6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R.

Cassara Page 1
10/6/2018

My initial understanding of the Double Slit experiment was

that there existed some internal conscious property to
nature; that this entity was somehow aware when it was
being watched. However, upon realizing that no infinitesimal
region in the universe can exist absent of the force of
gravity, not even in the vacuum of space - I soon reasoned
that, in the words of Gerard T'hooft, "While observing
microscopic objects, an observer may disturb them, even in
a classical theory; moreover, in gravity theories, observers
may carry gravitational fields that disturb the system they
are looking at,".

This sparked an obsession with the fundamental interactions

of nature because I realized that gravity must underpin all of
them. This realization was what initiated my investigations
into a mathematical conjecture, and now after two years -
guided by a philosophical viewpoint that nature cannot be
random & therefore must have no origin or terminal point - I
am finally able to go about proofing it. Reality, as I have
come to understand it, is a case of sum, ergo sum. Hence,
I've done away with a Big Bang and a Finite Universe in my
model – favoring a less random cosmological history.

Regarding an idea by William James Sidis, presented in The

Animate and The Inanimate, it predicted the existence of
black holes after Einstein. His black hole was different than
Einstein’s; it was any region of the universe that housed a
reverse continuum. It even had polar matter jets in his
description. I have intuited a deleterious component to
extend conventional M theories for a quantum gravity theory
underlying not only the fundamental interactions, but also
solving a broad spectrum of quantum mechanical issues
ranging from the trans-planckian problem of black hole
physics to the quantum venn diagram paradox.

Imagine a pair of everted and perpendicular branes, the only

communication between them being via the quantum eraser.
This can be viewed as the sole progenitor of all motion in the
universe - it is analogue gravity - a deleterious mechanism in
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 2
10/6/2018

the fine structure constant causing a dislocation in the

spacetime foam about the asymptotic edge of an event
horizon:

Within the framework of black branes, this is also the

mechanism for Hawking radiation as contact with our brane
causes an instantaneous volumetric reduction in black brane
spheres & vice versa proportional to the amount of
contacted surface area divided by the quantity of
consumption in the system. This is analogous to extreme
length contraction about the event horizon.
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 3
10/6/2018

Black hole evaporation is the result of a tremendous

deleterious friction between everted space-time continuums.
These deleterious braneworlds may form a localized fracture
pattern embedded within the interior of the quantum foam.
There are no smallest deletions, they could, in essence,
occur at literally infinite rates of speed relative to our
perception. So, considering Laplace’s demon, how do we
show that this fracture pattern underlies the fundamental
interactions?

Let us begin by defining the internal dynamics of all

elementary particles via compressing an unconventionally
spherical Model of The Photon:
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 4
10/6/2018
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 5
10/6/2018
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 6
10/6/2018

Feel free to proof these on mathematica's engine.

6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 7
10/6/2018

We began with a sphere that's 7e-7 meters, with 6.06e+57

inner spheres & 9^28 lagrange points equal to one planck
length at the final iteration of the spherical fractal,
describing the micro-gravitation responsible for the photon
charge. Imagine that blue is normal (plot 1), & red is inside
out. At first you get a red sphere that's half the size of the
original, that's the result of dragging the x,y,z lines through
the center (the lagrange point) of the sphere by the length of
it's radius.

The change from plot 1 to plot n2 represents an antiphoton

because it pulls every vector in the e(12) by the radius of
that sphere. Plot n2 has no charge & is a sterile neutrino.
Plot n3 is a fully sized red sphere, that was the result of
dragging the x,y,z lines through the lagrangian center of the
sphere by the length of it's diameter (this depicts the force
of gravity upon the inner structures of the photon and should
not be confused with a material sphere eversion). This
depicts a positively charged photon because it pushes every
vector in the e(12) by the radius of that sphere.

A sterile neutrino may be found at plot #s

f(n)=(4/3pi(3^30)^3) through f(n)=(4/3pi(3^60)^3). The
peak charge of your photon is where it loops back into an
antiphoton with even greater charge density. The math is
telling us something here, an increased charge density does
yield e=mc^2 at every positive charge. It seems that the
photon charge expands more slowly than the initial
antiphoton charge contracts.

