RuthlessOptimism Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Hello internet. My name is Kyle, I am a third year electrical engineering student at the University of British Columbia (in Canada) and I am looking for the help of those of you who are mathematically trained or so inclined specifically within the fields of Group Theory, Lie Algebra, and Invariants. I have stumbled across a very interesting problem that I would like to either solve or see solved, but I have realized lately that it could take me years worth of research to do so while someone who is already an expert in the aforementioned fields might be able to solve this problem very quickly, that is not to say that I am giving up on trying. What I am proposing to solve I have already partially completed. Many people who might read this post and the corresponding problem may find it very controversial and so I also invite these people to try and prove me wrong . There has been a new theory proposed recently within the field of Quantum Mechanics that you may or may not be aware of, it is known as: “Tetryonics”. For anyone rolling their eyes right now it was published in a peer reviewed journal, the International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2014, a quick google scholar search of “Tetryonics” will pull up the relevant paper. I believe I have devised a way to mathematically derive and prove this theory to be correct and henceforth supersede all others. For those of you unaware of the existence of this new theory, or its intricacies I will not give a detailed explanation here, doing so would simply take too long. Simply defining my current problem and strategy to solve it is already going to take up a lot of space. The following is a link to a youtube video that gives a good overview and introduction of the theory that was created by the theory’s author Kelvin Abraham: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p_NyNfXd7k. The video is very long (2 hours) but I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the field of Quantum Mechanics. Unfortunately it is probably not possible to critique, improve or maybe even understand the majority of the rest of this post without being familiar with the basics covered in that video, or if you do not have a mathematical background. I am going to breeze through many advanced mathematical concepts in Differential Geometry because once again rigorously defining everything will just take too much space. I am going to assume from after the next paragraph that you have watched the video and that you basically have all or most of a bachelors degree in mathematics, and know a thing or two about statistics, quantum mechanics, and differential geometry (or calculus on manifolds). However in order to wet the appetite of anyone unfamiliar with the theory, in as few words as possible I will now try and summarize the basics of Tetryonics. In a nutshell Tetryonics reformulates all concepts in physics in terms of Geometry. Single Quanta of Energy are proposed to possess a literal 2d geometry with real dimensions. The tessellation of this 2d geometry creates familiar concepts regarding the energy of particles and systems, the overlap of these 2d tessellations creates forces, and 3d standing waves comprised of these 2d energy geometries create Matter. I believe I have found a way to mathematically derive and prove the theory of Tetryonics. Doing so involves the following steps: 1.) Show that energy can and should possess geometry. 2.) Prove that this geometry should be a regular tessellation of the plane. 3.) Prove that of the three possible regular tessellations: triangles, squares and hexagons, triangles should be used because they create the Standard Normal Distribution. 4.) Prove that the 2d triangular geometry of energy can be used to create 3d models of Matter. 5.) Prove that of the five possible forms of 3d Matter, Tetrahedrons are the ones that should be used to model individual quanta of Matter. As I wrote before I have already partially completed this derivation. Steps 3.) and 4.) are mostly complete, though I do not think what I have come up with so far for them could actually be classified as a mathematical proof. Furthermore I have what I think is a very good strategy for completing step 1.), but my expertise in the fields required to carry out this strategy is sorely lacking, basically non-existent. Steps 2.) and 5.) I have no idea how to complete. I am going to now explain my “proofs” of steps 3.) and 4.) in order for anyone interested in lending a hand to get a better feel for what I am trying to do here. Tetryonics proposes that what we normally think of as the Standard Normal Distribution is in fact only an approximation to the true Standard Normal Distribution as created by Tetryonic Geometry. In Tetryonics the square fractal geometries of triangular energy quanta create square energy levels, looking at any picture of a KEM field you can see that it “approximates” the familiar bell curve of the standard normal distribution. Take any KEM field and starting from the center and heading toward either the left or right edge of the KEM field, iteratively add up the total number of quanta in each successive vertical column and divide that by the total number of quanta in the entire geometry. You will find unsurprisingly, that this “approximates” the standard normal distribution, and is the most accurate at points near the center of the distance toward the edge. What is less obvious is that if you take the integer numbers of quanta in each vertical column as elements in a probability distribution, this distribution is in fact a general normal deviate. The distribution being the set of integers, X = {1, 2, 3,… N-2, N-1, N, N-1 ,N-2,… 3, 2, 1}. Proving this is actually very easy, it merely requires re-scaling the elements of the distribution. This proof comprises part of step 3.), the other part of step 3.) is the justification as to why this is useful. The following is a quote from Wikipedia, and is something so commonly known in statistics that I don’t think it requires a more reputable source “if X is a general normal deviate, then Z=(X-μ)/σ will have a standard normal distribution”, where μ and σ are the average and standard deviation of the elements of X respectively. Knowing this, the following algorithm can be implemented in excel or your favorite computational mathematical software for any distribution X of maximum value N and achieve the same end result. 1.) Compute the average of X, μ. 2.) Compute the standard deviation of X, σ. 3.) Rescale all entries of X by subtracting μ from them and dividing by σ. 4.) Calculate the average and standard deviation of these rescaled entries. You will find that for any N you will calculate an average value of approximately 0, and a standard deviation of 1. I say approximately because there is some error, but in Excel for an N of only 10, I calculate an average value of -1.51925E-16, and a standard deviation of 1. I applied the same algorithm to the algebraic calculation of the standard deviation of the rescaled elements of X and got an equation filled with composite sums, there is a picture attached to this post that shows what I got. The most inner sums of ∑(2*i)+N, are the result of summing all the elements of X, in order to calculate μ. In order to “prove” that Tetryonic geometry creates the normal distribution I take the limit of this expression as N goes to infinity and show it equals one. I have not been able to successfully do this yet using algebra, trying to simplify this expression by hand is so complicated as to be nearly impossible. All of the algebra software programs I have tried so far have resulted in divergence to infinity despite always giving a calculated limit for a fixed, finite N of 1. This I believe is because they do not actually calculate composite sums but try to approximate them, and these composite sums are difficult to get rid of using algebraic manipulation. However if this algorithm results in convergence to one numerically then there has to be a closed form algebraic solution to the limit of that expression as N goes to infinity, I simply have not yet found it. As I have written before, verifying my results is actually quite easy and I recommend doing it yourself but for now I will move on to explaining why this result is important, and useful to the larger derivation. Basically this result shows how the geometry of energy itself results in a perception and literal measurement of “uncertainty” in the energy, location, and momentum (or state) of particles. A KEM field is used in Tetryonics to model the Kinetic energy and momentum of a particle, because quanta of energy have a literal geometry with real dimensions and each particle is situated within its KEM field the KEM field acts like a “buffer”. That is the best way that I understand and can explain it. The interaction of a particles KEM field with the particles environment is most of the time more significant than the interaction of the electrostatic fields created by the particles charged fascia. As a result, depending on what portion and how much of a particles KEM field you are able to interact with and measure at any given time you will measure uncertainty in the state of that particle. The state of this particle will be normally distributed through space, because Tetryonic geometry is normally distributed. This is how the physical geometry of energy creates what is measured to be a probability distribution of the different aspects of the state of a particle. It is now pertinent to try and provide an answer to a logical question. Why does Tetryonic geometry only approximate what has come to be accepted as the standard normal distribution? There are two possible explanations. The first is that what is measured as the standard normal distribution in experiments has simply been interpolated wrong. Though this may be impossible, if you were to sample the distribution of a particle with far greater spatial accuracy you may in fact measure a more triangular distribution. The second is that what we measure may appear to be curved simply because of noise. A KEM field grows and increases in energy through the addition of ever increasingly larger odd numbers of quanta, meaning that the interference of KEM fields of large energy levels should produce distributions with sharp curvature, because the net change in energy between high energy levels is high. While the net change in energy between low energy levels is low, producing distributions with lower curvature. These two scenarios correspond to the characteristic central tip and edge of the bell curve. Basically we may never be in fact measuring the energy or momentum of just one particle, but the superposition of multiple KEM fields of varying energies. The implications of the idea that Tetryonic geometry is normally distributed are very important. What this does is show how we can reformulate the laws of physics to be “continuous across all length scales”. Things no longer suddenly become “strange” when we enter the quantum realm, everything is still determinate, the fact that energy can superimpose on top of each other making it impossible for us to observe a quantum system without altering it as well as the geometry that energy itself possesses simply makes working on such length scales with large degrees of accuracy difficult. That concludes step 3.), what I have so far is definitely not perfect, but I think all of the pieces are there. Now for step 4.). I will start step 4.) by first providing an explanation and mechanism as to why and how we are unable to actually measure the true 3d geometry of energy and this will lead into a (partially complete) mathematical description as to how we can model 3d Matter using surfaces created out of 2d energy. The basics of the explanation is very simple, any “glowing” object that is sufficiently small will appear to be a point source, regardless of its actual geometry. A helpful analogy as to why is this: imagine we are trying to create an image of a sports car by throwing rubber balls at it and making notes about the balls trajectory as they bounce off. Keeping with the rules of Quantum Mechanics, large balls (or particles of large wavelength, and low kinetic energy) travel very slowly and because of their large wavelength or size cannot bounce off of every crevice and curve of the car, they end up giving us a “lumpy” image. In fact if the balls are large enough the car might even look spherical. Smaller balls (particles of lower wavelength and higher energy) are able to bounce off of smaller features of the surface of the car and give us a better image. However as we decrease the wavelength or size of our balls and subsequently are required to increase their energy we eventually will run the risk of smashing the car to pieces due to the high energy of the balls, and we will be unable to actually image the car. Through this analogy we can see that because of the nature of trying to work with the smallest bits of energy and Matter our “resolution of measurement” is fundamentally limited and sufficiently small objects will always appear spherical or upon impact with wavelengths small enough to hit their tiny faces will be obliterated. A more mathematical description of this phenomenon that can be related to 2d geometries involves something called the Gauss Bonnet Theorem, and a related mathematical construct known as The Gauss Map. I will start by explaining the Gauss Bonnet Theorem (GBT). The GBT simply put says that the total curvature of any closed orientable surface without any holes in it is 4 pi. The actual mathematical formulation of this is: ∫KdA+∫Kg ds=2πX(S) For anyone who does not know what that equation means it is simply this: the addition of the total curvature over a surface, plus total line curvature around any excluded regions on the surface (imagine a sphere with a hole cut out of one side) is equal to two pi multiplied by a constant (characteristic of the type of surface) called the surfaces “Euler number”. For closed orientable surfaces without any holes in them (exclude anything like a “donut” or torus, or an incomplete surface) such as spheres, or in our specific case the platonic solids this is equal to four pi. The value of the total curvature is not important, the fact that the total curvature is conserved between different surfaces of the same Euler number is, as this guarantees that we can define (at least one) isomorphism between them. Or more specifically between points with a particular value of curvature on each surface. The isomorphism that is guaranteed to exist is called the Gauss Map. The simplest way to visualize how this works is to imagine a Tetrahedron, and a normal vector placed upon it of infinite length. Now let this normal vector “wander continuously” across every point on the Tetrahedron. As you do this the tip of the normal vector at infinity will trace out a sphere of infinite radius. The trick is to imagine the normal vector bending continuously over every edge and point. The flow of the ideas behind this derivation become a bit rocky at this point, but as with step 3.) I think I have all the necessary pieces, just not a good order to present them in. I will now describe a few things from the field of Differential Geometry (without rigorous definition) as these are important to how the Gauss Map actually functions and how we can use it. Anyone who has gone through undergraduate science or engineering will be familiar with how a surface can be defined as having a range in 3d space and a domain in the 2d plane. In Differential Geometry the domain in the 2d plane is more rigorously defined as a collection of open sets, each associated with a map onto part of the surface. These maps and associated open sets are called “coordinate patches”, the entire (minimum) set of coordinate patches that it takes to cover a surface is called the surfaces “Atlas”. The number of possible coordinate patches that you could define that would be able to completely cover any surface is basically infinite and so you may also define something called a “transition map” or an isomorphism between different coordinate patches. This allows you to reparametrize a surface in terms of a different 2d domain, still resulting in the exact same surface. An example of this for parametric spheres is to let θ and ϑ range instead of between 0 and 2 pi, between 6 pi and 8 pi, this works obviously because trig functions are periodic. Or specifically in the case of the Gauss Map we can reparametrize one surface into a completely different surface by defining isomorphisms between the 2d coordinate patches that define each separate surface. By composing these isomorphisms together you can construct the Gauss Map. Attached to this post is a crude picture as to what the Gauss Map looks like. So how is this relevant to using 2d geometry to model Matter? Well I am eventually going to get there but it is a very odd roundabout route. We first need to do something that will at first seem very strange. We are going to transform a sinusoidal wave into a triangular one. Doing this is very simple if all we want to do is conserve the total energy in the wave, coincidentally the way that we equate the total area under the curve over two cycles of the wave will conserve curvature for us (and construct the Gauss Map). To conserve the total energy of the sinusoidal wave of amplitude A, and transform it into a triangular wave of amplitude B we integrate the root mean square of the sinusoid and the triangular waves simultaneously over two cycles (4 pi) and equate them. Imagine that these waves’ energy were quantized, what this allows us to do is define a linear transformation or simple conversion factor between our triangular and sinusoidal energy quanta or more specifically their amplitudes, but we could do this for any aspect of their geometry simply change the unknown in the integral from the amplitude of the wave to whatever you wish. For now lets just assume that Matter is in fact a standing wave defining a surface, or a wave restricted to propagate only across a surface. Then our model of 3d Matter would almost be complete, all that we would need to do now is define how the 2d geometry becomes a surface. Unfortunately this derivation stumbles here as I do not know how this actually physically happens, but it is very simple to envision the mathematical construction of such a thing for a sphere. For a sphere we simply define the sphere by its polar parametrization, (ρ sin〖(ϑ) cos(θ) 〗,ρ sin(ϑ) sin(θ),ρcos(ϑ)), and by letting θ, and ϑ range from zero to two pi we are able to “wrap” a sinusoidal wave around a sphere (with some overlap). By associating the “information” or energy (momentum, mass etc. you could conserve whatever you want) of the wave with curvature, or in this case conveniently directly with the domain of our 2d coordinate patches, or the cycles of the wave, we can define The Gauss Map between spheres and Tetrahedrons in such a way that not only is the total curvature of each surface conserved, but also the total energy (or information: mass, momentum, etc. whatever you want really). In order to completely define The Gauss Map however we would also need the transformation that takes 2d triangular waves and wraps them around a Tetrahedron. This is once again a point where this derivation stumbles, I do not actually have that right now, though it is obviously not an impossible task to define them, you could do it with 10 piecewise functions, six for the edges, and four for the faces, not impossible, simply irritating, and so I have not yet bothered. Having completely defined the Gauss Map, completely defines the math for our structural model for 3d Matter using 2d waves and how any platonic solid sufficiently small can be mistaken for a sphere (more about this in a second). There are some conceptual stumbling blocks though that unfortunately have no foundation in the standard model and can only be explained using Tetryonics. Waves are technically neutral, how does this create particles with net charge? Even if a standing wave can have a net charge, why and how can we measure it around a particle? The only way to demonstrate how this is possible is by using Tetryonics, the very thing we are trying to derive, so this is again a huge problem with this part of the derivation. Basically it comes back to the way in which Tetryonics defines energy quanta, they are double sided triangular energy “coins”. The orientation of each coin comprising a face of the Tetrahedron determines the Net charge of the entire Matter quanta. There are two different Net neutral configurations of Tetryons, one positive, and one negative, you’ll have to go back and look at Kelvin’s Materials to get a good view of how this works. This creates the structure, but does not necessarily explain how we can measure the charge. I am a little bit unsure of this one myself, currently I have no explanation other than that is just how it works, right now we just define it that way. An important thing to keep in mind about this however is that in Tetryonics electric fields do not propagate throughout all of space, energy with its real geometry and finite dimensions also comprises electrostatic fields meaning that electric fields have finite size, for now we simply say that you can sense the charge of a wave if you are REALLY close to it. In the standard model, technically different aspects of an EM wave don’t exist at the same time or place, they induce each other, or in mathematical terms are conjugates reciprocating each other through an action (in this case propagation). Once again there is unfortunately no explanation for this in the standard model, Tetryonics simply shows that this idea is wrong. Or at least it shows that it is possible to construct an alternate model that creates the same results, both theoretically and experimentally, but through an entirely different method, and since we can’t ever get an accurate peak at what is occurring at the quantum level, is probably impossible to disprove experimentally. As shown in the picture above, once again, energy is a triangular coin with a literal