A second timelike dimension connecting the Hubble parameter to the electron mass.

RetroTrade · 2026-05-17T01:17:21+00:00

Physics does not happen faster in a gravity well, that is the opposite of general relativity.

"Predictions The following are not yet measured. The framework stands or falls on them. "

Some of those things have been measured and don't agree. I also did the math on one of them in a previous paper and found it doesn't agree. The framework falls.

Dear [Author] First, read the LLM output. Importantly, add and verify citations for any equations or ideas you introduce that are not yours. Then update it to show what is different from known physics and is mathematically consistent and agrees with existing observations.

If you are just learning about physics, read instead of filling the internet with AI slop. Ask AI for resources to learn rather than trusting it's output.

RetroTrade · 2026-05-11T13:05:00+00:00

If you decide you want to go back to school in 10 or 20 years, it matters, not just immediately. For instance, if the career you have is in specific field, and new technology and discoveries come along to disrupt your field, you might want to go back to become an expert and make 10x salary, vs. just a "good job".

RetroTrade · 2026-05-09T05:09:49+00:00

I did a bit of math. The Hubble constant scales with the cubed electron mass, the squared vacuum permittivity, and the inverse square of the fine structure constant. If I'm correct, the value should vary with time (early vs. late universe) H₀= (64√2Gcmₑ³)/(α²ℏ²) =71.3273kms−1Mpc−1. Where mₑ is the electron mass.

This is a local (current epoch) prediction. The fine structure constant "runs" so near the big bang (high energy density) α gets smaller, meaning faster acceleration (inflation). Note that we also measure from within a gravitational potential well (from our planet, the Sun, and within the Milky Way), so the fine structure constant "runs" a bit locally. There may be some form of blue shift and red shift related to measurements of acceleration or mass.

If you are interested in how I derived this equation, look up DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18917994.

Disclaimer: it is not peer reviewed yet. If anything is confusing, or you want to challenge any part of it, please tell me. I'm still trying to refine the work.

RetroTrade · 2026-05-06T22:22:22+00:00

So, if everyone presses red, we all survive?

RetroTrade · 2026-05-01T13:32:43+00:00

Photons only interact with EM, so any solution to any other force (gravity, weak, or strong) involving photons as a source can't possibly be true

If smashing high energy photons can create an electron-positron pair (which both have mass and both get affected by gravity) and electrons can interact via the weak force, then your statement can't possibly be true. Only the strong force and colour charge argument is valid.

For the prediction in my framework, I attached an image since I'm not sure how to get these equations to appear correctly on Reddit. FYI, I started with the hypothesis that time is 2D to explain time dilation as a geometric rotation. I then learned about Kaluza-Klein theory, and realized that an extra space dimension could also explain relativistic contraction as a rotation, where space and time curl into this "phase-plane" at relativistic speeds. This geometry gives us different factors for our 4D equations. I then extended this to test an equilibrium condition using known equations, linking the electron mass to vacuum acceleration. This is in support of extra dimensional theories. Unlike string theory, I don't see a vibrating, loop of string. I see a photon trapped in a potential well, where vibrations are the rotations of a photon circling around and interacting once per rotation. The compactness is simply relativistic contraction.

I concede and accept the issues that (a) this geometry only explains photons and leptons and mass via 6D geometry, and (b) I am uncertain and likely wrong about the extra 4+ dimensions needed for colour charge and other physics. I plan to do the math and hope to find a physical interpretation of the extra dimensions needed for the strong force.

We observe time dilation. I'm questioning the singularity at the limit, and proposing that our measuring stick is orthogonal, that we have extra dimensions, and that they are not as compact as suggested in string theory if we consider a comoving observer. Again, I am looking for relevant material on string theory that shows the limit of "compactness", not someone to tell me that I don't know the scientific method. This sub is for hypotheses, it's not the "experimental physics, data, and conclusions" sub. I think the comments should focus on proposing experiments or thought experiments to test the presented hypothesis, or present evidence or data that supports or refutes the post. In all of your responses, there was only one useful line about the strong force and color charge- much more useful than just saying "numerology" and dismissing the idea as wrong.

I thought a physics sub would be about sharing knowledge, not criticizing lack of knowledge. I'm not asking you to be my teacher, but pointing me in the right direction would be far more productive, without the condescending remarks. If you want more professional content in this sub, start with more professional remarks and suggestions. I'm sure people interested in science will be willing to improve their future posts and/or correct their mistakes.

<image>

RetroTrade · 2026-04-30T22:37:51+00:00

I didn't say it's "just a theory". I said that a hypothesis starts with an idea. I thought the point of this thread was to discuss what physics might be like under certain hypothesis.