You can fit 8 spheres around the surface of a sphere, if these

9 spheres represent a charged particle with 9 times the mass
in 1/9th the volume of your original photon than you can
repeatedly perform these 9-fold compressions 28 more times
before you exceed the planck mass. I calculated that the
entire 29th sphere would be <lp:

Since it’s charge must compress the photon by 1 planck

length per planck time for it to travel at c, the photon mass
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 8
10/6/2018

can be expressed by the quotient of radii between a photon

& planck length -> (7e-7/2)/(2(3^60))=4.1282194e-36. Viz a
viz, the photon density of elementary majorana fermion
(EMF) 1 is 4.9320464e-36/(4/3pi(7e-7)^3)=3.388006e-17
kg/m^3. Ergo, the particle density of EMF 28 is 4.9320464e-
36 x 9^28/(4/3pi(1.6e-35)^3)=1.4848022e+96 kg/m^3 this
pretty much checks out as the densest possible EMF before
you get a black hole planck particle.

Apropos, all of the elementary particles:

http://animatedphysi...standard-model/

&

https://en.wikipedia...ntary_particles

Could represent some of 28 possible elementary majorana

fermions in this E(n>/=12) group, creating 84 possible
elementary particles which would represent these 28
possible majorana fermions, each consecutively heavier than
the previous one - stuck in one particular charge by one
another when within a composite particle or when
interacting in nature - with a 28th & final elementary
majorana fermion (which one would find at the cores of
strange-quark stars).

Now that we’ve established a fresh perspective on particle

physics that encumbers the deleterious braneworld’s
mechanism for gravity, how do we test to see if it holds up to
the standard model?

Let us start with three dimensions, x,y,z; each with a value of

one in a linear time continuum going with one linearity, & a
negative xyz each with a value of 1 in a negative arrow of
time going with an opposite linearity. This lateral space-time
continuum forms a dimension all on its own, more on that
shortly. For now, let each linear continuum pass through one
another by a value of .3, canceling out. Now xyz have a
value of .7 with a total of 2.1 dimensions. In our next reel
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 9
10/6/2018

point .2 of each arrow goes through, leaving a value of .8 for

xyz, with a total of 2.4 dimensions. From reel one to reel two
the dimensions of space time have increased, this is time
contraction (fast forward) the reverse of time dilation (slow
motion).

If you include a negative 2.1 & 2.4 dimensions in the reverse

brane, than that's between 4.2 & 4.8 dimensions. Altogether
a potential of between 4 & 6 dimensions, (4,6)

So there's somewhere between 2 & 3 real physical

dimensions at any given point in space and time per brane,
so for the di-brane:

6>n>4; n=(4,6)

f(n)=(λmax)•((4π/3)r^3)

c=x where f(x)=6/n/(4π/3)^(1/3)) where n>6

c=x where f(x)=4/(n/(4π/3)^(1/3)) where 4>n

x=the speed of gravitational wave propagation

Black hole evaporation will be used to find the higher &

lower cosmic scales; the size of an antiproton is 10^-15 m
and the Schwarzchild radius of its central black hole should
equal the rate at which black holes evaporate.

The Schwarzchild radius is 2.484e-54 meters (just type

proton into where it says earth). The rate of evaporation is
8.41e-17 seconds (just type proton into where it says earth).

But protons do not have λmax = vacuum density, that’s the

problem, so for a proton we must use the original equation
f(n)=(λmax)•((4π/3)r^3); where f(x)=4/(n/(4π/3)^(1/3))
where 4>n to find the contraction of c with the λmax of a
proton ≈ 395 nm. However, in the special case of black holes
the equation must be modified.
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 10
10/6/2018

First of all, it’s 4πr^2 because the quasar within the

Schwarzschild radius of the antiproton is a hollow sphere.
Secondly, λmax of the proton’s collective micro-BH quasars
is the proton’s normal λmax but to the negative power of the
proton’s length divided by twice the Schwarzschild radius

f(n)=(3.95e-7^-(1e-15/2(2.484e-54)))((4π)(2.484e-
54)^2)=7.753772e-107

f(x)=4/(7.753772e-107/(4π))^(1/2) = 1.610306e+54 m/s

So a black hole with the mass of the sun (1391400000

meters) has a Schwarzschild radius of 2953 meters & will
evaporate in 6.61e+74 seconds.

