10 Questions via David Cowles of http://aletheia.ws/
My gratitude leads to both David and Abraham as this post would not has been possible without them including me in their discourse.
(Q1) Would you accept the characterization (not criticism) that this theory is another attempt to find a realistic and local interpretation of QM?
A: Of course, but it goes much further than that, by defining quantized angular momentum as an equilateral geometry Tetryonics theory is able to provide a rigid geometric model on which to develop further ideas with respect to physics at the quantum level. Already it has provided me with a rigid model of all subatomic particles and processes that closely matches the standard model as presently accepted (albeit with some rather radical corrections). Given that it matches both the observed phenomena and particles contained in the standard model as well as extending the known mathematics with a geometric model I am hopeful that this particular theory has much of merit. Certainly I have applied it to QM, QED, Chemistry and Cosmology with some rather stunning results to date and this alone gives me much encouragement to its potential as a replacement for all the disparate theories that pervade physics at present.
(Q2) You dismiss Heisenberg; I assume you dismiss John Bell as well?
A: Obviously the equilateral geometry of quantized angular momenta in tetryonics theory (as well is square root linear momentum and electromagnetic field geometries) provides me a clear-cut deterministic mechanism for negating Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. It also reveals that the same quantized angular momentum can be viewed as a ‘hidden’ variable within quantum mechanics itself - buried under the guise of Planck’s constant [h]. The equilateral geometry of quantized angular momentum, combined with scalar electromagnetic energies and radial spatial coordinate systems means that unlike Heisenberg’s mathematical approach I can illustrate both the mass energy momenta component of a system under measurement as well as the changing time based measurements of the same system within the same illustration. This has the distinct advantage in that more complex mathematic ideas are relatively easy to illustrate using the geometric relationships between mass energy and momenta of any physical system under study. I would argue that the equilateral geometry of quantized angular momenta is just such a hidden variable as expressed within Bell’s inequality statement and while Bell’s theorem and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle suggest that quantum mechanics is inherently fuzzy or indeterminate. I would argue given the results to date that this certainly need not be the case [and in fact that it is not and such ideas of indeterminacy are mathematical crutches].
(Q3) Uncertainty and non-locality are counter-intuitive theories driven by inexorable mathematical deductions and experimental results; how do you explain those away?
A: Tetryonics theory embraces Planck’s ideal of a quantized, finite building block of energy momenta as the foundation of all our physics and Tetryonics embraces this idea and takes it a step further with a truly geometric approach to quantum mechanics rather than the mathematical approach taken to date by various theorists. I allowed the rigid equilateral geometry of quantized angular momentum to drive the theory and to show what is and is not allowable mathematically in preference to suppositions that rely on an inherent uncertainty. While these approaches have given us much insight over the years from a mathematical perspective you will note that Tetryonics corrects many assumptions that have gained a foothold from this very approach to physics. The rigid equilateral geometries are un-yielding (as are the results produced by them) and while I do not profess to know the full detailed intricacies of many of the mathematical theories presently in sway within physics I would argue I do not need to as a rigid tangible model of fields and particles should be of preference to an abstract mathematical approach. Tetryonics theory restores an intuitive visual approach to physics and at the same time requires a mental re-mapping of established mathematical principles (such as squared numbers, the quantum source and role of charge in physics and the differentiation of mass and Matter at all levels of physics in geometric terms]. This is not to put it at odds with a purely mathematical approach but rather as an enhancement to the mathematics currently employed. As I put it, “if mathematics is the language of science, equilateral geometry is its grammar” - one without the other can in both cases lead to pure gibberish. Of course this could have all gone horribly wrong and I may have wasted years of my life developing a theory that was ultimately flawed or unworkable, but to date after much effort and application, I can honestly say this is not been the case (and in fact I have gained a great deal of insight out of this particular geometric interpretation an approach to physics).
(Q4) It is one thing to build a local, realistic model a la EPR; it is another thing to find ways to devise experiments that predict verifiably different outcomes.
A: Absolutely, in fact throughout the various the books that I’ve produced to date I have pointed out many differing outcomes or results that have been overlooked due to a purely mathematical interpretation of the physical results. One that comes readily to mind is how tetryons (the building blocks of all Matter) can be easily mistaken for Bottoms quark’s and leptons in experimental results and thus overlooked. Challenging and correcting relativity’s basic foundational tenants and its current explanations of physics was not easy either for me as it is obvious what most textbooks teach as the best explanation of physics to date but over time I came to accept the Tetryonic model and what it was telling me. This led to many startling reinterpretations of what had been accepted regarding Lorentz contractions and relativity theory both in the special and generalized cases [obviously leading to a new explanation for universal gravitation]. Even chemistry was not exempt as I had to spend a great deal of time developing the new periodic table and 3D Matter topologies of all elements in order to account for the various established observables. Of course the more I reconcile and advance my own theory the more it differs from established and accepted theories, making it seem even more divergent and fantastical compared to most accepted ideas. But at its heart it still remains a simplistic geometric theory that can be modelled using nothing more than paper templates and sticky tape while offering many tests as to its accuracy in preference to the current CG models.
(Q5) Is the Tetryon a hidden local variable?
A: Insofar as the quantum of Matter you could argue that it is a hidden quantum, but ideas such as preons etc. have already hinted at the existence of such a particle being a possibility long before I developed Tetryonic theory. I would of course argue that the equilateral geometry of quantized angular momentum is in fact the hidden variable in physics as the role it plays leads directly to tetryons and the understanding of the source and role of charge in quantum mechanics. Of course quantized angular momenta is not hidden as such in that it is readily seen in the units for Planck’s constant but the mathematics often reverts to the shorthand form of Planck’s constant [h] in preference to the full dimensional analysis of this unit of action [kg.m^2/s] (And of course KEY to this insight was the discovery of the relationship between equilateral geometries and quantized angular momentum itself)
(Q6) Since the Tetryon mimics leptons, is it permanently undetectable and therefore subject to Occam’s Razor?
A: Although the tetryons can be (and are) hidden in accelerator collision results as having identical mass-charge ratios to quark’s and leptons, a closer examination of Tetryonics theory reveals that even if this is the case there would still be a differing inertial mass to these particles to that of quarks and leptons. That is to say although the tracks would be identical in the collision results IF the particles were intercepted and their kinetic energies measured there would be a distinct discrepancy between the measured inertial masses of an electron and that of tetryons despite them both having identical tracks within the results [likewise for Bottom quarks].
(Q7) Your interpretation of gravity is amazing! But I still don’t understand what happens to the photon in this theory?
A: It is obviously the result of the previous 3 e-Books and years of theory refinement and application. Tetryonic theory shows universal gravitation to be a net force resulting from 3 differing quantum forces [i.e. a convergent force (gravity field) created by Matter topologies and the interactive forces of electromagnetic fields surrounding Matter]. Within this context the photon creates the interactive (bi-directional divergent and convergent) forces of the electromagnetic fields surrounding Matter. It continues to play the same role as expressed within relativity theory but it offers no insight as to the quantum field mechanics of the gravity field created by Matter topologies themselves. You could argue that it still plays a role as a component of vacuum energies in order to create the convergent force of a gravity field when the vacuum energies are displaced by Matter topologies but this vacuum energy photon is of an entirely different magnitude of energy compared to that of the photon normally associated with SR and electromagnetic fields [i.e. 1/10^40] …… leading to your next question
(Q8) Can radiant energies ever really weaken to the level of vacuum energies? (I doubt it.)
A: I would argue that they must - the asymmetrical arrangement of Planck quanta within electromagnetic fields results in the net divergence of energy away from Matter. These energies must continue to radiate out from their source points until they interact with other photons or material objects in their path (all the time subject to the inverse square law). This results in the universe being filled with sea of photons of varying and decreasing energies [wavelengths] that in turn apply an exceedingly small but perceptible convergent force on all Matter topologies that displace them (and always act to the center of these Matter topologies) Space by definition in Tetryonics theory is a spatial coordinate system devoid of energy in any form but within which we measure the changing forms of energy as the basis of physics as we know it. It leads to some interesting philosophical questions about the state of the universe before it was filled with equilateral energies and indeed how or why these energies came to be equilateral in the 1st place but if you take it at face value as Tetryonics theory puts it that empty space is a region devoid of energy at the moment of creation and that all of our universe and its physics is the result of changing equilateral energy quanta over time then over the evolution of our universe electromagnetic energies must always radiate outward and eventually weaken to the point of what we call vacuum energies. Of course there are many galaxies and just as many stars again in our universe all of which are radiating mass energy from the collapse of Matter topologies at their cores out into space, and all these radiated mass energies contribute to the overall vacuum energy density of our universe (which in turn is many times greater than the Matter density of our observable universe).