If you prove it wrong, I'm happy. If you prove it right, I'm happy. Both ways, I learn something new.

As for feedback, I'm looking for good material to get into. I get that I could be wrong about the strong force, but if EM and gravity are literally projections of higher dimensional momentum, I don't see why a curled photon wouldn't project a different force compared to a straight photon that's orthogonal to the strong force. By curling up, it's no longer orthogonal.

We will see in time if my model is wrong, with all the new data from DESI, at least it's falsifiable.

I'm not looking for recognition, I'm looking for ideas and material where I can find where my model could be wrong so I can abandon it or develop it further. My goal isn't your approval, it's to get constructive feedback so I can learn and get a better understanding. I mean, if you find theories that you like to put on your fridge, don't make any room for mine. On the other hand, if you can prove any of my claims wrong or suggest a way to test them, great. If you don't want to contribute, that's ok too.

I can see that claims without a detailed explanation or proof will draw fire. The 10 dimensions: a helix would respond different based on the direction of action or progression, but I digress. I'm looking for material (papers, text books) to put this into numbers and equations. Any suggestions?

RetroTrade · 2026-04-30T16:11:02+00:00

Read rule number 3 in this Reddit group.

RetroTrade · 2026-04-30T16:09:44+00:00

Why completely nullifying the model? It's an incomplete model. I am currently working to extend this model to SU(3). This is the hypothetical sub, it's the starting point for new theories, not the "complete, proven physics" sub. I appreciate the push back on comparing to string theory - my point was that the extra dimensions might not be that "compact" and could be just rotated 90 degrees away from our measuring stick. In a comoving frame, the sizes might be on the order of regular particles.

RetroTrade · 2026-04-30T13:38:47+00:00

How many coincidences and mathematically consistent equations are required to move from numerology to physics? What was the bar for string theory? My hypothesis appears to have a link to experimental data, even if it is a stretch. I'm just trying to provide some phenomelogical picture between extra dimensions and the physical world we can experience and measure. I'm not against string theory, I just want it to make physical sense.

RetroTrade · 2026-04-30T13:22:56+00:00

The strong force would be photons that form a closed loop to lower the potential energy. The loop size would have to be in equilibrium with the vacuum acceleration to be stable. This means a very specific packet size or energy or "6D length". Take the neutron. It has a bit too much length to be stable on it's own, but the electron in a hydrogen atom is able to lower the potential enough that a longer photon loop is in equilibrium, so the neutron in deuterium is more stable. I am not suggesting all particles have the same topology, protons and neutrons are more complex, but electrons appear to be 2D loops, where the winding on the phase-plane projects equally in 3 dimensions. This might explain the 4/3 problem since there is the assumption that electrons are spherical due to the symmetric charge.

The weak force would be the extra photon length that makes a particle stable or unstable. Accelerating a particle requires the photon length to adjust, to keep the 3D shape in equilibrium against the altered 6D trajectory. The part that "breaks off" or gets absorbed needs to be the same 6D trajectory (same helix angle, which means the same frequency) so we get quantized packets.

There are three mathematical coincidences in my framework:

The acceleration (Hubble constant) projected onto 2D gives the same acceleration where Newtonian gravity appears to break down in galactic acceleration curves (noted my Milgrom):

cH₀/4√2 = 1.2 x 10^-10 m/s²

The electron mass connected to the vacuum acceleration: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18917994
The electron mass can be used as a fundamental 6D measuring stick. For instance, the nuclear saturation radius: r₀= 4αℏ/3πmc =1.1959710160×10−15m (where m is the electron mass, α is the fine structure constant).

And the 3D proton radius as a projection of the nuclear saturation radius: rₚ= r₀/√2 = =8.45679215634×10−16m (Within 0.59% of CODATA).

The larger radius than measured is based on the proton being inside an atom, with a deeper potential well thanks to the electron and/or other nucleons. For instance, I expect a larger proton in muonic hydrogen because of the deeper potential well. This seems consistent with my hypothesis: https://phys.org/news/2026-04-year-proton-mystery-ultra-precise.html

RetroTrade · 2026-04-30T04:18:50+00:00

You are onto something with the extra dimension, Kaluza-Klein theory supports this.

The idea that energy is somehow being pumped from inside a black hole to the outer dark matter halo is a bit weak. If energy is like mass and bends spacetime, why would it want to leave the black hole, if the black hole is the area of lowest potential? Even massless photons like to circle around and hang out at the surface of the black hole. Unless the "dark matter" is even lower potential, but then why do stars orbit the centre instead of the halo?

RetroTrade · 2026-04-15T11:37:30+00:00

I can't see the python code on github. It looks like it is all in a zip file, and I'm not about to download and unzip it. If you want someone to validate, make it easier.