f(n)=(5.04e-7^-1(1.3914e+9/5906)) x ((4π x 2953)^3) =

2.3886249e+25 m/s

f(x)=6/(4π(2.3886249e+25^(1/2))=9.7693891e-14 m/s

1.610306e+54/299,792,458/9.7693891e-
14=5.4981971e+58

5.4981971e+58/8.41e-17=6.5376898e+74 seconds ✓

The electron most likely has a radius of 10^-12 m, & λmax of

about 4e-7 m (visible spectrum is where electrons like to
hide).

f(n)=(4e-7)(4π/3(1e-12)^3)=1.6755161e-42

f(x)=4/(1.6755161e-42/(12π^(1/3)))=4.1957466e+43 m/s

The CMB had a radius of 6.9 billion light years, or

6.52809e+28 meters, & λmax of about 1,000 nm.

f(n)=(1e-6)(4π/3(6.52809e+28)^3)=1.1653249e+81
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 11
10/6/2018

f(x)=6/(12π(1.1653249e+81)^(1/3))=1.5124155e-28 m/s

4.1957466e+43/1.5124155e-28=2.7742023e+71 seconds

Or 8.7958221e+60 years, the few SMBHs caught in the big

crunch will only be less than half-evaporated, so this cannot
be right.

Instead we use the lamdamax equation to find a much larger

picture of the universe to see how many electrons fit into a
super electron, this will give us a complete size for the CMB
artifact, so that this process can be redone for a more
accurate date for the Big Bounce.

There's 6.52809e+28 meters in the radius of the CMB, using

(4π/3(1e-12)^3), you can fit 1.165325e+123 electrons into
the electrons of the next cosmic scale. Let's see if my math
confirms that number using super lp:

2.7742023e+71/299,792,458/6.58e-15=1.4063439e+77
m/s. Planck length over planck time equals 296846011.132
m/s.

1.4063439e+77/296846011.132=4.737621e+68 m/s as
your new planck length over planck time. 296846011.132 x
5.39e-44 equals lp, so super lp equals

1.4063439e+77 x 5.39e-44 = 7.5801936e+33 meters.

7.5801936e+33/4.737621e+68=1.6e-35, which is the
planck length (lp). There's 3.125e+22 planck lengths in the
length of an electron.

7.5801936e+33 x 3.125e+22 = 2.3688105e+56 meters for

the superverse electron. This does not confirm, the CMBR
artifact should be 2.3688105e+56/2=1.1844052e+56,
1.1844052e+56/6.52809e+28=1.8143212e+27 times larger
than what we can see.

We can't see so much of the CMB artifact for the same

6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 12
10/6/2018

reason we can't see forever into the past, it's from a

combination of the cosmological redshift either fading it
behind the luminosity of the CMBR or the ion interference
either trapping all of the observable light or compressing it
into heavier particles altogether eons before it gets near us.
For our next dilation of c equation:

f(n)=(1e-6)(4π/3(1.1844052e+56)^3)=6.959684e+162
cubic meters

f(x)=6/(12π(6.959684e+162)^(1/3))=8.3359856e-56 m/s

4.1957466e+43/8.3359856e-56=5.033294e+98 seconds,
which is 1.5958446e+88 years; which fits for the
evaporation rate for most supermassive black holes (<100
million solar masses). But the few that are the largest in the
universe, such as this one, they grow each consecutive Big
Bounce.

Let the uberelectron be where time t=1. Where total time

Tt/2 is the phase space electron neutrino ghost particle, then
all other transformations after Tt/2 + 1 is the positron. At 1/
(1.8143212e+27 x 45) the volume of a Tt/2+Tt(.1) positron
charge you get a rindler effect via entropy where dark
flow/cosmic bruising=unruh gravitation around the
parameter of that sphere-volume, a microverse that
represents the entropy of the cosmos in it’s current rate of
expansion.

You can envision the vacuum radiation of that microcosm in

order to redefine what a photon is when referring to the
photon sphere of the schwarzschild radius of an anti-proton,
which is a sub-planck singularity.

