Tetryonics - The Charged Geometry of EM Mass-Energy-Matter by Kelvin Abraham

It is the definition of equilateral CHARGE geometries and their role in creating 3D Tetryon[ic] Matter geometries that lies at the heart of my theory.

The equilateral CHARGED geometry of ENERGY proves a clear foundation for all EM mass-ENERGY-Matter particles of the Standard Model

It may be helpful to visualise this equilateral geometry as an 'ideal quantum inductive loop' of EM energy which forms the basis for inertial mass etc but it is also equally important to also note that 2D mass & 3D Matter are different properties of ENERGY and must be clearly defined.

2D mass-Energy is a planar radiative charge geometry and

3D Matter is a standing-wave mass-Energy geometry that is relativistically invariant

Vectors are in fact the result of the longitudinal [linear] momenta [SQUARE ROOT] of all 2D Kinetic Energy geometries that result from 3D Matter geometries in motion.

It is the 2D Kinetic Energy fields that undergo Lorentz contractions as a result of acceleration NOT the 3D Energy standing-waveforms of Matter has been supposed under SR and GR since their formulation by Einstein.

As you allude to in your paper it is the invariant 4npi tetrahedral standing-wave geometry of EM mass-ENERGY that is the quantum of all Matter, with its various net charge fascia producing the many fractional 'elemental' charges of Quarks etc and neutral charges of Photons and Gluons etc.

The quantum property of SPIN is the result of the geometrically enforced EM properties of 2D mass-Energy quanta of the 2D KEM fields of Matter in motion. [historically incorrectly viewed as the relativistic distortion of spherical point charges]

Leptons have a unique geometry that is reflective of a quantum 6 pole electric rotor [see attached] that permits the development of larger magnetic moments than that of either Quarks or Baryons

My YouTube pages go into these specific properties in greater depth that I can here [www.youtube.com/tetryonics]Attachment #1: Figure_19.03__Generating_Magnetons_800x600.jpg

The Universe has:

Fermions 12(6 quarks+3 leptons+3 neutrino).

Bosons 12(8 gluons+3 vector(2W+1Z)+1photon).

Numerical supersymmetry not broken.

3.From other side the Universe has:

Fermions 3(proton,electron,neutrino),neutron non-stable

Boson only 1 photon.

See my essay http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

Metasymmetry is broken

The asymmetry of equilateral Energy creates Positive & Negative Charges and Charges seeking equilibrium create EM field/particle geometries.

[See previous attachment for table of charged particles]

2D mass-ENERGIES

2 Charged Bosons Charge carriers [vector +W, -W]

1 Neutral Boson [Z boson]

1 Photon EM force carrier [bidirectional]

3D Matter

4 Charged Fermions [1 Tetryon, 2 Quarks, 1 Lepton]

2 Neutral Fermions [1 Gluon, 1 Neutrino]

1 Charged Baryon [Proton]

1 Neutral Baryon [Neutron]

......and their anti-particles resulting from nett Charge geometries of the same

2D mass-Energy content of each charged fascia creates the particle families.

Your 3:1 Tetrahedron ratio expands to become 12:1 CHARGED fascia ratio [with charges adding up to nett particle charge]

Dear Kelvin

Congratulations for presenting your ideas on fqxi. This led me to look at your website and youtube offerings. To use Dirac's criterion your work is too beautiful not to be true. I may be speaking as an artist who also thinks about physics geometrically. This is my first impression, but your work deserve detailed critical study.

I am not an expert in particle physics so I would not be able to judge some of your conclusions, but I do have one objection about your physics: the photon...it is not a particle!

To see why please read Eric Reiter's fqxi essay here. Also my own essay mentions this topic. I find your approach very interesting - you think geometrically in terms of elemental building blocks (the tetrahedron). Indeed two of the dielectric nodes which are the elemental building blocks in my Beautiful Universe Theory can make such a tetrahedron.

Your illustrations are mostly in 2D so sometimes it is hard to see how the tetrahedra fit together. You show N/S/E as corners of the equilateral base of the tetrahedron, and I take it the apex is W - is there attraction and repulsion between these poles?. And what is the difference between N/S, E/W ? Thanks for clarifying this point.

I wish you luck - you are definitely on the right track and have worked hard!

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Dear Kelvin Abraham,

We have the same view on modern physics and it's many inherent problems. I agree with you that matter is a standing wave geometry, although I also believe in the emission and re-aborption of graviton particles as well. You have presented an outstanding essay with professional diagrams to aid in your vision of reality.

