# Theory of Everything.

In the db model mass and energy is spacetime between the db's bended (or if you like energized) by a specific curvature of the multiple db particle.
The bending of spacetime can be enormously complex, since so many db's are involved, the bending of spacetime in the particle has a specific strength on a specific location of the spacetime surface.
Because of the continuous movements of the db's the spacetime surface is ever fluctuating, this is perceived as a wave.

In the db model mass and energy is spacetime between the db's bended (or if you like energized) by a specific curvature of the multiple db particle.
The bending of spacetime can be enormously complex, since so many db's are involved, the bending of spacetime in the particle has a specific strength on a specific location of the spacetime surface.
Because of the continuous movements of the db's the spacetime surface is ever fluctuating, this is perceived as a wave.

Define " db " .

It is an abbreviation of 'Dimensional Basic'(db).

A name for the point particle which more or less says that one can't go more basic for something to exists when the only property the db has is an infinite curvature on a location but no spatial dimensions. The db has no spatial dimensions (length, width, height), only one basic dimension, an infinite curvature.

Note that curvature is a complex dimension, rather than a basic one.

You could probably get away with just one complex dimension, though. I ended up with more. (Two which are unique, I think, but I think there might actually be six.)

The only thing I allocate to a db concerning its curvature is that spacetime is bended around the location of the db according to the following formula srqt(x^2+y^2+z^2)*curvature=1.
So it's influence is in the three spatial dimensions, in the db model there is no need for extra dimensions theoretically.
The curvature of a db on itself is not complex (1 parameter, infinity), when mixed with spacetime (range of infinity, multiple parameters) it gets more complex.

And time as an extra dimension, but time at a db is infinite slow, around a db a fraction of the infinity of a db less slow.

So how to split space and time in dynamic db models? Or is even time just an expression of spacetime bent more or bent less? I mean, the higher the bending, the smaller the relative meters, so time is just an observation of cube of spacetime that gets ever smaller in case of ime dillution. So movements seem to take more time for an outside observer. So time is a derivant parameter.

Last edited:
Time and distance are, in a significant sense, the same thing, at least in relativity. Your time dimension is your square root.

Complex dimensions are "just" dimensions orthogonal to the dimensions under consideration; since we aren't considering the dimension space-time curves into, it is a complex dimension. Whether curvature as a complex dimension is just a mathematical artifact of the way we represent it, or reflects something significant about reality, I don't know.

Time and distance are, in a significant sense, the same thing, at least in relativity.
Inasmuch as they are all dimensions, yes. But they are very different kinds of dimensions.

What??

... we aren't considering the dimension space-time curves into...
Spacetime does not "curve into" another dimension. There are four dimensions.

Inasmuch as they are all dimensions, yes. But they are very different kinds of dimensions

Relativistically, time and distance are equivalent. Why do you insist they are different kinds of dimension when the only thing necessary to convert between them is to divide by the speed of light? The only difference is the unit, and the universe provides a built in unit conversion.

Spacetime does not "curve into" another dimension. There are fourdimensions.

Sure. That's why I said curvature is a complex dimension, rather than a basic one.

The alternative explanation staying in four dimensions, that what we are calling curvature is more like variation in density, is... well, there are published papers talking about this, but they're pretty far outside the mainstream. It is the view I personally hold, but again, pretty far outside the mainstream.

Relativistically, time and distance are equivalent. Why do you insist they are different kinds of dimension when the only thing necessary to convert between them is to divide by the speed of light?
Show us how that works.

I'm flying at 1mi/s, but if I divide by c I will be moving through time at ... 1/186,000 mi/h/mi/s?

Sure. That's why I said curvature is a complex dimension, rather than a basic one.
Curvature is not a dimension, whether basic or complex. The above sentence is non-sensical.

I'm flying at 1mi/s, but if I divide by c I will be moving through time at ... 1/186,000 mi/h/mi/s?

Yes and no. Distance is relative to something. "Flying at [speed]" needs an additional preposition; "flying towards" or "flying away from".

And if you are flying towards something, keeping relativity in mind, the object you are flying towards is moving faster in time. Away, it is moving slower.

We can express this in two ways; we can cancel out distance and leave the time in place (gain or lose X seconds per second), but this is somewhat mathematically clumsy, so instead it is generally expressed as a ratio, and multiplied by the total time taken.

Curvature is not a dimension, whether basic or complex. The above sentence is non-sensical.

It has a magnitude, it is a dimension. Now, whether it is a dimension in the sense of being able to move in it independently - doesn't look like it.

It does exhibit some other characteristic behavior of a spacial dimension - of particular note being the way changes in its magnitude correspond to changes in distance in other dimensions - but ultimately I don't see this argument as going anywhere.

Yes and no.
You almost got it! The answer is no. Spouting silly ignorance is not science.