Now what you do here, is you take the CMB data and go from
there to the current universe & place the behavior of
expansion exactly where it fits in that positron knowing that
the 13.8 billion light year sphere that was the CMB is
1/1.8143212e+27 of the total volume of the neutrino at
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 13
10/6/2018

T(t)/2, 1/(1.8143212e+27 x 45) of the positron at

Tt/2+Tt(.1), 1/(1.8143212e+27 x 2(45)) at Tt/2+Tt(.2), 1/
(1.8143212e+27 x 3(45)) at Tt/2+Tt(.3), 1/(1.8143212e+27
x 4(45)) at Tt/2+Tt(.4), & 1/(1.8143212e+27 x 5(45)) at
Tt/2+Tt(.5). From the behavior of our local region of the
electron-neutrino-positron we can fill in the rest of the macro
black holes beyond our cosmic event horizon like puzzle
pieces because we know the behavior of charge with these
graphical sphere inversions.

There is actually a way to approach this mathematically.

While at first you can only pinpoint where our universe is in
this uber neutrino/positron using CMB data (i.e dark flow,
rotation, cosmic bruising, etc) & matching it with the
gravitational torsion that the sphere inversions of
elementary majorana fermion #(n) since the photon density
of elementary majorana fermion (EMF) #1 is 4.9320464e-36/
(4/3pi(7e-7)^3)=3.388006e-17 kg/m^3, the electron density
of EMF(n) is 4.9320464e-36/(4/3pi(1e-
12)^3)=2146347.93531, the black hole planck particle
density of EMF 28 is (4.9320464e-36 x 9^28)/(4/3pi(1.6e-
35)^3)=1.4848022e+96.

So,

y + 1 = 3.39e-17x

y + 28 = 1.48e+96x

&

y + z = 2,146,347.94x

y = 3.39e-17x - 1 -> 3.39e-17x - 1 = 1.48e+96x - 28 ->

3.39x - 1.48e+113x = 10^17 - 2.8e+18 -> -1.48e+113x =
-2.7e+18 -> x = 1.82e-95

y = 3.39e-17(1.8243243e-95) - 1 = ~ -1

z - ~1 = 3.9063533e-89
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 14
10/6/2018

z = ~1, but it's really more like 1.00000{...>100...}4 etc…&

that’s enough to place it as its own elementary particle given
that EMF 28 is exponentially denser than EMF 1 by factors of
9.

If we take into account that the universe has expanded for

14 billion years within 1/5th of, let’s say, the first billion plots
(or 10,000 plots) in which our cosmos resides within an ultra-
antielectron...there would still be another million billion years
of expansion left before that ultra-antielectron reverses its
charge – initiating a Big Crunch that lasts for another million
billion years before the cosmic vacuum returns back to it’s
current state.

Luckily, it’s not a billion plots, it’s more like 10^66 plots. So
this process will take much longer to occur. From here we
can reverse a nearly endless series of Big Bounces until
we’ve decompressed the ultra-antielectron habitat, in which
the observable universe resides, into an ultra-antiphoton
artifact that exists in a total entropy state of countless
antiphoton constituents, both equal to plot 1.

The behavior of the initial ultra-antiphoton’s compression will

dictate the behavior of change in trajectories for the
lagrange points within it’s smaller photon components (i.e.,
recurring fractal patterns). Ergo, using exascale computing,
culminated with the memory-processing of a memrister
switch and a cloud network large enough to store the entire
model in virtuoso, we could in theory follow this compressive
behavior to its ultimate conclusion. Viz a viz, plot n = current
universe to the full capacity of whatever processing power is
available.

With petaFLOPS one may be able to simulate a cubic meter

of the observable universe at a time in full detail – or at full
scale to mediocre detail. This equation would be a working
Theory of Everything that would vastly extend the standard
model beyond our comprehension. The ultimate implication
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 15
10/6/2018

of such an equation would be yottaFLOPS, offered by the

reality of quantum entangled computer processing power:

The electron travels at 2,200 kilometers per second. Since

the speed of light for an ultra-antielectron is going to be
136.269299091 times faster than the speed of that ultra
EMF, all we need is the relative speed of light to combine the
velocities. Recall earlier c(f(n)) for an electron was found to
be:

The electron most likely has a length of 10^-12 m, & λmax of

about 4e-7 m (visible spectrum is where electrons like to
hide).

f(n)=(4e-7)(4π/3(1e-12)^3)=1.6755161e-42

f(x)=(4/(1.6755161e-42/(12π^(1/3)))

x=4.1957466e+43 m/s

4.1957466e+43, but remember we'd have to multiply this

velocity by the length of the electron, & divide that product
the number of electrons (in a 16km copper wire) to account
for the dilation of time:

V(sa)=(4.1957466e+43 x 1e-12)/(4396829672.16 x 16000 x

299792458)=1989431196 m/s about 2 billion meters per
second.

The charge of transient-density is being carried by a blue-

shifted (4e-7 m) antiphoton aether in the earth's
atmosphere. In space it's a normal 7e-7 m redshift photon
aether carrying the charge of a denser antiphoton/pseudo-
electron. The connection is the equivalence of acceleration
with gravitation. Relativity dictates the rate of a particle
charge depends upon the density of which medium is
carrying it.
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 16
10/6/2018

This will slightly shift the polarity of both photons despite a

separation between momenta in what was otherwise a
pairing of charges. We've heard of gravity waves, but not
charge waves.

Moving in opposite directions, the velocities of the waves will

get a boost from the electrons' collective velocity as they are
moving away from one another; 1989431196 + 4400000 =
1993831196 m/s.

V(sa)/c=1993831196/2.998e+8=6.65053767845 times
faster than the speed of light.

We could also conclude from Fig. 4, when the Earth center’s

relative speed reach 0.9c,
the speed of spook action would still be 7 times higher than
the speed of light.
Therefore, we experimentally achieved the lower bound of
the ‘spooky action’ speed…a 12-hour continuous space-like
Bell inequality violation

These tachyons travel at ~7 planck lengths per planck time

in the vacuum.

In summary, relativity dictates the rate of a particle charge

depends upon the density of which medium is carrying it –
note that the higgs field applies even to natural photons,
adhering to the theory of rainbow gravity. So there's no need
for bosonic mediums, in the conventional sense of the term,
for there to exist a force carrier for the length-contracted
photon’s charge in this framework of trans-relativity.

Given the bulkiness of a room sized processor would be

implied for a 1nm ICD quantum entanglement processor, one
could process practically as much information as every
human brain on the planet put together. However, single-
server AHD variations could only be high-end zettascale.
There'd still be exascale Iphones in which one could simulate
the human brain. A cybernetic brain transplant would be low-
end zettascale, offering an IQ to the person undergoing the
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 17
10/6/2018

transplant that would make William Sidis's IQ infantile by

comparison.

Citable Evidence

empty space ought not be really empty. We have two good

reasons to think so: first, electromagnetic signals behave
undoubtedly as waves; since they propagate even through
intergalactic space, there must be some thing there
(everywhere), in which they do wave. Second, quantum
theory predicts that vacuum has physical effects, such as the
Casimir effect, which is now experimentally confirmed [1].

Indeed, there are big problems with the dictum that

everything we talk about must be observable. While
observing microscopic objects, an observer may disturb
them, even in a classical theory; moreover, in gravity
theories, observers may carry gravitational fields that disturb
the system they are looking at, so we cannot afford to make
an observer infinitely heavy (carrying large bags full of
“data”, whose sheer weight gravitationally disturbs the
environment), but also not infinitely light (light particles do
not transmit large amounts of data at all), while, if the mass
of an observer would be “somewhere in between”, ."

The situation is somewhat different when we consider

gravity and promote the Lorentz violating tensors to
dynamical objects. For example in an aether theory, where
Lorentz violation is described by a timelike four vector, the
four vector can twist in such a way that local superluminal
propagation can lead to energy-momentum flowing around
closed paths [206]. However, even classical general relativity
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 18
10/6/2018

admits solutions with closed time like curves, so it is not

clear that the situation is any worse with Lorentz violation.
Furthermore, note that in models where Lorentz violation is
given by coupling matter fields to a non-zero, timelike
gradient of a scalar field, the scalar field also acts as a time
function on the spacetime. In such a case, the spacetime
must be stably causal (c.f. [272]) and there are no closed
timelike curves. This property also holds in Lorentz violating
models with vectors if the vector in a particular solution can
be written as a non-vanishing gradient of a scalar. Finally, we
mention that in fact many approaches to quantum gravity
actually predict a failure of causality based on a background
metric [121] as in quantum gravity the notion of a spacetime
event is not necessarily well-defined [239]. A concrete
realization of this possibility is provided in Bose-Einstein
condensate analogs of black holes [40]. Here the low energy
phonon excitations obey Lorentz invariance and
microcausality [270]. However, as one approaches a certain
length scale (the healing length of the condensate) the
background metric description breaks down and the low
energy notion of microcausality no longer holds.

