• [deleted]

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 ? :)

  • [deleted]

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.

  • [deleted]

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.

  • [deleted]

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".

  • [deleted]

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.

  • [deleted]

Vladimir,

You are right in saying my illustrations represent the EM geometry of mass-ENERGY-Matter at any instant of Time.

I was the best way to illustrate the geometry I am trying to convey (and I didn't have the time to start developing a Solid-works model of all the fields & particles)

Bear in mind that the illustrations were developed over a 4 year period during which I developed my theory, applied and refined it continuously ( a process that still continues)so I am more than understanding if you overlook some of the finer details at this stage.

At least you are looking and the more you do so the more you'll see hidden in the details [even the colour coding of the units etc].

Enjoy.

  • [deleted]

Kelvin,

I have been sifting through your essay in an attempt to find correlation between what I understand as compared to what you present about Tetryonics. During the discovery process for the concept presented in the IEEE reference in my essay, 1294, the value of 4Pi was extracted. I realized that the 4Pi value was representing a more complicated EM concept than that presented in the paper, which uses the 2Pi concept. I made the following statement in the paper, "Using the value of 2Pi for intrinsic frequency is not intuitive to the general scientific community, except perhaps to electrical engineers, who use 2Pi to represent a generic wavelength."

I take exception to your continued use of SI units to represent dimensions. If you truly want to redress our technological deficiencies, you need to utilize "intrinsic units", and derivatives thereof, as your Tetryonics units of measure. I demonstrated that the geometric-mathematical concepts in the IEEE paper directly link time, distance (space) and energy to a single mathematical equation, and it is simple.

You started your essay by quoting Einstein, and I will end this with another of his quotes, "Everything should be simple, but not too simple." Linking all the base units of measure to a simple mathematical abstraction, one that use mathematical concepts that are taught in K-12 schools, is about a simple as it needs to be.

    :)

    In all case , it is cool to see these discussions, good luck to both of you.

    ps Abraham, here is an optimization spherization of E=mc².

    C is the velocity , linear of light.Let's consider that a photon possesse the serie of uniqueness.So a specific quantum number.with the main central sphere like the most important volume.Let's assume that the rotations imply the complexity in 3d. So space and mass in a simplistic vue.

    Now you can see that it laxks tw motions for the entangled spheres in their pure uniqueness.So we must insert in the equations of equivalence mass/E, the 3 motions, so c linear, o orbital speed, and s spinal speed. You can see that c o and s become very relevant for a classment of physicalities and their universal dynamic of spherization. If we insert now the volumes of the fractal, universal I think, so we have a specific serie for this quantum number and its serie of uniqueness.The velocities , c , o and s are very very relevant when we consider the space like possessing also the serie of Uniqueness,the light and the mass also.So we can simulate correctly inside a closed evolutive sphere. This logic is universal for all physical spheres and its motions. The light in a kind of BEC is like the space so ? in fact it is always a question of motions of spheres giving the specificty and complementary rules of evolution. The fermions, the space, the bosons are composed by the same essence in fact.

    Regards

    • [deleted]

    One major departure that makes Tetryonics a completely different geometry is the priori point that ALL Energy is EQUILATERAL (wile Time is RADIAL and measured by how long it takes for Light to travel 299,792,456 metres).

    This radial measurement of radiated Energy [Light] gives us spherical volumes for c, c^2, c^4 etc. [which in turn form 2D, Cartesian and 3D co-ordinate systems]

    So ALL physical measurements resolve to measurements of EQUILATERAL mass-ENERGY-Matter in SPHERICAL Time geometries.

    This differs from ALL previously theorised physical geometries of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter in which 2D fields and 3D particles have always been thought of as being spherical geometries.

    See attachedAttachment #1: Figure_01.03__Spatial_geometries_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_02.06__Physical_Angles_800x600.jpg

    • [deleted]

    Tetryonics has many layers of detail not obvious to the first time viewer of the theory [particular the 9 page introduction submitted here].

    As you point out many simplistic terms (and units) can be further resolved to reveal increasing levels of detail and complexity but a trade off has to be made.

    You may view it as being similar to Einstein's use of a rubber sheet to depict curved Space-Time [while useful to help grasp the concept of Reimannian curvature it is completely incorrect as a physical model and does not represent the quantised nature of Gravitation in any way suitable for the formulation or development of a quantum theory of gravity].

    In seeking a consistent methodology to present Tetryonic geometries I chose to highlight the generalised geometry of CHARGED Energy [ie Pos & Neg EM fields] as it is the interactions of charged geometries [through their E&M fields] that creates 3D Matter.

    Hence the term Tetryonics - The CHARGED geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter.

    For example the 2pi geometries of radiant Energy [Light] can be further resolved to 8pi geometries of the same [4pi longitudinal Electric fields with a transverse 4pi Magnetic moment see QED on my YouTube channel]

    In short in order to in order to convey the beauty of the theory in 2D illustrations [major details of the theory can only be understood by building 3D physical models of what I represent as 2D illustrations and physically manipulating them - and this I encourage].

    See attached.Attachment #1: Figure_90.11__n6_Charged_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_02.03__Tetryonics_and_Pi_radians_800x600.jpg

    Interesting Abraham,

    interesting the tetryonics of 2012. Interesting but you can make better still. perhaps in your second book :)

    Regards and good luck.

    • [deleted]

    Agree Steve,

    What I have found is that every time I revisit earlier work it can either be better explained (or improved) with reference to my more recent work.

    For example QED improved QM, QC improved QED & QM, QG improved QM, QED & QC and most recently my work on geometric Math and quantum computing has driven improvements to all the previously mentioned sub-topics.