I have made a potential discovery which shows matter to have a certain geometry with respect to it's gravitational field of influence. You would surely gain something from visualising what I have to say in my own essay entry: Newtons Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity That Has Led to Modern Day Mass Misconceptions of Reality

Kind regards,

Alan

I agree the Photon is not a particle ...it is a 2D EM wave consisting of 2 charged geometries. I must point out here as I always to the Photon is not 'massless' as is often claimed..it is better termed Matter-less as it is a 2D Em geometry not a 3D Matter geometry.

I have uploaded Tetryonic templates onto PirateBay that you can use to make the Tetryon[ic] quanta of Matter to give you a better feel for the real geometry of the theory [or just create your own using 4 ZPF geometries in 1 larger equilateral triangle and then fold into a tetrahedral geometry like nature does]. I do suggest this approach as I used it extensively when I was training my mind to visualise equilateral geometries and how it all works.

The drawings [whilst in 2D] do actually reflect the 3D geometries when you look closer [ie positive and negative fascia are marked on them]. In attachment 2 you will note the 2D planar geometries of Matter compared to the representative 3D models on the right of the picture. Creating a paper Tetryon and holding it up will help see what I talking about here.

But suffice to say close examination of all my work will reveal a lot of 'hidden' details resulting from applying and refining my wok over the past 4 years - even the colours used are specific - Pink of velocity, Green for Matter, Orange for Charge, Aqua for Magnetic fields etc etc.

The E you identified as East is in fact the Electric field [permittivity] of the charged geometry either Positive of Negative with differing Magnetic dipoles

So the Corners of all Tetryons are either North or South Magnetic poles as each fascia has a charged E field and an associated Mag dipole arrangement. .

It is through the interaction of these charged fascia that large-scale Matter forms. ie Weak interact is via Magnetic dipole induction [Bosons] and Strong force is the result of parallel charged fascia coming together and binding. The nett charges then create the multiples of the elemental charge recognised in the Standard model.

To summarise N-E-S is a Positive charge field and S-E-N is a Negative charge field...a bit hard to describe here, hence the many illustrations on the web [note 1st attachment]..

Care always has to taken with letters symbolising things... I always use m for mass and M for Matter but unfortunately E can stand for Energy as well as Electric fields. [That's English for you]. You will note that in QM I tended to draw rotational EoUo vectors reflective of the classical flow of Energy in an ideal inductive loop to help illustrate Charge polarities. This drops away in QED as the reader should be more familiar with the true geometry of Energy by then and hopefully can distinguish it automatically from the Mag dipole polarity at that stage.

Hope this help clear things up.Attachment #1: Figure_03.01__Zero_Point_Fields_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_06.08__Tetryon_family_800x600.jpg

Thanks for the kind words Alan,

Having perused you paper I agree that the WEP has its limitations at the quantum level. I spent many days struggling to explain this very point when I applied Tetryonics to Gravitation at both the quantum and Cosmological scales. But once I realise what Einstein had done and what GR was really representing all the pieces fell into place.

In short GR corrects for the observed fine perturbations of Mercury etc. but goes on to make erroneous assumptions as Einstein corrected for the motions but failed to recognise what was really causing the deviation from Newtonian gravitational mechanics. A shame as GR was based on SR after all.

This along with a number of other subtle but important mistakes in the modelling of the mathematics of quantum field equations and GR theory has resulted in almost a century of misdirection in determining a true quantum theory of Gravitation.

Gravitation is not on the web yet [a couple months time when I have finished reviewing it] but Tetryonic gravitation shows the true mechanism for Solar 'fusion' and points the way to clean limitless Energy using current technologies as I alluded to in this paper.

Whee! First one looked at in the same ball park! Carried well beyond my entry.. Kudos!

1st timer submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing selected works for adding End Notes. You extend my notions with different balls.

I am pursuing consciousness, as Panpsychism which exists in ALL things to avoid Thermodynamic entropy,..Carnot's motive force of heat as primary to produce work energy.

First,, mass and energy, respectively, as the inscribed sphere, tangent to the face of a regular tetrahedron where sphere and tetrahedron have equal surface-to-volume ratios at ANY size, e.g. equivalent "activity" as free energy , unbounded as size approaches zero. Conclusion, Tesla's birth and death of ALL things at a a frequency.