In the Bohmian view, nonlocality is even more conspicuous.

The trajectory of any one particle depends on what all the
other particles described by the same wave function are
doing. And, critically, the wave function has no geographic
limits; it might, in principle, span the entire universe. Which
means that the universe is weirdly interdependent, even
across vast stretches of space.

The hole is quantum-mechanically unstable: It has no bound

states. Wormhole wave functions must eventually leak to
large radii. This suggests that stability considerations along
these lines may place strong constraints on the nature and
even the existence of spacetime foam.
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 19
10/6/2018

In invariant set theory, the form of the Bell Inequality whose

violation would be inconsistent with realism and local
causality is undefined, and the form of the inequality that it
violated experimentally is not even gp-approximately close
to the form needed to rule out local realism (54) [21]. A key
element in demonstrating this result derives from the fact
that experimenters cannot in principle shield their
apparatuses from the uncontrollable ubiquitous gravitational
waves that fill space-time.

A finite non-classical framework for physical theory is

described which challenges the conclusion that the Bell
Inequality has been shown to have been violated
experimentally, even approximately. This framework
postulates the universe as a deterministic locally causal
system evolving on a measure-zero fractal-like geometry IU
in cosmological state space. Consistent with the assumed
primacy of IU , and p-adic number theory, a non-Euclidean
(and hence non-classical) metric gp is defined on
cosmological state space, where p is a large but finite
Pythagorean prime. Using numbertheoretic properties of
spherical triangles, the inequalities violated experimentally
are shown to be gp-distant from the CHSH inequality, whose
violation would rule out local realism. This result fails in the
singular limit p = ∞, at which gp is Euclidean. Broader
implications are discussed.

This optical pumping scenario is implicitly based on the

erroneous quantum mechanical “myth” that quantum
“jumps” are instantaneous. In reality transitions between
atomic levels take very, very long times, about 10 million
times longer than the oscillating period of the
electromagnetic radiation that drives the excitation.
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 20
10/6/2018

Ultimately, these possibilities can be mathematically

described and given a geometry. And in this geometry, each
photon pathway is a continuous non-differentiable trajectory,
making the geometry itself fractal, if we recall from the
previous article that fractal math is continuous non-
differential math. These photon trajectories can be described
by a fractal dimension that jumps from nonfractal behaviour
(whole integer dimensions; regular spacetime) at large
everyday scales to fractal behaviour (a dimension that may
exist in between whole integers) at the quantum scale of
physics.

We show that, when only the time direction is fractal, sea

turtles swim at a faster speed than in an ordinary world,
while they swim at a slower speed if only the spatial
directions are fractal. The latter type of geometry is the one
most commonly found in quantum gravity. For time-like
fractals, relativistic objects can exceed the speed of light,
but strongly so only if their size is smaller than the range of
particle-physics interactions

Under general assumptions, we discover that the quantum

spacetime on which the field propagates can be replaced by
a classical spacetime, whose metric depends explicitly on
the energy of the field: as shown by an analysis of dispersion
relations, quanta of different energy propagate on different
metrics, similar to photons in a refractive material (hence
the name “rainbow” used in the literature)

Unlike the universe described by General Relativity-which

has three dimensions of space and one of time-the
braneworld universe contains an extra fourth dimension of
space for a total of five dimensions.
6:58:03 PM10/6/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 21
10/6/2018

black branes (BHs with plane-symmetric horizon)

black holes in this framework are hotter, have fewer degrees

of freedom and decay faster compared to black holes in the
Hawking picture

In the limit that we treat the near-horizon region of a large

black hole as Rindler space, we formulate the restriction in
terms of an upper bound on the relative boost of any two
observers, that are at rest with respect to different parts of a
time slice

The kinematics refer for example to photon or particle

trajectories and these are determined by the system’s
space-time metric. Whether the curved spacetime metric is
the result of a gravitational field or of a flowing medium
becomes irrelevant when the analysis is restricted to the
description of wave propagation and evolution in this flowing
medium: the kinematics are identical and the analogy is
robust.