Geometric and Nongeometric Interaction by Eric Frederick Brunhouse

Eric Brunhouse

Essay Abstract

I define geometric and nongeometric interaction of particles and then relate how those definitions apply in detail to physical phenomena at the foundations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, rigorously fleshing out assumptions of fundamental geometry. The geometric equivalence law is stated, and it is shown how symmetry in gauge theory necessarily follows directly from it. The presence of the imaginary number in quantum physics is then explained as a necessary physical consequence of geometric and nongeometric interaction. I present the case the classification is a more empirical, constructive, and general view of facts rigorous, modern experiments direct us to make and opens opportunities for new experiments in the future here to not fully considered, that are not self-contradicting as they appear with the contemporary view.

Author Bio

I was first stricken by the lack of clarity in derivations of quantum mechanics when I was 16. The credibility of my interest resulted in an internship with Professor Saul Adelman while I was in high school who graciously published me with him on a paper, uvby Photometry of HR 2722 and Nonmagnetic Chemically Peculiar Stars. I then studied physics at Rutgers eventually mentored with Professor Avy Soffer. I became interested in beginning a lifelong career in a different field, but I have worked seriously on foundational problems in physics for over 16 years.

Download Essay PDF File

[deleted]

Eric,

Firstly, congrats on a well-worded essay highlighting the often under-estimated role of geometry in Physics.

To that end I would like to offer you a solution that provides just such an answer that you hint at in your essay - namely my theory Tetryonics - the charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter [as outlined in my essay of the same title].

Its priori foundation is that Energy has a equilateral [triangular] geometry and from that geometry all mass-Matter geometries arise along with our Forces and Constants etc. You will find a great deal more information on these processes on my YouTube channel [extending the outline offered in my essay].

I agree totally with you that it is the geometry that defines our mathematical formulations and without a geometrically defined model on which to base our Math we constantly need to refine it in order to better reflect observed physical phenomena.

Two illustrations are attached to that end highlighting geometric solutions to Bell's formulation and wave-functions [as they apply to the equilateral geometries of Charge and EM waves respectively]

Of note is the fact that the current Maths does not change [except where it is incorrectly formulated] only the underlying geometry changes [equilateral vs spherical]

To date I have applied Tetryonic geometry to QM, QED, Chemistry, Cosmology, SR & GR with outstanding results and I trust you will find then enlightening as well.

I know you will find common ground with Tetryonics and the principals you have outlined in your essayAttachment #1: Figure_24.04__Heisenberg_Uncertainty_Principle_800x600.jpg Attachment #2: 1_Figure_39.07__Matter_in_motion_800x600.jpg

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Eric,

I agree with the statement that what we call "particles" have "irreconcilable precedence over space, a concept unobservable by itself." I believe that spacetime is a way of talking about interactions. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin