I have often discussed the Activation Layer theory on this physics site. To summarize, this theory claims we exist in a slice of 4D spacetime, a 3D hypersurface I call the Activation Layer, that moves in the time direction and confines all particles, fields, and interaction forces. This approach claims that while the layer must curve according to the stress-energy tensor of general relativity, no portion of 4D spacetime outside of this hypersurface is necessary for our existence. I have discovered a number of fascinating properties that result from assuming the real-life validity of this time slice. It gives us dual-spin point particles and quantizes them (see https://wordpress.com/post/agemozphysics.com/1917) and shows how particle annihilation is just the exchange of momentum energy from linear to angular momentum states and computes a valid quantized angular momentum (see https://wordpress.com/post/agemozphysics.com/1839 ). Both Special Relativity and General Relativity operate correctly even when limiting our existence to this Activation Layer portion of 4D spacetime, and even shows how the Lorentz beta value must emerge–see https://agemozphysics.com/2024/12/01/special-relativity-and-the-3d-hypersurface-activation-layer/ and https://agemozphysics.com/2025/02/13/general-relativity-and-the-3d-hypersurface-activation-layer/. Even making allowances for confirmation bias, that’s a big block of supporting evidence, and now I have found a new one.
A really interesting question arises when I ask the question–how thick is this Activation Layer? Is it zero, asymptotically small, does it vary over the range of the hypersurface? If it is not zero, could it support resonances that define specific particle masses over the entire universe?
It really doesn’t take much of an inference to think that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation points to an answer. There are several related non-commutative parameters in the Standard Model, one of which is an object’s position and momentum. The Uncertainty Principle states that the product of the standard deviation of both properties must be equal to or greater than Planck’s constant.
If the Activation Layer has a fixed thickness and is moving in the time dimension direction, you can immediately see that any massive particle will automatically conform to the Uncertainty principle, because the only thing missing from the product of the Activation Layer’s width and velocity is the particle’s mass. This is perfect, because the only thing not constrained by the Uncertainty Relation is the mass used to compute momentum (this is true for all of the non-commuting relations). Confining a particle to the Activation Layer means that you cannot establish (detect) a particle’s position and momentum any more accurately than the volume of a region within the Activation Layer–both the detector and the object are limited by the Activation Layer properties of width and motion (see the figure).
I’m actually very surprised that when the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle was shown to be true experimentally, researchers didn’t immediately conclude that some variation of the Activation Layer had to be true–that is, if our existence used the entirety of 4D spacetime, it would have to violate this principle.
Do we have enough data to determine the Activation Layer thickness and velocity? I believe the answer is yes for the velocity–a static particle will have no velocity in any direction within the hypersurface Activation Layer, so the layer velocity has to be related to the velocity of photons along the light cone, and thus will be c/sqrt(2), assuming we can treat the time direction scaling as equivalent to the spatial direction scaling in R3. However, the width still has an unconstrained variable (the mass of the particle). My thinking is that resonances within the Activation Layer width, along with allowable dual-spin multiples in the particle, will specify allowable masses and hence provide insight into the Activation Layer width, but that is pure speculation at this point and I do not yet see an unambiguous answer…
Agemoz
Tags: general relativity, general-relativity, physics, quantum, quantum theory, science, special relativity, special-relativity
Agemoz's Physics Blog 
Leave a comment