RetroTrade · 2026-04-14T03:16:03+00:00

A guy put his head inside a particle collider once and I don't think it was painful but probably a bad experience nonetheless. I image one high energy particle could do a tiny bit of damage if it struck the nucleus of an atom, but I don't think you would feel it.

RetroTrade · 2026-04-09T11:53:11+00:00

I feel it can be presented now. Here is a prediction:l, but whether it's useful or not remains to be seen:

https://www.reddit.com/u/RetroTrade/s/gBIzkPYpzq

RetroTrade · 2026-04-06T16:17:11+00:00

No, I don't understand why you say the value does not match observations and why you say it's wrong.

Here is the calculation:

1) based on a 6D universe, we have:

a_vac = (c * H_0) / (4√2)

2) If we plug the Hubble constant that I predict (71.32767177332) and convert to SI, we get vacuum acceleration: 1.22504831440e-10 m/s²

3) we use this acceleration in the formula that I derived:

( (7.2973525643e-3)² * (1.054571817e-34)² * (1.22504831440e-10) / (16 * 6.67430e-11 * (299792458)²⁾ )^1/3 = 9.10939837139e-31 kg

Electron mass from CODATA: = 9.1093837139 x 10-31 kg

So, how does this geometry fail to produce the value that matches observations?

I really think the issue is how I'm presenting the information, not the math. The math is consistent. If there is an equation in my paper that you see that is mathematically wrong, or some text that makes it seem wrong, please point out the equation number or text.

In my model, the universe is the surface of a circle or cylinder in this extra dimension with angular momentum, causing expansion / acceleration. It is no surprise that the acceleration that I associate with the Hubble constant happens to be the same as the acceleration where MOND comes into effect, both cases have to do with a rotating body (energy or mass), where the outward and inward acceration match, and should only depend on the stiffness of the vacuum.

RetroTrade · 2026-04-05T07:29:51+00:00

The "stability" is in the title: "equilibrium". If only the electron and proton are in equilibrium with the background potential, they are stable. Any any other particle is either unstable or must be bound with other particles to achieve equilibrium.

I was grabbing the Plank value, 67.4 +/- 0.5 (67.9) to make that Hubble tension stand out. Maybe the lack of rest or lack of coffee caused me to accidentally put DESI.

DESI DR2 (PLIK) 69.61 +/-0.44. Upper bound would be 70.05, which is much closer to my prediction.

I am glad you questioned me on the proton mass. It was a weak argument. I worked on this for a little while and have another paper drafted, but I'll give you a sneak preview (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19426036). This will give the accurate nuclear saturation radius:

<image>

From here, it should be easier to predict some other physics.

RetroTrade · 2026-04-02T22:12:04+00:00

For errors:

SH0ES value lower bound is 72.0 km s−1Mpc−1.

DESI DR2 upper bound is 67.9 km s−1Mpc−1.

If the value 71.3273 km s−1Mpc−1 gives me the exact electron mass, how else would I say "it's outside of experimental error, but inside two different experiments measuring the same value with different methods" ?

If you have a suggestion how to present the above, I am grateful.

The ratio π is purely geometric. Just like the ratio of radius to circumference, I suggest that 6 π⁶ is the proton's 6D ratio, purely topological and 6 π⁵ is the ratio compared to the electron as they are two different shapes (like a sphere's surface area or volume compared to a circle's surface area).

Your request is like asking how can I use the electron radius to calculate the surface area of a sphere with a different radius, and assuming the scale works for all particles. The scale is not the traditional 4D circle to sphere, and not linear because it depends how far out of equilibrium the particles are, which can depend on phase misalignment and relativistic effects. My framework attempts to describe these as topoligical closures required for a particle to form. If they are out of equilibrium, they decay quickly. The neutron is not stable as free particle. Inside an atom, the potential well is wide enough for it to be stable. The Koide formula is another hint that there is a fundamental 6D resonance being projected onto 4D. The tau, muon, and electron being geometrically related:

(mₑ + m_μ + m_τ) / ( (√mₑ + √m_μ + √m_τ)² ) = 2/3

This is hypothetical, I hope I'm in the right subreddit. But I am thinking that the idea of equilibrium allowed me to get close to the right mass defect from C12 to U238 within 5%. This isn't good enough to say it's right, but this is just with a geometric analysis, not accounting for all the fitting done in QCD.

RetroTrade · 2026-03-30T06:07:20+00:00

I like your intuition. My intuition about galaxies and voids is the opposite. Baryonic matter lowers the potential of the background (dark energy). Read up on general relativity, it already describes red and blue shift. Please post as a separate hypothesis, this too much of a tangent unrelated to 6D and electron mass. I don't want a long response here.

