The Universe as n-Dimensional Fractal

Home

Euclidean SRT

Bosons in 5D Gravity

4-vectors

Propulsion

Relativity Simplified

Fractal Universe

ER Links

About the author

Next: 5. Four forces ordered Up: Fractal Universe Previous: 3. 5D Perspective

4. What looks like a fermion from " below " (e.g. 3D) looks like a boson from "above" (e.g. 4D)

...explaining why mass particles can still be bosons in 5D gravity.

The meaning of "above" and "below" here depends on the number of spatial dimensions that an observer is able to see. We, humans, can see 3 spatial dimensions so when we look at a 2D world (Flatland) we look at it from "above". On the other hand, when a Flatlander looks at a 3D world (he can of course only see its projection to his 2D world), he looks at it from "below". The table below gives some examples of how objects and particles may be observed from various dimensional "levels". When observed as a boson, the particle will follow a path equivalent to a null geodesic for that dimensional level and its speed will be measured as c, otherwise its path is timelike with speed <c. [see Section 4 in article "Mass particles as bosons in five dimensional Euclidean gravity"]

"Particle"	For a Flatlander with 2D vision it looks like a:	For a Spacelander with 3D vision it looks like a:	For a Hyperspacelander with 4D vision it looks like a:
Gluon	long range boson	short range boson	short range boson
Photon	fermion	long range boson	short range boson
Electron	black hole	fermion	long range boson
Black hole	universe	black hole	fermion
Universe		universe	black hole

The universe as a giant fractal. An alternative kind of supersymmetry?

When we look at mass particles like e.g. an electron, we see it as the fermion for the electromagnetic field. If we would have been Hyperspacelanders with 4D spatial vision we would always see these electrons move with velocity c in our 4D space and they would behave like bosons (of gravity)⁽*⁾. It's like dimensional zooming out, not by changing magnification but by changing the number of dimensions that are observed.

Downgrade of dimensional observation skills

"Downgrade" of spatial vision from (n) dimensions to (n-1) dimensions

The picture on the right visualizes the effect that a "downgrade" of spatial vision (dimensional zooming in) would have on the way particles show themselves to an observer with n-dimensional vision. Note that the n^th spatial dimension does not disappear! It gets fully contracted in the lower-dimensional space (hence the massive rollers) and becomes the proper time dimension for the observer with (n-1)-dimensional vision. Also for us, Spacelanders, the proper time dimension is fully contracted into our 3D space, which explains why we can "see" relativistic non-simultaneities in moving objects and also have no problem observing time dilation in moving clocks. But it also says that all bosons in 4D remain visible for us as fermions in 3D. A similar effect takes place in the world of the Flatlander: all photons of our 3D space will still exist as fermions in his 2D space.

Properties of massive object determined by 4D intersection of 5D gravity environment

From the table above it shows that black holes are actually 5D fermions (the fifth dimension is "proper time" for the Hyperspacelander) and are the gravity "charge". Being the fermion for the 5D gravity field, black holes should have velocity c in the fifth dimension.

Should not every massive object be a black hole then? Yes, but what we usually see of it is a 4D section of the 5D gravity environment that does not contain the coordinates of its center. We only see the swarm of (virtual?) bosons around it which makes up its mass. It's like a plane that does not contain the center of a sphere that it intersects, as shown in the animation on the left. The red plane is supposed to be our 4D space-time, while the blue sphere represents the 5D gravity environment of a massive object.

The next section will extend the dimensional classification that was given for particles into the four forces of nature.

⁽*⁾See also Paul Wesson, In Defense of Campbell's Theorem as a Frame for New Physics