Second, E/f = h and Power = E/t. Dividing one gets, t/f, so IF t = 1/f it implies either t squared of 1/f squared. Square roots generate plus and minus, a past and future with no present?

Comment? (may use in end notes)

Abraham,

As one elec. engr. to another, I like the photon definition and related descriptions you provide in your essay. I did not use the term "photon" in the IEEE paper I cited in my essay, 1294, I described the phenomenon using wavelength and frequency. Your geometric approach to describing physical law is supported by a statement I made in the IEEE paper.

"The basic tenets of electromagnetic waves were applied to the mathematical structure of algebra abut 200 years ago, wherein the methodology herein substitutes the mathematical structure of geometry. If one fundamental physical constant can be identified by a pair of simple right triangles based upon mathematical constants, it raises the issue that other fundamental physical constants might be identified using the same or other geometric structures."

That statement passed peer review because I demonstrated unequivocally that a pair of right triangles, dimensioned with physical constants, allowed the velocity of electromagnetic waves to be defined mathematically. It made it difficult for the peer reviewers to state it cannot be done.

"As I understand it the crux of the minus-sign problem is finding a physical way to determine, sample and use both Positive and Negative probability distributions [please correct me if this is wrong]"

Not wrong so much as not complete. It's more than a computational problem designed to give numerical simulators headaches. It appears to be a fundamental barrier to progress in condensed matter physics. It's plain awful.

"Using my work [www.youtube.com/tetryonics] you CAN solve for this problem by using Charge geometries. Negative and Positive charge geometries result from the non-neutral component bosons of any charge [equilateral] geometry. The Bosons [odd number] components form a transverse quantum level and the Photon geometries [even numbers]form a longitudinal probabilistic geometry."

Okay ... without evaluating your video let me say this: you need to appreciate the goldmine you might be sitting on top of. If you're right, and you can get someone to mathematize your geometry, you may have managed to put strongly-interacting chiral fermions on the lattice and bosonize them for Monte Carlo simulation, and in addition (by disproving Troyer-Wiese) proven P=NP. That last could be worth a million dollars (US) from the Clay Mathematics Institute. Seriously.

1. Important key here is the fact that Energy has an EQUILATERAL geometry and TIME as measurement by us [Physics] is the radial distance travelled by light in a unit of Time.

Remember that light is bidirectional radiant Energy - thus in 1 second = c^2 radial.

This leads us to mass = Energy per c^2

ie An equilateral triangle [ET] circumscribed with a circle.

[Energy is just an ET without a circle]

2. The AREA covered by mass-Energy's ET geometry per second has the physical dimension of [m^2] which historically has been mistakenly viewed as classical angular momentum [ie a rotational vector] it is in fact a triangular geometry

3. Quantised Angular Momentum [QAM] as I refer to it, (to distinguish between the two]is revealed thus to be is a ET geometry and its Energy content per second forms EM mass. Its two possible directions create the two forms of CHARGE [Pos & Neg]

4. Linear momenta is simply the SQUARE ROOT of any Energy geometry [ie Vector Height of triangle] and as you point out it is then physically possible to represent the square roots of both Positive AND Negative EM mass-Energies.

[The SQR of Neg One is a physical reality] and Time is simply a measure of the QAM/Second of any physical system.

ie QAM/c^2 = [m^2/sec / sec^2/m^2] = seconds [pos or neg]

These points form the foundational [priori] points of Tetryonics that must be clearly understood by the reader so sense can be made of quantum physics.

More illustrations on these points are available in the opening 2 chapters on my webpage

Photons must be clearly defined against common physical interpretations.

They are 2pi EM energy geometries that radiate bidrectionally from a point.

They are EM mass-Energies when mass-ENERGY-Matter are all clearly defined.

Photons are Matter-less not mass-less [All Energy per second is mass].

Historically the very poor definitions of mass and Matter have led to a very confusing picture of what the 2 are.

2D mass is radiant ENERGY/c^2 [in a planar form] and

Matter is a standing-wave Energy geometry [Tetrahedral].

You will note that I repeat this point incessantly throughout my work.

So depending on your definitions your comment can be viewed as correct but in order to gain a geometric view of quantum mechanics and to gain a precise understanding of the two forms of Energy [mass & Matter] my definitions are better.

My youtube channel [Tetryonics] has expansive explanations of W/P duality, Photons and EM waves and QED itself is dedicated to the complete explanation of Electricity and all the nuclear Spectral lines.