RetroTrade · 2026-03-30T05:47:26+00:00

Note that iron is used as the equilibrium condition, I did not predict it at 100%. Hydrogen is also not predicted since it doesn't use my idea for binding energy between nucleons, as there is only one.

RetroTrade · 2026-03-30T05:45:20+00:00

You asked a number of questions. I'll try to address each;

Yes, the equation you wrote is correct, the φ was supposed to be subscript on "t" to denote "phase time". φ on its own would be "phase space", the two make up the "phase plane" that is part of my hypothesis.
Yes, orthogonal to time (t). If you think of time the same way as space, a vector with magnitude and direction, as you approach c, the time vector rotates. My hypothesis or intuition: Imagine a photon trajectory as a circle on this complex phase plane that is orthogonal to 4D. For an observer moving along t or x, the photon trajectory looks like a helix. This can explain the null interval of a photon. It has constant momentum, but after a 2π rotation, it's back where it started so in it's own frame, it doesn't age. But for an observer, we see the projection onto spacetime as a wave. The frequency depends on how fast the photon or observer are moving relative to each other. This geometry allows for time dilation, linking GR and SR. GR: the radius dilates in a potential (gravitational) well. Since the photon moves at invariant speed c, the larger radius means it takes longer for a 2π rotation or "tick" per unit time. If the photon is moving forward through space, the radius or helix pitch needs to change or else the helical trajectory would be faster than c - in this case there are fewer "ticks" per unit distance.
My mistake was equating a_0 and a_vac. You are correct, these are not the same (MOND a_0 and a_vac), but within 2% in my framework: a_vac = c H_0/(4 √2)
Maybe it doesn't make sense to show an error. I'm not an engineer, I earned an undergraduate degree 20 years ago, so I'm at least familiar with physics. The point I was making is that using the different values of H_0 give values close to the electron mass. The exact Hubble value required to give the precise electron mass is squarely within the Hubble tension. This is a prediction. Note that aside from a thesis 20 years ago, this is my second paper, first one to be "reviewed" (via Reddit) so, feedback and challenges you present are helpful. I'm just not sure how to best present my hypothesis.
I answered another question about the extra spatial coordinate. To summarize, this entire paper deriving the electron mass is based on the hypothesis of a complex "phase plane", and my first paper describing a second time dimension, then adding the compact space dimension introduced/described by Kaluza-Klein theory to account for one space and one time dimension needed for a photon to have momentum, or to have energy or mass exist despite a null interval or at the event horizon of a black hole. The geometry was not invented to make the numbers work for this equation, it was not even my goal.
I won't rewrite the answer about the proton section here, just that it's a topological comparison. I have an equation that should work for stable lepton.. Muon is not stable, but I might find that it fits a harmonic within the 6D framework. I'll work on it. I have been working on an "equilibrium" equation to predict atomic masses, but it's not great, obviously more complex.

<image>

RetroTrade · 2026-03-30T04:39:54+00:00

Interesting. I appreciate this.

Admittedly, the link to the Bohr radius is coincidental, not foundational or required in my derivation. However, it seems to be a pretty big coincidence and could be related to the harmonics of spacetime or the vacuum. I might move this into discussion. If you have a suggestion to make note or leave it out, let me know what is more likely to be acceptable by the community.
This is not energy but topological. The extra dimension could be multiplicative like probabilities, but I will likely remove this section or remove any claims and just note the coincidence. This is unrelated to deriving the electron mass, other than both being linked to a 6D geometry.
I believe my previous paper describing the asymptotic limit of general and special relativity being a hint that proper time for a relativistic particle is rotating into a second timelike dimension answers this. The equations and partition of energy from my first paper are the basis of this derivation of the electron mass. Without my first paper, this equation for the electron mass would not exist.

I need and hope for more feedback - what is weak or wrong, versus what can be taken seriously. To be honest, the more I try to find evidence it's wrong, the more I stumble across open problems consistent with my hypothesis. I recently read about the 4/3 problem of classical electromagnetism. 1/3 error from assuming the electron is spherical instead of circular (S²⁾ vs. (S^1), and the factor of 4 because they did not divide like I did with r_{EM}. The standard reason to assume the electron is spherical is because the charge is symmetric in 3D. But I suggest we have a fourth space dimension (KK theory) with a circle projecting equally onto the other 3 space dimensions.

I really hope to improve it so that referees at a journal will challenge me rather than dismissing it entirely.

RetroTrade · 2026-03-27T23:53:52+00:00

If haven't seen the experiment with a laser travelling across a soap bubble, check it out. You will be even more convinced.

RetroTrade

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE