- Why are there clusters of clusters of galaxies even if the theories say there should not be?

There are more forces than gravity shaping the large scale structure of the universe.

- Where is all the dark matter in the universe that has been postulated?

This needs to be rethought if the expansion of the universe is independent of its contents. There could be particles that spin in higher dimensions and that do not interact electromagnetically but with gravity and/or higher order forces. These extra forces beyond gravity may reduce or remove the need for such dark matter to explain the cohesion of astronomic structures at the galactic scale.

- How can there be non-local effects in quantum mechanics? How can a particle determine the state of another far away and instantaneously? How come the presence of an observer changes the outcome of experiments?

The mind states of multiple copies of observers only diverge when different information reaches them.

- Is wave particle duality not a contradiction?

A particle is a pattern in a discrete field of vectors. The countable nature of the pattern makes it appear particle-like while retaining wave characteristics like diffraction. There is no contradiction. It is both logical and intuitive.

- Why are the constants G,h,… as they are?

It should be possible to derive all of them from simulations.

- Why 1 perceived time dimension, 3 perceived space dimensions, 4 observed forces? A limit seems arbitrary.

There are no arbitrary limits, but a nested structure with 3 space and 3 time dimensions in the bottom layer. There are more, progressively weaker forces beyond the 4 known ones.

- How can particles spontaneously appear and disappear?

Virtual particles are patterns that travel not down our timeline, or our perceived time direction, but at an angle to it. Thus it appears as if they spontaneously appear and disappear.

- How can particles disintegrate into other particles?

When the particles overcome their repulsive forces and collide they create new patterns like colliding patterns do in a cellular automaton.

- “Who breathes fire into the equations?” There are formulae that accurately describe the behaviour of the world. Why does the world follow them?

The formula we are looking for is one that generates the universe and not one which describes the behaviour of its components.

Bonus question:

In spite of listening for extraterrestrial radio messages for 50 years, none have been found. Many theories have been proposed to explain this. Could it simply be that electromagnetic waves are not the medium of choice for advanced technological civilisations?

## Discussion

Resolving these questions is an audacious goal.

As encouraging as it is to have at least potential explanations to so many problems, the theory could of course still be wrong. It requires simulation. Simulating even a simple particle like an electron would be an enormous confidence builder.

The biggest loose ends in this theory are

- the need to demonstrate rotational invariance
- the lack of a recursive definition of energy
- descriptions of the patterns expected for the Z and W
^{+/-}bosons - a quantitative explanation for gravity

It is possible that these can also be settled by simulation.

The forward approach outlined in the first chapter seems to offer the best promise for success. Simulating variations of a generating formula while looking for the expected patterns seems unscientific and long-winded, but is a straightforward process. Reverse engineering a generating formula from the expected patterns is much harder.

The idea of our universe being one of the many possible mathematical ordered sets generated by a simple 3-line formula is compelling since it explains the existence of the universe and the fact that it appears to be expanding.

We have presented a candidate formula based on a generalisation of complex numbers. This appears promising in that it predicts the right number of perceived space and time dimensions and has a plausible explanation for a hierarchy of observed forces.

Verifying the generating equation must be done by simulation. If the candidate equation does not produce the expected patterns we should try other similar formulae. The underlying structure seems very compelling it is apparent that electromagnetism is related to order 4 rotational numbers and that the nuclear strong force to order 3. Multiple time dimensions comprehensively explain and resolve all the apparent paradoxes of the quantum world.