(Q9) Are you suggesting that we can do away with imaginary numbers?
A: Not at all, in fact imaginary numbers still play an important and significant role in electromagnetic theory (QED). They form the left right axis of propagation for Tesla’s longitudinal electromagnetic energy waveforms as opposed to the up down transverse waveforms of Maxwell’s theory. The imaginary numbers[i] in Euler’s work etc. can in fact be directly related to [j] in electromagnetic and electrical theory. Whereas Tesla’s longitudinal energy momenta waveforms produce a real acceleration of particles due to the co-linear direction of linear momentum wrt the direction of propagation, Maxwell’s transverse waveforms produce an oscillation of charged particles wrt the direction of wave propagation. The inclusion of imaginary numbers in my theory of electromagnetic energy waveforms plays an important role in the unification of Tesla’s work and discoveries into our modern understanding of electromagnetic radiation and provided a key to understanding how stars generate their energies.
(Q10) We can change our understanding of stellar ‘fusion’ but what do we do about the brute fact of radioactivity?
A: ‘Fusion’ is a myth perpetuated by an erroneous misunderstanding of the mechanics of physics at both the quantum and cosmological scales…. And in fact it MUST be changed. As you develop a better and more complete understanding of the role of charge in quantum mechanics and will be better able to differentiate between mass and Matter as they apply to physical processes, you will soon see that the proposed mechanics for fusion are not only incorrect but untenable for many reasons. The current model of atoms is flawed, the current understanding of mass and Matter is flawed and the idea of fusion is based on these incomplete assumptions. Many subtle changes have been introduced into the Tetryonic model in order to account for all observables and what is permitted by the charged geometry of Matter topologies and the role of mass energy contained therein. As you become familiar with these various corrections you will see that the fusion of elements cannot be the process by which stars derive their energy and that there is in fact a simpler process at work which is 200 times more efficient than the postulated fusion mechanism. The current approaches to achieving the fusion of elements on earth are all developed from these erroneous models and consequently by design will be unable to produce such energies on earth, however a simpler approach is at hand and that is what I am working on a present in my practical experiments. The toroidal tokomak approach prevents the collapse of Matter topologies to release energy, while the inertial confinement approach fails to sustain the required pressures and energies for the period required, so my work is to overcome these two deficiencies and to mimic the electromagnetic processes at work in the core of stars. Needless to say when I achieve this will be a major breakthrough for all. Even simpler processes such as cold fusion, which is better termed/called ‘cold fission’ can also lead to serious gains in energy efficiency compared to current technologies. But in order to do so a better model of quantum processes and the charged topology of particles themselves is required. The ultimate solution is to convert harmful, polluting waste Matter [even radiological Matter] into clean, limitless energy for all in a process that can be replicated anywhere on earth by any nation. I hope this is being helpful in answering your questions should you have any more I encourage you to message me and I will endeavour to answer them as succinctly as possible. Obviously there is a lot to cover in Tetryonic theory being a unified theory of physics, what I do hope, is that your initial foray into the theory itself has been enjoyable and eliminating.
Welcome to my Universe...One where determinism [via the rigid geometry of equilateral Planck quanta of energy momenta] rules.
Everything you can make out of these triangles of energy momenta must be possible and form part of the physics of our eternal, dynamically evolving Universe.
But not that which is often supposed in mathematics need not necessarily apply [unless it can be modelled with these charged mass geometries and Matter topologies].
All the measured and modelled outcomes of the purely deterministic arrangements and interactions of Planck geometries gives us all the wonder and majesty we experience in our daily lives [and more].
And like Pascal and many other before him and since who have glimpsed any part of the wheel work of Nature I opt to believe in a [deterministic] GOD
Science and Religion need not be mutually exclusive, but they should both be based on physical evidence. –The former we have all around us, the later I trust I have provided in my work and may it go a small way to enlightening others to the majesty of HIS works.
A deterministic charge geometry that also creates a probabilistic distribution of energy momenta as it evolves and interacts into ever more complex forms over time.
Posted on Mon, May 11, 2015
by Richard Blankenship