Equilateral charged Energy geometry is the essence of everything - Light is a secondary form [2pi radiant] and the first physical manifestation of Energy perceivable by us

Absolutely agree here.

In fact the mathematical exploration of quantum mechanics is hopelessly lost with a rigid definable geometry to guide it.

It leads to all sorts of outcomes [multi-dimensions, black holes, no distinction between mass & Matter etc.]

A lot of time was taken up correcting small [but important] 'errors' arising from geometry-less maths. [Maths may the language - but geometry is the Canvas surface on which it is written].

See attached for the geometric explanation of all Physical constants. Many more examples [Coloumb' Law, Newton's G Alpha etc] are found in Chapter 16 on my YouTube channel.Attachment #1: Figure_16.01__The_geometry_of_Constants_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_16.04__Coulombs_Constant_800x600.jpg

That is all Abraham ?

Because there, it is weak :)

but it is well .

good luck for this contest.

from a point ? no but frankly ? :)

I understand...and that is exactly what I am saying.

The longitudinal Energy quanta comprising Positive and Negative Charge geometries [photons] form n distribution patterns.

Their transverse ODD numbered [bosons] distributions form Quantum levels

and their total Energy [sum of the Odd numbers] are SQUARE numbers.

Also note that super-positioned Charge geometries then interact via their E fields with their geometric SQUARE ROOTS forming the well known Physical constants.

So through Charge geometry I can physically represent and model Odd numbers, SQUARE numbers, Square Roots, n Distributions, geometric MEANS, perform MULTIPLICATION via super-positioning and physically product the SQUARE ROOT of Plus or Minus One [Hello Euler - a physical model of your formula art last].

Plus all of these results can be generated instantly through the physical measurement of any number of super-positioned EM waveforms [multi-input computations]

All of this work forms the basis of a real quantum computer [as along with the geometric results above you also have to be able to build a real quantum sized computer element to store and manipulate data etc].

And I am only too happy to explain all of this in detail personally in order for the Science & Maths community to understand how it all works. But it required detailed explanations of the pertinent points and space in this forum is limited [hence all my videos].

Tetryonics really is the holy grail of Physics and Maths providing a clear consistent and testable way forward for Science in general and Humanity in particular.

Your paper gets to the crux of a couple 'sticky 'points in Physics namely the transfer of Energy throughout Space and our current models of how things work of a cosmological scale.

I too have spent quite some time looking into this matter in order to develop a consistent and accurate quantum theory of Gravitations [as derived from Tetryonics].

Without giving too much away [as I have yet to release all my work on Gravitation] I would like to point out that you have fallen into the trap of trying to explain Energy on the cosmological scale through Gravity alone.

Einstein and all others have also fallen into this trap - Newton developed Gravitation from observations of the motions of celestial bodies, Einstein revised it with GR [an extension of SR] once more accurate observations revealed some inconsistencies. But both assumed that Gravity was the only force at work between celestial bodies.

Quantum mechanics tells us something completely different, hence the problem to date find a quantum theory of Gravitation that can unite Classical and Quantum physics.

Gravitons [along with Dark Energy/Matter] are just the results of trying to explain gravitation through a math that lacks a formal model of its quantum geometry and interactions.

I encourage you to continue thinking about these points as the answer is there [while the Forest has many trees it also has just as many shrubs and they both contribute to its total character]...I will release my QG work around October.

Correction:.

That statement passed peer review because I demonstrated unequivocally that a pair of right triangles, dimensioned with mathematical constants, allowed the velocity of electromagnetic waves to be defined mathematically."

I had stated erroneously "physical constants". The title of the IEEE paper is, "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants".

In short Photons can be considered as Particles in that they have ElectroMagnetic mass [E/c^2] but they are considered 'Matter-less' under the strict definitions of Tetryonics. [ie

Thank you Abraham - it must have been galling to you my confusing Electric for East! I am sure that if one studies your methodology systematically all the shapes, colors and letters will become clearer.

When you say the photon is 2D I guess you are referring to its local discrete shape at any instant? Hmm that still makes it a sort of string or particle, also in accordance to what Steve said. My feeling is that light quanta spread out in a network of cells making up the ether. Obviously our approaches are different, but as I said your work has a beauty that must be physically 'right' at some level.

I will check out the figures you have attached and put online, thanks.

Best wishes

Vladimir.