return to homepage
return to updates

the fifth quantum dimension

by Miles Mathis

This paper is a rewrite of a paper I lost in my last website hacking. If you have a copy of the original paper, please forward it to me.

Most of what I will say here is taken from my other papers, and I am only compiling this information under this title as a convenience for those who are interested in the so-called fifth dimension. In explaining wave mechanics as an outcome of real particle spin, I have found a straightforward mechanical explanation of the fifth dimension. It is not so much a dimension as a motion, but it acts as sort of fifth dimension in the math or field.

Most people think of space as having three dimensions, to which we add time, the fourth dimension. So a fifth dimension has always seemed esoteric or otherwise mysterious. What I will show here is that as long as we are a bit loose in our terminology, we can call a fifth motion of quanta a fifth dimension. This motion adds a length variable to the field equations, so it looks like a fifth dimension. However, I must state here at the start that I don't see it that way. In my opinion, we still have only three dimensions in space. If we define dimension strictly and rigorously as a direction in space, then we have only three, even now. Time is not a dimension, by this definition, and we can treat time as a dimension only if we mean it can be treated as another length variable in the math. This is true: time is operationally equivalent to a length measurement, so we can use a length variable for time if we like. This tends to make the field equations look like they have four length dimensions, but it does not mean that time is a direction in space, independent of the other three. It is just another measurement of length in the field, and we can have any number of measurements that we like. New measurements don't imply new directions in space.

In the quantum field equations, we are representing particle motion in the field by separating each total motion into its constituent parts. In the current quark model, a particle is said to be made up of quarks, and these quarks are given various qualities like spin, color, and flavor, and we add up these qualities to explain the motion or action of a quantum. In my theory, there are no qualities. There are quantities. Physics is or should be a science of quantity, not quality. A real scientist would not be amused by quark qualities. In quark theory, even the spin is a quality, since it is not a real spin. But in my theory, all motions are real motions. We don't stack qualities, we stack spins.

I have shown that any spherical particle can have four distinct spins: about a radius, about an x-axis, about a y-axis, and about a z-axis. You will say, “Isn't that one too many? Aren't the radial and x spins the same?” No, they aren't. We have to give the particle a linear motion as well, and when we do that, we see clearly the difference between radial and x spin. A particle spinning about its own axis is not moving in x,y,z yet, so we have four possible spins. Yes, the radial and the z spin will be similar, but they will not be equivalent, since the z-spin will not be through the axis of the particle. It will be parallel, but not equivalent. And the spins must be of different sizes as well, so as not to interfere with one another gyroscopically. If the radial spin is of size 1, then x will be 2, y will be 4, and z will be 8. This is simply to get the outer spin beyond the influence of the inner spins.

In my papers on superposition, I thought that this was the limit of “quantum dimensions,” since I could not see how the number could go above 4. But in my paper on meson composition, I discovered that a fifth dimension was both possible and necessary. This is because in the superposition paper, I had assumed that the linear motion must match one of the other motions. Well, as a matter of x,y,z, it must, of course, since we are limited to those spatial directions. But as a matter of vectors, it can be either +x or -x, for instance. Say we let the linear motion be +x. Well, the x-spin can be either +x or -x, so the linear motion can relate to spin in either of those two ways. As a matter of linear motion plus x-spin, our particle can either be +x+x or +x-x. Which means we have a fifth variation. And it means our total variations are represented by 25 or 32 possible outcomes.

This makes the linear motion a sort of fifth quantum dimension. This relationship of spin to linear motion is the most hidden, both mathematically and mechanically, and it is this “quality” of quarks that has been assigned to “color.” But it is simply a fifth variance.

This is also where the idea for pentaquarks came from. "Penta" means five, of course, and some experimenters were seeing the five motions or variations I have shown you here. They saw the five "dimensions" and thought this implied five quarks. Since the standard model now uses one quark to explain each of the variations, instead of spin, they thought five variations must imply five quarks. But that is not the case. We have zero quarks and only four spins. The fifth variance is just the way the spins stack on top of the linear motion. We don't have five quarks, we have four spins plus linear motion.

My spin model has allowed me to explain particle composition without quarks. Rather than three quarks in a baryon, we have three spins, x, y, and z. Rather than two quarks in a meson, we have two spins, x and y. Then we have two other variances—the linear motion and the radial spin—which give us five variances to work with. These extra variances allow us to ditch the flavors as well as the color of quarks. In the end, we can ditch the quarks altogether, since all the variances are soaked up by spin, and better explained by them. I prove this in my meson paper by building all the major mesons without quarks. I am also able to unify all the mesons, baryons, and leptons, something the standard model has never been able to do.

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.