This page is a work in progress.

My name is Tim Patry, I have no physics degree and no great love of mathematics but I have discovered the key to the next scientific revolution in physics. This is a problem that I have thought about at length because it bothers me as I suspect it bothers you. Discussion of this problem is one aspect of the purpose of this page.

This page will temporarily be the catch all cut and paste spot for all meta-discussion on what the theory is and who I the author am. At some point I will edit this page to get rid of the extra garbage. I could talk ABOUT the theory all day but it is more important to present the theory.

This paper contains what the author believes to be the next scientific revolution in physics. Unlike other physics theories which touch on some facet of physical reality, this theory touches everything touched by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and all other meaningful findings of the last century of theoretical physics. It spans many topics and challenges many assumptions.

It may take several readings to fully grasp the ideas contained in this paper.

The payoff is a model of the universe that explains the universe without requiring knowledge of advanced math. This paper provides a description of the universe without equations. That description is intuitive and interesting and it explains many things that the Standard Model can only ignore.

This paper can be divided into two major sections. The first begins with a discussion of the expansion of the universe in the context of the concept of Red-Shift. It explores the possible causes of the red-shift in the universe discussing both the Doppler Effect and cosmological red-shift and describes the universes that could exist in the context of each explanation for observed red-shift. Finally, the first section shows that a metric expansion (or contraction) model cannot involve motion in any way.

The second half of this paper introduces a new model of the universe based on an expansion force acting on the universe in the direction perpendicular to the three spatial dimensions of our universe. This model takes the standard balloon analogy beyond its normal breaking-point arguing that there is no breaking point to the analogy and that a balloon model is the accurate representation of our universe in four dimensional Reality.

The new model of the universe is built on the conclusion that the Balloon Analogy is flawless if built using a scientific definition of “dimension”. The conclusions include:

1. Our universe is the 3D surface of a 4D expanding hypersphere which exists in a 4D Reality.

2. Time is not the fourth dimension. This was a useful mathematical construct but the idea of time as the fourth dimension (and thus Minkowski space) is obsolete.

3. The expansion of the universe is caused by a force from outside our universe. Gravity is caused by that same force.

4. The surface “fabric” of the hypersphere acts as the medium of both massless particles and the wavelike properties of matter.

This model does not involve any new observations of the universe. Rather, it takes what is known and puts the puzzle together in a new way.

In the past the major revolutions in physics have been revealed by mathematical models. This theory is the opposite in that it came about through the realization that the mathematical models of the universe create a description of the universe with logical flaws and contradictions. Those physicists who say, “Show me the math!” may lag in understanding behind the layperson who seeks only to hold in their head a mental picture of the universe.

Trust in mathematics caused the logical problems which this theory solves. This new model of the universe was built using the descriptive pieces of the puzzle. This new description of the universe is elegant in its simplicity, internally consistent (at least more than the standard model), and reveals the internal contradictions of the standard model.

Proponents of the Standard Model will argue that the Theory of Relativity has passed every test and its predictions are amazingly accurate so the model must be correct. To rebut that argument in advance, the mathematical model is the shadow cast by Physical Reality. Even if the shape of the shadow is understood, the shape of the thing casting the shadow could be far different from what is expected.

In other words, the math works and it passes all the experimental tests that have been thrown at it, but the description of the universe could be different from that of the standard model and still conform to the mathematical model we have. For example, the core idea behind the 4D Balloon Theory (4DBT) is that time is not the fourth dimension. However, in the mathematical model time is the fourth dimension. If I can explain how time dilation could happen in three dimensional space, then a time dimension becomes redundant and Minkowski space becomes untenable.

__A Note to the Reader__

The emphasis on definitions and
extended explanations of basic physics may seem tedious to some and for that I
apologize. There is a reason these definitions and descriptions are included in
the main body of this paper rather than in an appendix. These definitions are
part of thread of logic required to correct the **STANDARD MODEL** which is the cumulative end result of the combined
knowledge and reasoning of the entire human race up to this moment in time.

I acknowledge that this attempt to contest that the Standard Model is incorrect on a fundamental level will require a strenuous exercise of logic and thus I do not want to separate any necessary premise from the main body of the argument where it might be overlooked by those who (rightfully) assume that they understand the concepts in question. Even though these are some of the most basic concepts in physics, these are the concepts which shed light on the flaws in the Standard Model. If I and the reader agree on the definitions of the fundamental concepts of physics, then I believe I can prove that the standard model can be improved on this same fundamental level.

To be specific, I think the core flaw in the Standard Model is the definition of the term “Time”. More specifically, it is the lack a rigorous definition of Time that must be corrected in order to form an intuitive and internally consistent model of the universe. This correction has profound implications for all of Theoretical Physics (to be addressed in the second half of this paper.)

For now, the consequences of a careful understanding of the core concepts at foundation of the Big Bang Theory seem to result in a conclusion that impacts the Big Bang Theory specifically. The arguments in the first half of this paper all build up to the following conclusion:

Neither matter nor any physics that involves matter has any causal connection to the Expansion of the Universe on the cosmological scale. Matter neither causes the expansion of the universe nor does matter modify any characteristic of the expansion of the universe. The reason for the Expansion of the Universe involves only SOME CAUSE (the focus of the second half of this paper) and space. On the cosmological scale the characteristics of space caused by the expansion of the universe have an impact on matter, but only by increasing the volume of space in which matter is able to operate. On the cosmological scale the Expansion of the Universe does not move matter. Super Cluster has ever been accelerated in any direction due to the influence of the Expansion of the Universe. On the cosmological scale matter is only a passive witness to the Expansion of the Universe.