geometry and real dimensions. These triangular coins when comprising the diamond geometry of a photon radiate outward increasing in size (and in wavelength, producing an alternate mechanism for red shift coincidentally). When you look at one half of the diamond geometry you can see that the individual quanta within it create a triangular wave of alternating electric and magnetic potential, as this wave expands and propagates outward, without the quanta actually changing or oscillating, we, when measuring at a fixed point, measure an oscillation as the wave passes us. The oscillation is not measured as being triangular for the same reasons why the actual bell curve is not actually curved, the curve arises out of noise at the quantum level. How does energy physically fold into becoming 3d Matter? I have no idea. Matter quanta are held together by the interactions of the magnetic dipoles of each quanta and larger particles (like protons) are held together by the combined interaction of these Matter quanta’s magnetic dipoles as well as the interactions of the electric charge on each of the faces. For very large 3d geometries and things like atoms it is actually not just a combination of attractive forces but repulsive ones as well that give these larger geometries their structure. Matter is created out of the tessellation of Tetrahedrons covered in differing poles of electric and magnetic energy as macro scale objects are created out of the tessellation of atoms. While this provides an explanation as to how Matter stays together it does not explain why it forms in the first place. As I understand things, parts of the theory of Tetryonics are still works in progress. Kelvin may have an answer but I have not yet seen it. As a bit of an interesting aside, and to summarize and further explain the idea of Matter being created by a standing wave across a surface I am going to now delve back into the formulation of the transformation between a triangular and a sinusoidal wave. As I explained earlier to define this all we do is equate the integral of the root mean square of each wave to create a conversion factor between some aspect of each waves geometry. I would like to demonstrate what happens to the units of the electric and magnetic fields under a few re-parametrizations, one that Kelvin discovered, and a few that might be well known to anyone familiar with the theories of special and general relativity. By integrating the magnetic field over an area we get magnetic flux, since right now we are only interested in what happens to the units we will just assume that when we integrate something we are talking about integrating the root mean square. Magnetic flux has the units of: Tesla^' s = V*s = ((kg*m^2)/(Amp*s^3 ))*(s) = (kg*m^2)/(C*s) This has units of planck quanta per coulomb. Now when we integrate the electric field over an area to get electric flux, we see that electric flux has units of: (N*m^2)/C = (((kg*m)/s^2 )*m^2)/C = (kg*m^3)/(C*s^2 ) = ((kg*m^2)/(C*s))*c At the last step what I did was, I factored out a meters per second, and since we are talking about energy, which only moves at one speed, I decided to replace that meters per second with the speed of light. So this becomes planck quanta per coulomb multiplied by the speed of light. Now in our transition map since we want to conserve all of the information of the wave we are going to add the result of these two integrals together and conserve their sum. Doing so we get this equation what I like to call the fundamental theorem for the reparametrization of energy, this is what we use to change the shape of energy (hopefully) without breaking physics. E+B=((kg*m^2)/(C*s))_E+((kg*m^2)/(C*s))_B*c=Conserved We now take the inverse seconds to signify frequency. ((f*kg*m^2)/C)_E*((f*kg*m^2)/C)_B*c Now obviously since Einstein’s time everybody knows that this is true. E=kg*c^2 Energy has the units of mass times the speed of light squared, but now we are going to do something very interesting that Kelvin came up with. Those of you familiar with general relativity may have worked in a relativistically normalized coordinate system before. Basically you take units of measurement of distance to be the distance light travels in one second, units of time to be seconds, but interestingly enough you can if you wish take c2 to mean two oppositely traveling beams of light travelling out of a central point defining the diameter of a circle, or radial area per second. So now we reparametrize mass as being a measure of energy per area, or energy per radial second. E/c^2 =kg And our sum now becomes this. ((f*(E/m^2 )*m^2)/C)_E+((f*(E/m^2 )*m^2)/C)_B*c This equation is full of subtlety. We are not going to cancel the area terms even though their values are equal. Why? Because they mean different things and cancelling them obscures what is happening here. The inverse area under the energy is the measure of the amount of 2d area we have that is going to be wrapped around our surface, it is the area of each energy quanta in the 2d wave. The area that is not in the brackets underneath the energy is the measure of the surfaces surface area. If both of these area’s and subsequently the frequency are changing we have an expanding EM wave, if they are constant we have Matter. There is a bit of a stumbling block here too, not so much in how this works but simply understanding it. A quanta of Matter is a Tetrahedron, comprised of two diamond shaped energy geometries that are restrained to exist as a standing wave on a surface. However an expanding photon in Tetryonics is not an expanding Tetrahedron, it is two perpendicular expanding diamonds. If you were to project the quanta in these diamonds onto a surface you would get an octahedron. The confusion arises from the Gauss Map itself, since technically it creates isomorphisms between all closed orientable surfaces without holes in them. But since as part of our derivation we have shown that only triangles are an actually viable 2d geometry for energy we are restricted then to only using the platonic solids, because these are the only closed orientable surfaces with regular faces, and coincidentally coincide with each of the possible ways of tiling a sphere with equilateral triangles. I should make a quick remark about the speed of light term. This actually does have an explanation in terms of both Tetryonics and the standard model. In each case it is the root property of energy that creates the Lorentz transform. For those of you who do not know what that is basically in the standard model it is thought that the magnetic field is actually a doppler shifted electric field. A spherical charge travelling very fast will emanate an electric field, though this charge is very small it still has finite dimensions and the speed of light though large is also finite, meaning that you would detect the electric field from the front of the charge slightly before the electric field emanated from the back. I don’t understand the rest of the specifics, but it is this Doppler shifted electric field that actually is the magnetic field. In Tetryonics when you watch / or read through the part about kinetic energy you will see how momentum is associated with the electric field only, the electric field propagates and essentially drags the magnetic field behind it. And so in the case of our equation we can see why we have a speed of light associated with the root mean square of the electric field integrated over an area. There is a more mathematical description as to why that c term is there too. We are working in a relativistically normalized coordinate system, by doing that and saying that our energy geometries travel at the speed of light we are also saying they travel along unit speed curves, a requirement of the machinery of the Gauss Bonnet Theorem. It is also important to clarify what seems like a fudging of the meaning of electric flux here, we seem to be integrating over a 2d area parallel to the propagation of EM energy and defining that as flux, that’s not the case at all. The diamond geometries <>, expand outward laterally, towards the edge of the page < > , but you also have to imagine them travelling toward your face, OUT of the page. A true photon is actually three perpendicular diamond shaped geometries each expanding in two directions, < left, right >, and propagating perpendicular to the diamond. So this concludes step 4.), it is a bit of a jumbled mess but as I have already written I think all of the necessary pieces of a complete proof are here. But so far we have a pretty good idea how to do steps 3.) and 4.), as I said before I have no idea how to do step 5.), step 1.) I think I have a good strategy but not enough knowledge to find what I think I should be looking for, and step 2.) is probably closely related to step 1.). So now for my strategy to completing step 1.). The people best suited to the task are people who are familiar with the fields of Group Theory, but more specifically Lie Algebra and the study of Invariants. Some peoples intuition may already be telling them what mine is. Noether’s theorem provides a way to test theories in physics by checking to see if they obey laws of conservation, and derive models of physical systems based upon the aspects that they conserve. It also provides a path for the mathematical derivation of the existence of conservation laws. What I am interested in is if it can be used to somehow associate a conservation of energy with a conservation of geometry. I am currently in the process of learning about Group Theory and eventually Lie Algebra but it is slow going, it could take me years to get to the level of knowledge I would probably need and that is why I am here asking other people for help, or advice. The general justification for why this approach might work is quite simple. If you have a linear system of momentum and you rotate it, it behaves the same way, it is invariant under rotation and this (somehow) implies that conservation of radial momentum exists. Similar arguments exist for other spatially dependent conservation laws, what I mean by that and am assuming is that the degree of freedom that you have in your system with respect to invariance can basically be tacked on to the units of the system itself to provide the quantity that can be conserved. In this case rotation can be redefined in terms of radians which is a measure of rotation but has units of length per length, hence the invariance of the system under rotation. But if you tack on this redundant length to the units of mass times velocity, kilogram meters per second, you get mass area per second, or radial momentum our systems conserved property. So imagine a light source. You can translate it, in any direction, giving a redundant unit of length, you can rotate it, in any direction, giving another redundant unit of length, together both of these redundancies can be taken to mean area. And no matter how you combine these spatial operations the light source is always going to emit light in exactly the same way. So what do you think? Is there anyone out there that can help me?