After more than a year or so the article 'Metric Science' has been updated. Amongst others corrections were made in choosing some specific word concerning what type of mass is meant. Furthermore the whole article as we wanted to present it is more or less in it's definite form.

Though the article is still a preliminary issue (50 pages (instead of a few hundred pages including the relevant math for the proposed 'Third Model')), I think it (despite it being preliminary) is worth a read. It might not explain everything there is, but it does hint us at a possible explanation for the observed forces and particles in physics at a most fundamental scale, underneath the 'Heisenberg boundary'. So if you want read about 'a cutting edge' theory, a rogue theory, defying the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics you'll probably have a good read.

Note: The article has not been peer-reviewed.

So if you want read about 'a cutting edge' theory, a rogue theory, defying the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics you'll probably have a good read.
Sounds like a waste of time to me.

Sounds like a waste of time to me.
Thank you for your support. New idea's are sometimes hard to comprehend when stuck at paved roads. I thought it was worth my time trying to dig a little deeper, theorizing what's happening under the Heisenberg boundary. A subject QM can't describe.

After more than a year or so the article 'Metric Science' has been updated. Amongst others corrections were made in choosing some specific word concerning what type of mass is meant. Furthermore the whole article as we wanted to present it is more or less in it's definite form.

Though the article is still a preliminary issue (50 pages (instead of a few hundred pages including the relevant math for the proposed 'Third Model')), I think it (despite it being preliminary) is worth a read. It might not explain everything there is, but it does hint us at a possible explanation for the observed forces and particles in physics at a most fundamental scale, underneath the 'Heisenberg boundary'. So if you want read about 'a cutting edge' theory, a rogue theory, defying the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics you'll probably have a good read.

Note: The article has not been peer-reviewed.
What is the "Heisenberg boundary" and what does it take to get "underneath" it?

What is the "Heisenberg boundary" and what does it take to get "underneath" it?
For what I've understood there's a limit (Heisenberg limit) in how detailed we can observe the universe in it's smallest scale, a theoretical limit would be the highest possible frequency electromagnetic particle (for example a frequency much higer than gamma photons).

QM describes all of the observable universe. The hypothesis as stated in the article 'Metric Science' goes beyond the Heisenberg limit of observation and tries to picture a hypothetical observation of an even smaller world, this by introducing dark matter as a particle. The properties of this particle and its interactions (which lead to macro processes in the observable universe) are being described.

For what I've understood there's a limit (Heisenberg limit) in how detailed we can observe the universe in it's smallest scale, a theoretical limit would be the highest possible frequency electromagnetic particle (for example a frequency much higer than gamma photons).

QM describes all of the observable universe. The hypothesis as stated in the article 'Metric Science' goes beyond the Heisenberg limit of observation and tries to picture a hypothetical observation of an even smaller world, this by introducing dark matter as a particle. The properties of this particle and its interactions (which lead to macro processes in the observable universe) are being described.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle results from certain properties being conjugate variables in QM, for instance position and momentum. That imposes an intrinsic limit on how exactly pairs of these properties can be defined. There is nothing about this that sets any limit to the energy it is possible for a photon to have, nor does it say anything about the smallest scale of length.

You may perhaps be thinking of the Planck length, but that is a concept that is only relevant for quantum theories of gravity. And we don't have one of those that works. But I suppose that if the Planck length is the smallest distance at which physics can be applied, then a photon with a wavelength smaller than that could not be described by physics either.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle results from certain properties being conjugate variables in QM, for instance position and momentum. That imposes an intrinsic limit on how exactly pairs of these properties can be defined. There is nothing about this that sets any limit to the energy it is possible for a photon to have, nor does it say anything about the smallest scale of length.

You may perhaps be thinking of the Planck length, but that is a concept that is only relevant for quantum theories of gravity. And we don't have one of those that works. But I suppose that if the Planck length is the smallest distance at which physics can be applied, then a photon with a wavelength smaller than that could not be described by physics either.
What remains then is only the hypothesis of dark matter being a fundamental particle, a particle whose properties and its interactions are described and which lead to the existance of all observable matter.

I would say, if you do have the time and are interested enough, please read the article. It is far from finished and my science partner is not alive anymore so defending his part of the work will be a bit more troublesome. Nevertheless, I will try to answer any questions you have based on the article.

What remains then is only the hypothesis of dark matter being a fundamental particle, a particle whose properties and its interactions are described and which lead to the existance of all observable matter.

I would say, if you do have the time and are interested enough, please read the article. It is far from finished and my science partner is not alive anymore so defending his part of the work will be a bit more troublesome. Nevertheless, I will try to answer any questions you have based on the article.
Sorry, no. It's fairly clear you don't understand much physics, so it is vanishingly unlikely that your paper is worth reading.

But regarding dark matter, have you come across the sexaquark hypothesis? I think it is rather an interesting idea, though I don't know whether it really stands up.