    Checkout my YouTube channel [tetryonics] and you'll see I have already produced over 1200 illustrations explaining many of Science's current mysteries (but it is always improving - that's the Nature of Scientific discovery) 1% inspiration - 99% perspiration.

    But somewhere I had to stop and release this theory to the World - if I can do all of this as one person imagine what thousands of keen PhD students can achieve [and that is the whole driving philosophy behind my work - to improve the Human condition]

    Thanks for viewing.

    Me also,I am born to imrpove this global society. It is my reason of being.

    The improvement optimization spherization is the key !

    ps eureka :)

    I was inclined to approach the problem as a sphere inscribed, tangent to face of tetrahedron..where surface-to-volume of both are equivalent! Repeating this structure within and without carries on to cosmos and microscopic size.

    • [deleted]

    Kelvin,

    "In seeking a consistent methodology to present Tetryonic geometries I chose to highlight the generalised geometry of CHARGED Energy [ie Pos & Neg EM fields] as it is the interactions of charged geometries [through their E&M fields] that creates 3D Matter."

    I agree, specialized forms of EM fields represent what we call 3D matter. One of my mentors, since deceased, a Prof Emeritus of Elec. Engr., stated that we are a "specialized form of energy." This agrees with the discredited theory of "energetics", which was supported by Max Planck, everything is a form of energy.

    Consider the billions being spent in an effort to break apart particles, when in reality they are attempting to separate different EM field structures (EM geometries) from each other, very inefficiently.

    I just looked at one of your Utube videos on EM waves, QED-28. Longitudinal EM waves are not like sound waves. Examine Laguerre-Gaussian beams with longitudinal components.

    Have you examined Bob Palais' Pi page?

    Pi

    He published an article in the Mathematical Intelligencer, "Pi is Wrong!"

    Your 2Pi and 4Pi descriptions match material I have in a couple of papers. My IEEE paper uses the 2Pi description, but I avoid using the 4Pi term in my other papers, not because it is not correct, I describe the characteristic in a different manner.

    • [deleted]

    Max Planck's theory of 'Energetics'was on the right track - but it became complicated with things like Maxwellian waves, Transverse mass & Longitudinal waves, quantised energy and probabilistic wavefunctions etc as you point out).

    Lacking a formally defined and visual model for their Mathematical solutions to the same,the situation then became even more confused as numerous answers [sqr Neg one, probabilities etc] became accepted scientific answers to quantum math.

    Maxwell [had he lived ] would have been one of the first to point out that you must be able to build a physical model of any quantum system in order to justify the theory's accuracy and completeness.

    I too agree with the comments concerning pi [C/D] vs Pi radians - it is a fine example in science of using 1 name for 2 distinct properties and as pointed out in Tetryonics we have been mistaking EQUILATERAL Pi radians for spherical Pi ratios in QM for over a century now.

    This situation became very more complex in tetryonics where Pi [normally the property of a circle/sphere] becomes a property of Equilateral geometries. However in ET 1/2 pi really is 1/2 of the triangle and 2 ETs have internal angles adding up to 360 degrees so you win some - you lose some.

    Fortunately TIME (having a spherical geometry) is usually measured by us as the time is takes light to travel 299,792,458 metres so it units are usually s. s^2 or c^2, c^4. [even though they are drawn as spheres.

    I was tempted (early in my work) to use 'Tau' in lieu of Pi for my unified equation but dropped it as I thought it would create confusion in understanding my theory. [ie 4Pi & 36Pi quickly create the impression of geometry in most minds whereas 4T & 36T etc don't] and who am I to re-write mathematical descriptors - I am doing so much now correcting subtle but important misconceptions that arise from using Math without physical Models..

    Sometimes you have to go with the accepted terms in order to have a new theory viewed seriously and to be understood by minds used to those particularly quirky

    inconstancy...perhaps when the theory develops we can change these poor definitions .... after all seriously QUARKS, UP, DOWN, STRANGE, CHARMED, TOP, BOTTOM, GLUONS??

    Perhaps when the theory grows in acceptance we can hold a international council to review some of the sillier names of fields & particles in Physics...I have gone far enough naming the tetrahedral quantum of Matter [the Tetryon]Attachment #1: 1_Figure_02.03__Tetryonics_and_Pi_radians_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: 1_Figure_01.03__Spatial_geometries_800x600.jpg

    • [deleted]

    Understand the model you are portraying....

    But I would say why would Nature have two identical 'particles' based on different geometry.

    Tetrahedral geometries have 4 fascias of interaction for each Matter quanta.

    Tetryonics creates everything out of ONE shape [a Equilateral Triangle] and it is only in the micro/macroscopic world that we can't see the triangulated fascia.

    {just like a video game or movie CG etc.)

    And as my models works for QM, QED, Chemistry and QG I feel it is the better approach to Q-geometry....but I always remain open to new ideas, it is funny where inspiration for QM solutions comes from

    • [deleted]

    Kelvin,

    "Fortunately TIME (having a spherical geometry) is usually measured by us as the time is takes light to travel 299,792,458 metres .... "

    You need to reexamine how you have defined TIME. TIME is a manifestation of the existence of energy. You do not need TIME unless you have energy. I don't know if you looked at the IEEE paper I cite in my essay, topic 1294, but TIME is the result of the relationship between an EM wavelength and its duration, otherwise it seems TIME has no requirement to exist. This is a mathematical argument for the existence of TIME.

    Before the concepts in the IEEE paper were identified, time was never expressed in relationship to energy, it was tied to the 1/86400th division of the rotation of the planet Earth, the second. The second duration is okay for domestic use but it has no validity as a scientific unit of measure.