Mordred Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) There really isn't enough information on tetryonic geometry itself in any formulized mathematics to really offer any great assistance. The author itself has yet to publish any serious peer reviewed content. I can only assist in stating that geometry is already used in describing gauge groups. Symmetry and assymetry groups utilize coordinate geometry. I can provide material on the subject but it will still take years to adapt that to suit tetryonic geometry without having any formulized mathematics to work from. Looking over what few papers I could find, there's no real completed leg work done. One major hurdle is the gauge groups work with 4d coordinates. t,x,y,z. I see no literature in tetryonic geometry covering the time component as a vector coordinate. So how he claims to cover lorentz boosts and rotations using 3d is a mystery to me. To start learning gauge theory your going to need the tools of differential geometry. This is the main mathematics behind particle physics. Without this lie algebra and group theory development is impossible. So here is a good set of articles covering the differential geometry of particle physics. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395part 2 An Elementary Introduction to Groups and Representations http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0005032 http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CEgQFjAJahUKEwj20drBpuHGAhUGnIAKHc9hDvo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tufts.edu%2F~fgonzale%2Flie.algebras.book.pdf&rct=j&q=Introduction%20to%20lie%20algebra&ei=24CoVbb4I4a4ggTPw7nQDw&usg=AFQjCNEgqEso2cp_9hJXTd44RDKgrbPmZg&sig2=pkp078ZX5-YHZzjT7G_n8w GR will be needed http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau Here is a good reference on fields. http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205: "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields As you can see from the above your request involves an extreme amount of time, particularly since there isn't any mathematic modelling already done by the author of tetryonic geometry of any significant level. A little assistance though your U(1) unitary group is primarily electrodynamics. SU(2) is your electroweak,(Su(2)*U(1)y*U(1)em. This group also covers flavor dynamics SU(3) is your chromodynamic group. SO(1.3) is the Lorentz group. SU(5) flipped group is the unification model by Georgi-Glashow GUT model. Currently you also have SO(10) MSM and SO(10) MSSM. Minimal standard model and minimal super symmetric standard model. This group covers all the afformentioned groups but also incoperates Pati-Salam model as a subgroup, also includes the Higgs sector. Other important groups. Heisenburg group [latex]H_3 R[/latex] Your Poincare group has specific letter designations. (Minkowskii space time isometries) Translational P (time and space displacements.)abelion group Rotations J in space. Is non abelion boosts k (transformation connecting two uniform bodies) J and K together work in the Lorentz group. Your Euler group is covered here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics) Here is a list of simple lie groups https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_simple_Lie_groups https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Lie_groups Hope that helps Edited July 17, 2015 by Mordred
studiot Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Have you ever read Maxwell's original 'hexagonal cell' theory of light? Your propositions sound a bit similar, but obviously brought up to date to include knowledge gained over the subsequent centuy and a half. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell%27s_equations
Strange Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 For anyone rolling their eyes right now it was published in a peer reviewed journal, the International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications ... I would be a little wary. That journal is listed here so it is basically a "vanity press"; they will publish anything for a fee. I doubt their review process is particularly onerous. The paper seems heavy on pretty pictures and light on maths and supporting evidence. There are a large number of theories which use geometrical models as a "deeper" model of physics (e.g. causal dynamical triangulation). These all seem to have multiple articles published in mainstream journals. However in order to wet the appetite "whet"
sunshaker Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 I have been doing something similar with the elements joining extended periodic tables to produce particles, I have these equilateral triangles joined as you show above. Perhaps I have been doing a form of "tetryonic geometry" without realizing? http://alpha-omega-sunshaker.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/new-extended-periodic-tableelectron.html
RuthlessOptimism Posted July 17, 2015 Author Posted July 17, 2015 I don't know how to use quotes on this forum properly so this is a response to all previous posts. Mordred - That helps a LOT. Thank you very much, I knew I had my work cut out for me when I started this. I was kind of hoping I just might get lucky and someone who already knew these topics well would immediately see the answer to my problem with step 1.). studiot - I have seen a bit of Maxwell's hexagonal theory before, it is something that Kelvin talks about in his work. I don't know how significant it is. Obviously the body of work that has been done on Tetryonics so far is very large, I've been puttering around with it for about 2 years and I am still not 100% on everything (though I've also been in school at the same time). Strange - I agree about the journal, but when you have created something that if proven right would invalidate many other peoples entire life's work it is completely reasonable to expect resistance to your ideas and you will be left with few options. I also agree about the pictures, this is why I am trying to do this work, I've always found it dissatisfying that there is not a more mathematical approach to Tetryonics. Kelvin unfortunately does not have a background as a mathematician and believes the proof of his work is the theory itself. Which is a problem because the sheer volume of his work is a large barrier to anyone actually wanting to sit down and learn or critique it. Thank you for the tip regarding causal dynamic triangulation though I will read about that. sunshaker - I've looked at your work a bit, and I honestly don't really understand it. But it is very interesting that the geometry that comes out of your work is so similar to Tetryonics, the ones drawn on paper (I am having difficulty including pictures in the post on this computer) look particularly like the top view of the 3d periodic table that is derived in Tetryonics.
Mordred Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) The images do have some similarities to the baryon octect, meson nonet, baryon decoupled. Here look at the image for SU(4) last page this article. http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/np3/lect-quarks.pdf The problem is these representations show how particles decay into other particles. Does not include Lorentz transformations. This is what the tetyonic images remind me of which makes me wonder if he simply pieced the conservation rules ( in their representations together ) without bothering to deal with the math or understanding what those images actually cover and describe. The conservation rules being ,color,flavor,parity,isospin,charge, energy momentum, etc. These being inclusive in the eightfold way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) None of the above include relativity. Which brings back the question of how does he claim to use 3d to describe a 4d coordinate system? Sounds to me more claim than possible with what the images could possibly cover. (Particularly since the word tetryon is a subspace particle from star trek.) Edited July 17, 2015 by Mordred
RuthlessOptimism Posted July 18, 2015 Author Posted July 18, 2015 Which brings back the question of how does he claim to use 3d to describe a 4d coordinate system? I am not sure how to answer this question properly. But from what I have seen and understand of Tetryonics the individual triangular quanta are thought of as perfect short circuited inductive loops. When you build Matter out of them the Matter is described as a standing wave. These Triangular quanta from my perspective are like a "collage" of the energy throughout its entire period of oscillation, and all of it does not exist at the same time. The word "Tetryon" is no doubt a deliberate reference to Star Trek, as far as I know Kelvin is a fan and there is more than one of these references in the entire theory. But it does fit what we are talking about. As for relativity, that is one major area of Tetryonics that I still don't understand. Tetryonics does strange things to relativity. One of the more interesting though controversial things is what it does to the speed of light itself. Energy always travels at the speed of light, Matter however can go faster without any bending of space time. This obviously requires some explaining. All geometries in Tetryonics are square and fractal. Many individual triangular quanta join together to form something called a KEM field, which can describe the, wavelength, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy of particle or macro scale object all at once. The center triangle is something called a Kinetic Electro Magnetic Field (KEM). The vector going from base to tip is the energy momenta associated with every single quanta of energy, it is there because energy wants to diverge and neutralize. The center diamond of each quanta is its electric charge and the two smaller triangles are the resulting magnetic poles, all this is mirrored on the backside so that each quanta is a triangular coin of positive and negative charge. In my original post I showed how in Tetryonics we reparametrize mass as being a measure of energy per area. So what ends up happening is that velocity, momentum, and the kinetic energy of a particles KEM field become different measurements of the same geometry. The KEM field also describes the particles inertial mass, which is the measurement of how many quanta are in the KEM field itself. Inertial Mass = energy per area, a scalar measurement, momentum = mass times velocity, a vector measurement (pointing base to tip). In the previous picture where Tetryons are depicted you should take note that the mass Matter of a particle is located in the Fascia of each particle, this does not change with a particles velocity even at relativistic speeds. Resulting in another weird thing that Tetryonics does to relativity, the dimensions of objects do not change at relativistic speeds. So right now you are probably very incredulous as to how this is possible but I will need one more picture to explain. In Tetryonics all energy geometries are made out of a square number of quanta, resulting in square energies. If you want to increase the velocity of a particle for example, you have to add an odd number of quanta into its KEM field to do it. Why objects become harder to accelerate the faster they go is because the difference between large odd numbers of quanta is large. Making it although technically possible for objects made of Matter to travel faster than the speed of light, very unlikely. With regards tot he wavelength of particles, if you look at the vertical columns of quanta you'll see that they make a triangular wave. If we have a KEM field with a lot of quanta in it, but still only covering slightly more area than it had with less quanta, what we end up with is wavelength contraction. As I explained in my original post, a particles KEM field acts like a buffer with regard to how it interacts with its environment. Thats as good as I can explain right now, if you want a more detailed explanation you should take a look at some of the material Kelvin has put on youtube, or the free e-books he has on googleplus.
