Dimensional Physics
Everything consists of space-time.
Everything consists of space-time.
In DP, we want to achieve one of the most difficult things that can be attempted in physics. No, not to unify GR and QFT. That was just a starting point. DP is so well developed that it is clear what we have to do given the current state of physics. We have to rethink some of the fundamentals of physics. Getting someone to do this is incredibly difficult.
The level of difficulty is increased even further because DP does not provide a new “highly scientific” mathematical model. Everything we need is already there. We want to achieve a new description of physics using the known mathematical models. That sounds more like Arabian Nights than a physical theory. We will look at the given old descriptions with a new perspective. Similar to a puzzle in which you already know the name of all the puzzle pieces but still cannot solve it. Partial images emerge, but no overall picture. This continues until the moment the liberating idea comes. This is not a 2D puzzle, but a 3D one, and everything fits. In DP, we will need a little more. We will use spacetimes from 4D to 1D (attention! In DP, only the spatial dimensions are counted) in different constellations. This will enable us to solve the physics puzzle.
The logical connections in DP are so far-reaching that we can answer the following questions in full:
Just stop. A list of questions like this can be as long as you like. We can see that the questions are about the very foundations of physics. The starting point was a unification of GR and QFT. Today, in 2025, we are certain that these two theories, with today’s mathematical description, do not fundamentally match. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the DP is concerned with precisely these fundamental considerations. If we do not need a new mathematical description and want to create a common basis, then there must be something wrong with the consideration of today’s foundations. This is where we start.
The starting point was the idea of unification. Unification means to bring different things to an identity. The goal was to achieve this with as few different objects as possible. Taking this idea to the extreme means having a single object. Then there can be no more differences. Where do we start in this search? Here we have two different approaches to choose from:
Starting with a completely new theory was not the focus. The goal was to unify GR and QFT. It is easier to start with the known descriptions. Since GR and QFT are the pillars of modern physics, we choose one of them.
Almost everyone looking for a unification starts with QFT. This makes sense. QFT is the best-confirmed theory we have. In addition, QFT describes all elementary particles and the interactions between them. Only one interaction is missing: gravity. We are certain that all statements about QFT, such as probability, uncertainty, entanglement, linear mapping, etc., are 100% correct. We are equally certain that the GR contains none of this. In addition, the GR contains such ugly things as singularities. Therefore, we assume that the GR is not consistent.
Many brilliant minds have long searched for a unification, starting from QFT. The result has always been identical so far. They were able to improve the mathematical tools and generated knowledge. However, they did not get any closer to the actual solution. Therefore, we choose GR as a starting point, as unlikely as this may sound. What’s more, almost everyone who studies physics in depth develops a preference for one of the two theories out of personal preference. For me, it was GR. Therefore, another property is added for the “one object” we are looking for. The mapping on this object should be geometrically describable.
We have a rough idea of what we want to achieve and a starting point. Let’s take a closer look at GR. To do this, we look at Einstein’s field equations. We use the simplest form:
G_{\mu\nu}\space =\space k\space *\space T_{\mu\nu}
Oh, the first formula, don’t panic. We don’t have to be able to solve this equation. It’s about the structure and the objects used. On the left side is the Einstein tensor G_{\mu\nu}. This describes the curvature of space-time. On the other side, there is a k as a proportionality constant. We will not be interested in this until a later chapter. Then comes the energy-momentum tensor T_{\mu\nu}. If you look at this equation with our wish in mind (one object, geometric mapping), then we have already achieved the first half here.
What was Einstein’s ingenious idea that led to this equation? To no longer understand gravity as a force, but to map it directly geometrically onto exactly one single object, spacetime itself. For us, this means that we develop this idea further and transfer it to the other side. We have to find a geometric mapping in spacetime for the energy-momentum tensor.
