JCS

Wow, that's an intriguing thought. On the inverse side of it, I came across a comment somewhere that the equation for describing all things is zero. (or something like that) I suppose if one were to combine all values of all number sets (rational, irrational, real, imaginary, transcendental, etc) perhaps it would indeed equal the very least complex value possible. Perhaps the value of zero represents the simplest equation for the ultimate mathematical problem. Or would it besomething else like the infinite root of infinity? The answer would likely involve infinite symmetry of all values. Perhaps it's the degree of the question, that's really in question. Sorry about all of that, I'm just thinking out loud.

I am endeavoring to obtain those goals. It may be the math portion that I am weakest at. I have to fully comprehend mathematical concepts, or I feel like I don't understand them at all. I did come across the explanation of a nonlinear field being a second power transformation in Hermann Weyl's "Space Time Matter." This was one of the first true physics books that I came to acquire. It would do well for my self to study this book in greater detail.

Indeed, the challenge has been presented and the pathway carefully laid out before me. Like standing at the base of Mount Everest before the climb, this journey will be a difficult one.

I'm quite anxous to read more of your own work in greater detail. In the study of electromagnetic radiation's radial non linear field, you have clearly exceeded my own depth of present study.

I suspect that you are on track with the proposed relationship between electromagnetic radiation and the creation of time-spacial dimensions. A model of my own leads to similar conclusions. I should point out (if this will help any) a major discovery made by Louis De Brogle that I later rediscovered independently involving the ever so popular energy equation. This finding, if you are led to argee with it, will most assuredly effect your model in many positive ways. It involves the c2 component, and the phase velocity of light. Without going into great detail, I will show the values and permit you to draw your own conclusions. phase velocity :V, group velocity:c, photon momentum:P, photon mass:M, energy:E, wavelength:W, frequency:v, planck's constant:h V=W * v, P=Mc, P=h/W, E=h * v thus; V= W * v, P= h/W, (W * v) * h/W = h * v = E = V * P, P= M * c meaning that; thus V *(M * c)=E, not M * c2 In other words, E=McV, not Mc2 Louis De Broglie's equation was E=P*V, of which equals McV. The reason why E=Mc2 still works is due to the fact that c (determined by the measured group velocity of EMR) will always equal V (the phase velocity of EMR) when EMR is traveling through a vacuum. (And most physics equations set the value for c at the speed in which light travels in an empty medium.) This falls into error when light isn't in an empty medium. Under such sircumstances, the EMR group velocity will slow, while the phase velocity will increase. It will generate the same value as c2 in vacuum but for different reasons. In my own work, there are two forms of time-space that in combination create "phasic" time-space (name derived from a vector with spin, called a phasor.) I attributed the group velocity of light "c" as a function for linear time-space, and the phase velocity of light as a function for "curved" or angular time-space. Such a model divines many rich conclusions that are observed to be physically true and yet still considered to be anomalous in nature by present day physics. I originally wasn't going to explain as much, but I couldn't help it.