Mordred Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) Well we still have the same problem. All measurements of quanta are observer dependant. A good example is redshift. Measurements of energy is also observer dependant. A quanta is a measure of energy. Bosons are defined as integer spin particles. It's spin doesn't depend on how much energy the particle has but on its spin statistics (angular momentum). None of the formulas in those images are involved in spin statistic. They lack the details on rotations and boosts to do so. Bosons have rotations that commute Fermions have rotations that anticommute. Or in other words fermions, have antisymmetric multiparticle wavefunctions, bosons have symmetric wave functions. This has nothing to do with the statement bosons has an odd number of quanta. This statement reads as garbage to me. Spin statistics involves specific wavefunctions. The two slit experiment on photons is a good way to learn how spin is determined. A particles spin is an intrinsic property of the particle it neither increases nor decreases in levels of energy. So once again we hit the barrier of lack of mathematics. None of the images include rotations and boosts in particular to wave function symmetry, antisymmetry Yet he's making claims to explain how bosons and fermions work with his model.???? Where is his j rotations? He doesn't show any details in regards to the Poincare group. Which is involved in spin statistics. Not does he have any correlation to the Pauli exclusion principle. Edited July 18, 2015 by Mordred
ajb Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 As for relativity, that is one major area of Tetryonics that I still don't understand. Tetryonics does strange things to relativity. One of the more interesting though controversial things is what it does to the speed of light itself. Energy always travels at the speed of light, Matter however can go faster without any bending of space time. This obviously requires some explaining. Tetryonics is considered pseudoscience. You would be better off spending your time looking at more established ideas. I don't know what one could mean by 'energy always travels at the speed of light'. Can you say a little more about this? Does linear momentum also travel at the speed of light? My worry is that energy is not an entity in its own right; energy is a number we can associate to physical configurations but has no meaning otherwise. There are other numbers we can associate like angular and linear momentum.
Strange Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Kelvin unfortunately does not have a background as a mathematician and believes the proof of his work is the theory itself. That is very worrying as it suggests he is not interested in science. No theory can be tested except by comparison against real world observations. 1
RuthlessOptimism Posted July 18, 2015 Author Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) A quanta is a measure of energy. Bosons are defined as integer spin particles. It's spin doesn't depend on how much energy the particle has but on its spin statistics (angular momentum). None of the formulas in those images are involved in spin statistic. They lack the details on rotations and boosts to do so. It may take me more than one post to respond to all these questions, because of the lack of math the best way to respond is by explainng some pictures, but all these questions are addressed in the theory. With regards to angular momentum. Just as Tetryonics redefines mass to be a measurement energy density (energy/area), it also redefines QAM. QAM becomes a literal measurement of the area itself, or m^2/sec. Basically quanta can expand and contract depending on the geometry they are a part of. This is a completely different concept from the physical rotation of a particle, which can also be defined. So as you can see if we literally take spin (in a QAM sense) to mean number of unit areas we get an integer spin. This integer spin can be positive or negative depending on which side of the triangular coin is facing up, +ve->+ve, -ve->-ve. So Like I said the spin of a particle, at least so far as electrons are considered (I am not sure about other ones) is a literal rotation. This requires a bit of explaining, and is the reason this might take more than one posts worth of pictures. So if we combine Tetryons together we can build protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. This is a picture of a baryon and the magnetic moment that results from the tesselation of the charged (and neutral) Tetrahedrons (Tetryons) that create it. The spin of an electron is dependent upon whether the magnetic moment of the electron induced by its physical rotation is parallel or anti-parallel to the magnetic moment of the proton that it is attached to. These protons and neutrons and electrons are bound together through a combined interaction of their magnetic moments, and electrostatic attraction, and repulsion. In Tetryonics the weak force in terms of the structure of atoms is the interaction of magnetic moments and the strong force is the sticking together of oppositely charged fascia. Because forces are created by the overlap of quanta's energy momenta, producing attractive or repulsive forces, the strong force is strong because it literally takes up more area on the quanta, producing more overlap and a larger force. If you take a hydrogen atom as a unit piece of an atom and combine it with other hydrogen following the interations of their residual EM fields you can essentially derive the periodic table in 3d. It has all of the same properties as the periodic table we know, it satisfies the Pauli exclusion principle, and has the same progression of shell orbitals. I am going to put a few more pictures in another post since this one has reached its picture limit, but it may take a few hours before I can put another post up due to the websites setting that limit such things. I don't know what one could mean by 'energy always travels at the speed of light'. Can you say a little more about this? Does linear momentum also travel at the speed of light? From what I understand the answer is yes. But in the case of a KEM field or a standing wave of Matter it is restrained from just propagating outward toward infinity by the way that it joins together in the KEM field. You can see in a detailed picture of a KEM field ( I cannot put one up another one now because the website only allows me so many picture uploads or posts within a given time frame ), that a KEM field is made up of positive and negative quanta that are joined together by the interactions of their magnetic moments. Since each quanta is a triangular coin with a positve and negative side they are technically neutral and carry no charge information, this is carried by the particle itself in its electrostatic field. But once again due to their structure a KEM field is a bit like a standing wave itself except that is free to propagate in a single direction, whereas a photons spreads out and increases its wavelength as it propagates, creating an alternate mechanism for red shift that occurs simultaneously to doppler effects (which are observer dependent). Electrostatic fields are another matter, they are very hard to explain without a good picture, I'll upload some pictures that can explain this further later today. That is very worrying as it suggests he is not interested in science. No theory can be tested except by comparison against real world observations. Proving his theory experimentally is something that Kelvin is currently expending all his efforts on. What I meant was that he does not have the background knowledge to prove it Mathematically. As I've said gaining that expertise, which is what I would like to do, could take most of a lifetime, and so he just doesn't want to do that. What Tetryonics does that is very fascinating but at the same time frustrating is it shows a way that you can develope a new theory that produces all of the same theoretical and experimental results but through an entirely different physical process.This is frustrating because it makes it hard to test experimentally, except for certain predictions that many people think belong only to the realm of science fiction. Edited July 18, 2015 by RuthlessOptimism
studiot Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Thank you for bringing this theory to our attention. Perhaps if it was couched in less sensationalist language that accorded with current defintions of specific technical words it would garner greater credence. For example The vector going from base to tip is the energy momenta associated with every single quanta of energy, it is there because energy wants to diverge and neutralize I have no idea what this means simply because all the technical words used clearly have different meanings from currently accepted practice. What is your definition of vector? What is energy momenta? What is a single quanta of energy? What is the meaning of will associated with energy? What is the definition of diverge in this usage? What is the definition of neutralize in this usage?