This means that the field equations on both sides describe a “deformation” of spacetime. One deformation is known as spacetime curvature. We will call the counterpart or source of spacetime curvature spacetime density. This is our approach. We have only one object in the equation, space-time. The equation describes a purely geometric change in space-time for the respective “deformation”. This does not change the calculations within the GR. The equation remains as it is. We change our view of the GR. The approach can thus be summarized very simply:
Everything consists of space-time
We will obtain different and also an infinite number of space-time configurations in order to be able to map the QFT, but really all descriptions of nature are geometric mappings in a space-time. Currently, there is a mnemonic for GR. It goes something like this: “Matter tells space-time how it has to curve and curved space-time tells matter how it has to move”. Here, a clear separation of stage (space-time) and actor (matter) can still be seen. A paradigm shift must take place. The new appropriate saying is:
Space-time is not just a dynamic stage, it is the only actor.
The approach that any mass-energy equivalent is a spacetime density and thus a direct mapping in spacetime will lead us to the most important conclusion in DP. Spacetime has limits. Not given by a length or distance, but in structure. Through the SR, we will recognize that a spacetime can lose a spatial dimension and the time dimension. length contraction and time dilation to zero. The mapping of the space-time density across this space-time boundary will forcefully generate all the elements needed for the QFT and explain the structure of the GR:
The list could be extended by a number of points. However, we can already see from these few points that in the new view of the space and time dimensions, we have to make a fundamental change in the way we deal with these objects. There is a paradigm shift, but without new mathematics. We explain why the given mathematics must look exactly as it does. This is particularly important for QFT.
The points mentioned are all a confirmation of the GR and QFT. There is no deviation in the observations. However, we can make experimentally testable predictions. For example, the last statement, that space-time is a scalar potential field, results in observable changes for cosmology. The early universe must be different in some wah this.ys from our present universe. The latest JWST observations can be explained very well with.
This list could be extended again. However, the topics are covered in detail in the text.
As can be seen from the text of the introduction, more text is used than formulas. It will stay that way. Formulas will be used in their simplest form when necessary. But only when absolutely necessary. A description without mathematics is not possible. To make this text accessible to a wide readership, a simple level of mathematics is aimed for. This means that we are not doing any mathematics here, we describe it better as “shuffling a few formulas”. We don’t need to be able to mathematically derive or solve formulas like the field equations. But the structure behind them must be explained. The goal is that we always know the why for all natural constants and formulas.
Not every detail from the textbook will be explained from scratch, but the reader should be interested in physics and be able to identify the formula used in the introduction. For physics professionals, it can therefore be “long-winded”. The decision has been explicitly made in this direction.
The chapters must be read in the given order. Since the mathematics and the designation of objects do not change, one has a certain idea of this. However, we will assign a different meaning to some objects, e.g. the speed of light. This means that a different meaning cannot be avoided for the same names. Therefore, the order of the chapters must be followed when reading.
It is often assumed that a physicist always wants to clarify the why of a matter. In fact, at universities, only the how, the calculation, is often presented as the most important thing. This is strongly related to QFT, which is said to be the basis of everything. This cannot be explained in a purely logical way. It only works with mathematics. With a lot and complicated mathematics. At the forefront of research into QFT or string theory, the field of work of a physicist or a mathematician can no longer be distinguished. This is precisely where we at DP come in and want to change this. Even a QFT must be understandable from a logical point of view.
In my opinion, a change in the way physicists work occurred about 150 years ago. They did not necessarily have an idea in advance about a topic to be investigated. It was also possible to investigate the model in the form of pure mathematics. New ideas then emerged from this mathematical investigation. With the development of quantum mechanics (QM), this has become the leading approach in physics. This approach, which has been pursued very intensively for over 100 years now, has been extremely successful. Without it, we would definitely not be where we are today in physics. However, I also believe that this path has become overused. We have reached a point where we have to reverse the approach. New ideas are needed, which must then be examined with mathematics.
The why and the how are both important. The reasons given are to be understood in such a way that in this description the idea, the why, is considered more important than the mathematical calculation, the how. There must be a compelling logical connection between the descriptions and effects. Especially since we will rethink some of the basics. We explicitly do not want to create a model like QFT, where almost everything is very accurately predictable with very complex calculations. However, one has no idea why this actually reflects the experimental findings.
Enough of a preface and introduction. From here on, everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether it is worth their while to familiarize themselves with the ideas of the DP.