RuthlessOptimism Posted July 19, 2015 Author Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) Here is the periodic table 2.0 that is derived in Tetryonics. The center is a top down view of a slice out of the tables middle that has all of its shells filled. Bottom right shows a side view. As more shells are filled it remains approximately spherical, expanding upward (in energy levels) and outward (in shells). The only way that these hydrogen building blocks can join together forces them to have an even number of spin up and spin down electrons in each shell, satisfying the Pauli Exclusion principle. This is the Tetryonic model for a photon. When it is emitted it expands outward to left and right from a central point and out of the page. As you can see it makes triangular wave patterns, these constructively and destructively interfere with each other just like normal light. Unlike a KEM field the quanta in this geometry are not constrained to remain the same physical size, the geometry expands to the left and right of the page and radiates out of it. I hope this answers most of Mordreds questions. I know all your time is valuable but the best way to answer these questions would be to watch the video I linked to, it answers pretty much all of them. Now for the rest. What is your definition of vector? What is energy momenta? What is a single quanta of energy? What is the meaning of will associated with energy? What is the definition of diverge in this usage? What is the definition of neutralize in this usage? A single quanta of energy is taken to be the smallest unit of energy that exists. In Tetryonics a fundamental property of energy is that it will always try to expand (this is what I meant by diverge) and seek equillibrium (what I meant by neutralize) . This property means that each unit of energy has associated with it a unit of velocity pointing from the base of the triangular unit of energy to its tip, when I say vector I mean a vector in the usual sense, a property with direction and magnitude. Because in Tetryonics we can define all base units as different measurements of the same geometry Energy Momenta is a general term that includes all of the properties possessed by each unit of energy: velocity (meters/sec), mass (energy/area), quantized angular momentum (area), and momentum (mass*meters/sec). The velocity that is inherently associated with each unit of energy is separate from the speed of light. This picture best explains what is going on with each unit of energy. So as I wrote they have momentum associated with them whose vector points base to tip, but when they join to make a KEM field some are pointing up and others down. Obviously this KEM field has a net upward velocity of 2 units. Each KEM field is always made up of the addition of successive odd numbers of quanta as new rows at the bottom. The total number of quanta in each KEM field is thus always a square number, and the magnitude of the net velocity is this square numbers square root. Mass is reparametrized as energy per area in Tetryonics and so the square number of quanta in each KEM field produces a scalar (no direction) measurement of mass. Each KEM field correspondingly then has a scalar measurement of velocity (equal to a square number, ignore the sign or direction of the vector), and momentum. Since the upward velocity of each quanta is only associated with the electric field, and the induced magnetic field is essentially dragged after it, when you calculate kinetic energy you get (1/2)mv^2, because each diamond portion of a unit of energy comprises half of the unit of energies total area. The geometry of a KEM field and a photon are obviously different, the case of a KEM field is like a standing wave that continually moves forward. As I wrote previously these KEM geometries are fractal, and larger geometries just have more rows added at the bottom producing the same pattern. Each quanta is made up of oscillating electric and magnetic potential and is a "triangular coin". Positive diamond shaped electric field on one side, negative on the other, and below is the corresponding magnetic moment produced by the electric oscillation which is also opposite on the back side. Photons expand and radiate at the speed of light, KEM fields travel at smaller velocities that depend on how many quanta create them, but like I said they are like a standing wave themselves and the energy that comprises them moves within their own geometry at the speed of light. Since each triangular coin has a positive and negative side they are technically neutral and so the KEM field does not transmit information regarding charge. The net charge of a particle is determined by which side of the triangular coins are facing outward when a KEM field of four total quanta fold to form Tetrahedrons (Tetryons). Any surrounding particles only "sense" the charge on the exterior of the Tetrahedrons. The Tetryonic geometry for static electric fields looks and works like this. Units of energy once again join together in square numbers, they join by alternating charge, whichever polarity of charge is facing up on the edge of the geometry determines the net charge of the entire geometry. This net charge is equal to the number of rows and the square root of the total number of units of energy in the geometry. Each unit of energy still has velocity and momentum associated with it, but in this configuration both halves of the diamond shape diverge in such a way that they cancel each others motion out and remain fixed. It is important to note that this charge field has finite dimensions, it does not produce an electric field that extends to infinity. When fields of opposite polarity overlap their momentum reinforces each other such that the sources of these fields are attracted to each other. When fields of opposite polarity overlap they produce reinforced momentum such that the sources of the fields repel. This Tetryonics calls the law of interaction. The resulting force that is created follows an inverse square law, if you zoom in on the center interaction there are nine red arrows pointing left, nine black arrows pointing right, the number of accelerating arrows for each source is always a square number. *Edit. I just realized I should clarify something here. I myself am a bit unclear how this model of static charge even works with the idea that each quanta has a postive and negative side, however when you think about it this fact is actually probably irrelevant, because both geometries have a mirrored opposite side and the same interaction would result upon their overlap regardless. I have one last picture I think it might be pertinent to upload regarding the interpretation of the two slit experiment as per Tetryonic theory, but I cannot do so right now due to upload limits. The basics of it is that, as I wrote before the vertical columns of a KEM field also act like triangular waves, the KEM field of a particle is the particles "Matter wave". KEM fields can constructively and destructively interfere with each other. They also provide the mechanism for the intertial mass of particles and wavelength contraction as these units of energy are elastic, whereas the actual 3d standing wave of Matter never gains or loses energy (except when it is annihilated by antimatter) nor changes size. The best way to answer all these questions is to simply watch the first video in Kelvin's series on youtube. Thank you. Edited July 19, 2015 by RuthlessOptimism
Mordred Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) Ok thus far I must admit this is of a higher quality than most posts in speculations. (You have also asked for assistance in filling in the lack of math with is good) Thus far you've covered the electromagnetic charge relations. I noticed he has the correct normalization spin rotations. ie spin 1/2 requiring a 720 degree rotation. Does it work for color and flavor charge? On the aspects covered so far you have aspects of U(1) and several aspects in SO(3). Without necessarily being exact matches. I mention those two groups and energy-momentum relations are covered in the latter group. Magnetic charge in the first group. Now we need to see if there is correlations to the SU(2) group and SU(3) group. Thus far what I can tell is what he's done is develop a visual tool on the standard model. In so far as I haven't spotted any contrary claims of any of the standard models being in error. Though on relativity is his correlations based on Gauss Bonnett gravity? You had mentioned Gauss Bonnett theory in one of your posts. Edited July 19, 2015 by Mordred
studiot Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 When fields of opposite polarity overlap their momentum reinforces each other such that the sources of these fields are attracted to each other. When fields of opposite polarity overlap they produce reinforced momentum such that the sources of the fields repel. This Tetryonics calls the law of interaction. The resulting force that is created follows an inverse square law, if you zoom in on the center interaction there are nine red arrows pointing left, nine black arrows pointing right, the number of accelerating arrows for each source is always a square number. *Edit. I just realized I should clarify something here. I myself am a bit unclear how this model of static charge even works with the idea that each quanta has a postive and negative side, however when you think about it this fact is actually probably irrelevant, because both geometries have a mirrored opposite side and the same interaction would result upon their overlap regardless. The instant you mention 'Fields' you introduce the 'action at a distance' dilemma and the influence horizon of the field and its source. How do you explain these? What is the reach of your field? 1
Mordred Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) I don't know what one could mean by 'energy always travels at the speed of light'. Can you say a little more about this? Does linear momentum also travel at the speed of light? My worry is that energy is not an entity in its own right; energy is a number we can associate to physical configurations but has no meaning otherwise. There are other numbers we can associate like angular and linear momentum. The answer to this that you provided. Doesn't sit well with me. "From what I understand the answer is yes. But in the case of a KEM field or a standing wave of Matter it is restrained from just propagating outward toward infinity by the way that it joins together in the KEM field. You can see in a detailed picture of a KEM field ( I cannot put one up another one now because the website only allows me so many picture uploads or posts within a given time frame ), that a KEM field is made up of positive and negative quanta " Sounds like your describing the KEM as its own particle. A field isn't energy exclusively, it is a distribution of particles at every point in space. In detail its more a baseline establishment. For example an electromagnetic field consists of virtual gauge photons at every point. A vector or scalar field established the background momentum. In order to have a KEM field you would need a carrier particle. It's also must be a boson. Energy even as a field doesn't exist on its own. It's a property of particles or objects. If the KEM is a particle with quanta of energy it must be measurable and have some property that is measurable to distinquish it from any other standard model particles. In this case What property separates it from the photon field used in Quantum electrodynamics? How does it decay into other particles etc... Edited July 19, 2015 by Mordred
RuthlessOptimism Posted July 19, 2015 Author Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) Unfortunately I have exceeded my allowable disk space for attachments and can no longer include pictures of any kind with any of my posts, anywhere on the site I believe. I have an www.imgur.com account where I will upload the relevant pictures, my user name there is KylessssReddit . However due to upload restrictions there being that you have to wait an hour after each upload before doing another it could literally take me days to do all of them, unless I sat at my computer all day which today I am not going to do. For now mostly text based answers will have to suffice. 'Fields' you introduce the 'action at a distance' dilemma and the influence horizon of the field and its source. The concept of action at a distance opens up another whole can of worms that would take a few posts to explain because we need to start describing the electric fields that force electrons to conduct which action at a distance is constructed out of. But there is an explanation. I will get to this as soon as I can. What is the reach of your field? The reach of all fields in Tetryonics is Finite, though the reach of gravity is not as easy to define as the reach of a static electric or magnetic field. A field isn't energy exclusively, it is a distribution of particles at every point in space. Unfortunately I don’t have a good explanation for this. As I’ve written before most of Tetryonics is equivalent to the standard model in the results it produces but it does so through entirely different physical mechanisms. The perfect analogy for what Tetryonics is compared to the standard model is a path independent line integral, it doesn’t matter what path you take from point A to point B the integral is always the same value in the end. Some things don’t have a standard model equivalent concept, you just define them within the scope of Tetryonics, but as I’ve written they still produce the same results. In order to have a KEM field you would need a carrier particle. It's also must be a boson.Energy even as a field doesn't exist on its own. It's a property of particles or objects. Energy being a field that exists on its own is once again just something that is defined in Tetryonics. KEM fields in one sense do have a carrier particle, and that is the individual triangular quanta that join to construct them. Since each correspond to the odd number 1 it is a boson as Tetryonics defines them. (picture of single quanta) As I’ve said before each quanta, or unit of energy is a triangular coin. With positive and negative diamond shaped electric fields on either side and corresponding magnetic poles. If the KEM is a particle with quanta of energy it must be measurable and have some property that is measurable to distinquish it from any other standard model particles. This does have a good answer. A KEM field is not actually a particle a KEM field is the energy of motion (velocity, momentum, kinetic energy, inertial mass, frequency) of a particle. Something that might help explain this is the picture I promised describing the two slit experiment. As you can see a particle’s KEM field can interfere with itself like a wave, because forces result from the overlap of the energy momenta of quanta a KEM field’s presence is measureable. Because KEM fields are normally distributed (see my original post for an explanation as to why) they create the probability statistics characteristic of subatomic particles. How a KEM field is different from the particle that each one is associated with is their geometries. A KEM field is a 2d geometry, a particle is a 3d geometry. In Tetryonics there is a very large and very specific demarcation between mass and Matter (why I always write one with a capital is to enforce this). mass is a property of 2d geometry, it is energy per 2d area. Matter is a 3d standing wave. There is something that even I don’t really understand about KEM fields and that is that it should have a 3d representation in real life for us to be able to measure them the way that we do. That is something that I can’t really picture, but for now we define and use these 2d representations because they represent the math accurately. As I’ve said before in my original post most of the time the interaction of instruments with a KEM field is more significant than the interaction with subatomic particles themselves, but particles do have a physical structure, they can collide with each other and you can sense their net charge. In order for the particles themselves to collide they must overcome each others KEM fields and net charges (if they have the same charge). If you iteratively overlap two KEM fields row by row you will find that they produce a linear de-acceleration, I myself am doing a little bit of investigative work as to how you can use this to model elastic collisions between particles. One thing that so far is not entirely clear is how the swapping of velocities between particles actually functions in terms of these quanta. Does it work for color and flavor charge? I am not very familiar with color and flavor charge, the little I know I just got from a quick internet search. I think I have an explanation but you are probably not going to like it. As I have explained before KEM fields are the Matter wave associated with each particle. They contain the particles inertial mass. This produces a theoretical effect that many particle physicists are going to hate. Basically when you measure a particles mass/charge ratio you are not measure the mass Matter to charge ratio, you are measuring the inertial mass/charge ratio. What this does is it means that a charged particles curve trajectory through a magnetic field is velocity dependent. It also means that particles of different mass Matter (and completely different 3d structure), but equal charge can have the exact same trajectory curve through a magnetic field. How we still can measure all sorts of different quarks and why they have a conservation of color and flavor is the way that they are situated in atoms. Each quark like the baryons that they join together to form have a residual net magnetic moment, these, alternate physical orientation inside of atoms, just the way that the electron’s spin inside of atoms alternates between up and down throughout the different shells and energy levels. This means that when you perform something like nuclear magnetic resonance on a decaying atom the different directions that particles come flying out is not a result of an inherent property that they have it’s a result of the physical orientation of the component particles to the external magnetic field within their respective atom. Going back to mass/charge ratios. The end result of completely different particles being able to have the exact same trajectory curve in a magnetic field is that a large portion of the “particle zoo” does not actually exist, theres no easy way to put that. This is a picture of all subatomic particles that Tetryonics claims exist. Everything else arises out of a misinterpretation of the data obtained from particle accelerators. One cool and interesting aside about these is that anti-Matter is Matter that has been turned inside out. Gauss Bonnett gravity I don’t know what Gauss Bonnett Gravity is. I took an introductory course on Differential Geometry awhile ago that derived and proved the gauss bonnet theorem, this is how I came up with part of my derivation but I do not have complete mathematical training. I can explain gravity though the way Tetryonics defines it. It is almost exactly the same as Einstein’s idea of a Stress Energy Tensor, or the gradient of energy density producing gravity. It helps to first explain an analogous (but not equivalent) phenomenon. I myself have done some research in a lab on something called “convective self assembly” for the construction of photo detectors. What this is, is if you have a spherical microscale particle in water, obviously the particle displaces water molecules. For now lets assume that the particle is hydrophobic so it repels them. What now happens is the local density of water molecules has been changed immediately around the particle. This is due to the fact that water, even as a liquid, has a preferred minimal free energy structure, due to its highly polar nature. This creates a curvature in the local density of water molecules. If you put another particle in the water nearby that is also hydrophobic it also produces a curvature in the local density of water molecules of the same sign as the previous particle. When two curvatures of equal sign overlap they create a “lateral surface tension force” that pulls the particles together. When the particles are very close if they have similar surface energies van der waals forces will cause them to stick together, and under special conditions applied to the fluids geometry you can construct hexagonally close packed “colloidal crystals” of spherical particles with interesting optical properties. This lateral surface tension force is what is known as an “immersion force” and gravity is very similar to it. In Tetryonics the only space that is truly “empty” of particles, and EM radiation, is the space enclosed by Tetryons. This creates a very large gradient in energy density between the inside and outside of a Tetryon. This gradient becomes larger the more Tetryons are joined together into a large mass. The result is the force of gravity. Gravity in Tetryonics is the same idea as the stress energy tensor except the high and low energy densities have switched places (as well as the direction of force). Gravity is like an immersion force, Matter encloses a volume and denies other energy from occupying it, because energy wants to spread out as much as possible and come to equilibrium this creates a force bearing down on Matter that becomes stronger as more of it sits in one spot. The magnitude of this force on another object is proportional to the amount of volume that this object itself denies to energy. They each produce a curvature in energy density of equal sign that when overlapped creates a force. So obviously this is vastly different but also similar to the standard model. And has a whole lot of other implications that many physicists will not like. Especially since this is basically a very descriptive way of saying that gravity and electromagnetic forces are the same, something that no one likes hearing about. But it also explains why at the quantum level gravity is insignificant. Edited July 20, 2015 by RuthlessOptimism
Mordred Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Well thank you for your honesty. From what you described its primarily dealing with electromagnetic and gravity. (It's definetely not the first attempt, neither is trying to explain gravity via the strong force) So we can ignore for now color and flavor charge. However not totally. The reason not totally is all three except gravity are part of the electroweak symmetry. However you already have your work cut out for you. The way you described your KEM field may never gain acceptance. It's a considerable hurtle.( You already recognize several of the key reasons, as well as admit to them) How does KEM work with neutrinos, they don't interact via the electromagnetic force yet do with gravity? Then there is also the first generation to third generation particles. Does KEM define the sequence of decays ? Edited July 20, 2015 by Mordred
RuthlessOptimism Posted July 20, 2015 Author Posted July 20, 2015 So we can ignore for now color and flavor charge. However not totally. The reason not totally is all three except gravity are part of the electroweak symmetry. However you already have your work cut out for you. I realized that I did not understand what color and flavor charge meant before. This picture is of all of the particles that Tetryonics claim actually exist. All of the quarks are the two leftmost columns. As I wrote before Matter is constructed out of a tesselation of Tetryons. Electrons and positrons are in the third column from the left, and neutrinos are the fourth column from the left. If you look at the charge numbers next to all of the quarks, black is for negative, red is for positive, you will see that they all have the correct NET charge. An electron is comprised of three negative Tetryons joined together by the interaction of the charged fascias magnetic dipoles (the weak force), so it has a net charge of 12. An up quark has 8/12 net charge, down = 4/12, charmed = 8/12, strange = 4/12. So color charge definitely works out the same in Tetryonics as the standard model. Something interesting happens to flavor though, as you can see in the picture a going from left to right a proton is made from an up quark, a down quark, and another up quark, give a protan a net charge of 12, just like an electron. This is interesting because I think it is different from the standard model, where by the pauli exclusion principle there should not be two up quarks inside a proton. Tetryonics however using geometry shows how this can actually be true. In fact because we are working with geometries of which there are a finite number of permutations for them to join it is actually necessary to do this in order to build a stable structure of an atom. How does KEM work with neutrinos, they don't interact via the electromagnetic force yet do with gravity? I think you are misinterpreting what a KEM field is. A KEM field is the energies of motion of a particle. All particles in motion have a KEM field. But a KEM field is also a physical thing to a certain extent, you can interact with and detect it. A KEM field however is completely different from Matter, it is a property that Matter possesses, that all Matter possesses. As for particle decay that is something I know little about in Tetryonics and the standard model. Hopefully this picture helps. This image doesnt explain the reasons why these particles decay in the way that they do, they basically just apply a conservation of geometry to them. Each of the large particles contains enough pieces to build the smaller ones. Tetryonics also models the radioactive decay of atoms a little bit more descriptively. Something you might find interesting is the Tetryonic description of gluons.
Mordred Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I'll look at this later on in greater detail one thing I spotted on the last image glueballs are still hypothetical. Also you might want to goto arxiv and look at papers in regards to asymptotic freedom in QCD chromodynamics. In regards to number of gluons. In particular work by Frank Wilcez. Asymptotic freedom to radius relations different for the electromagnetic and chromodynamic. You have a lot of ground to cover. I recommend starting with Maxwell's equations and run a comparison data set. Focus on the electromagnetic aspects first. Classical to Qm then to QED.
RuthlessOptimism Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 I promised before that I would explain how Tetryonics deals with entanglement. Well I will try, this is another subject I don't know much about within the scope of Tetryonics or the standard model. We start by defining voltage. Voltage in Tetryonics is a separation of charge, due to the fundamental laws of Tetryonics; that energy wants to spread out and seek equillibrium, and the law of interaction charge does not want to stay separated. The quanta in the separated charge geometry move at the speed of light through the conductive material until they are "caught" by electrons and absorbed into the electrons KEM fields. With enough energy these electrons can become free to move from atom to atom. I don't have a picture here but there is a special way that electrons are able to bind to certain types of atoms that decrease the energy required to detach them, and this is the distinction between conductive and insulative materials. Now there are three distinct possible scenarios for action at a distance. The first is basically just a superposition of KEM fields. The particles' KEM fields are so close that they interfere with each other and a change in one induces a change to the other. The second is that if these two particles are the same type and they have KEM fields that are exactly equal since we cant measure a system without interfering with it the same measurement will produce the same result even though these particles are distinct, separate and have nothing to do with each other. The third possible scenario for action at a distance is a bit strange and I don't entirely "get" it. If we have established the field that normally causes electrons (or any free charge carrier) to conduct but there is a lack of charges within this field to be made to conduct we can produce essentially a method of superluminal transfer of information. Disturbances to this field can be transmitted faster than light speed across it, potentially from one particle to another. I don't know if this is relevant to this idea at all but what it kind of reminds me of is the phenomenon where if you have two sources of waves on a horizontal line and the waves propagate from one source to the other and start to interfere with each other somwhere inbetween the two sources. The region where the waves meet and interfere travels upward and downward faster than the speed of light, I wish I had a video of this but I am sure you can find one somewhere on the internet.
RuthlessOptimism Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 Also you might want to goto arxiv and look at papers in regards to asymptotic freedom in QCD chromodynamics. In regards to number of gluons. In particular work by Frank Wilcez. I went to arxiv but could not find any papers written by Frank Wilcez. I dont understand basically any part of the papers on QCD that I found there. I recommend starting with Maxwell's equations and run a comparison data set. I also don't know how to do that. I am just going into my first half of third year electrical engineering this fall. We have not even really done a whole lot of work with Maxwell's equations yet as the program that I am in has the first two years as general engineering, where we actually specialize in third. This is basically the reason why I came to this forum, I have what I think are some good ideas or leads for mathematically deriving and fleshing out Kelvin's theory but not enough knowledge to see it through, not yet anyways. My current goal is to learn enough Lie Algebra that I can understand and apply Noethers theorem to this derivation. I read Emmy Noethers original paper but only understood about 10% of it. Before I can even learn Lie Algebra though I have to go through group theory, and review Differential Geometry. About 3 weeks ago I started a Group Theory Textbook, right now I am sitting at page 100 of 450. It is going to be a long time before I can do all this myself, if that is even possible. But I'll keep chipping away at it. Kelvin's theory predicts that some pretty amazing things are possible, so its well worth the effort. One thing that I would love to look into later is how you could apply the field of Network and Graph optimization to the 3d structures of Matter that Tetryonics reveals. Due to the fact that there are only finitely many permutations of connections between molecules and Tetryonics reveals them all (if the theory is actually correct of course), doing so could produce some very interesting inventions in the field of chemistry, particularly with regards to drug discovery and catalyst design.
Mordred Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Well therein lies the difficulty. It's great you know differential geometry, and wish to learn Lie algebra, but lie algebra relates to various tensors. The Maxwell equations form the basis of the electromagnetic stress tensor, This defines the U(1) group. Just as the Lorentz transformation is defined in tensor form to the lie group SO(3.1) which covers energy momentum relations in GR applications. Spin statistics is also part of this group. I'll dig up some more training articles to assist. Edited July 23, 2015 by Mordred
RuthlessOptimism Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 I have one last thought to add to this thread, it has no relevance to the proof or disproof of Tetryonics. This thought is simply an idea, or fittingly a speculation as to how you could apply Tetryonics to potentially do something very cool. I say potentially because though technically possible within Tetryonics, and maybe even the standard model it is unclear in Tetryonics if it would actually be feasible, it is definitely unfeasible within the scope of the standard model. So Tetryonics supposes that EM interactions and gravity are basically the same thing. This means that things like Gravitational Lensing are a result of EM radiation interacting with a density gradient of other EM energy. Though I know space is not an actual thing that can be bent, and this is just a simplified explanation as to what the Machinery of Differential Geometry is describing if we can for the sake of this idea just assume that Tetryonics is completely right a better description is that the "space that energy occupies" is a thing that can expand and contract due to the elastic nature of Tetryonic quanta. This will create energy density gradients due to us being able to physically fit more quanta that are currently "compressed" relative to others into a given volume as well as overlap more of them simultaneously. As we know in Tetryonics the overlap of quanta creates forces and perhaps this is how Gravitational Lensing actually works, perhaps even why different materials have different refractive indices and permittivity due to the energy density established between molecules by intermolecular forces which are once again the result of the overlap of quanta. A practical implication of this is that since our quanta can describe everything, it does not actually matter how the gradient in energy density or quanta comes about. It could be due to EM radiation, or it could be due to an electrostatic or magnetostatic field. I've seen some interesting videos on YouTube of high voltage transformers shortcircuiting, I've also seen some incredibly high voltage short circuits in real life (120 kV). Sometimes when this happens you can clearly see that around the arc the path of light is distorted. Now this is mostly due to the fact that the arc is superheating the air around it and its producing a "heat shimmer" effect like what occurs over a hot asphalt road in the summer but what if it was actually a combined effect? If it was and we could effectively create a "field effect lens" we might be able to use it to create space craft that are capable of faster than light travel. I described before how Gravity in Tetryonics is like an immersion force, and it is the overlap of energy density gradients of same signed curvature that create its typically attractive interaction. Now there is another way that immersion forces between particles in a fluid can interact. If we instead have a hydrophobic particle and a hydrophylic particle they create curvatures in the local density of water molecules that have opposite sign and their overlap creates a repulsive force between them. If we could somehow first create a field effect lens, then use it to create a "bubble" of energy density curvature opposite to our immediate surroundings, like if we were right next to a star, the star should repel us, with extreme force. The way inertial mass works in Tetryonics does not forbid faster than light speeds to Matter, it simply works in a way that makes it very unlikely to happen. Perhaps this technology if feasible could make travel to other star systems in an actually useful time frame possible, by leapfrogging between them. Though as I've said before I don't understand the math involved the nature of this idea reminds me a lot about what people describe as a wormhole. A bridge or tube of bent / compressed space from one place to another. Except Tetryonics shows that the same idea can be formulated in a completely different way with the same end result. Here we have a funnel if you will of high energy density to low energy density creating a repulsion, you would need to recreate this same funnel at your destination but once again between you and the star you would arrive at in order to slow down.
Recommended Posts