Tuesday, March 24, 2009

8. The Pyronic Field

The Pyronic Field is where we live. It is far from the edge of the universe, so questions regarding The Pyronic Edge are moot, as any "pyronic energy" transferred from or to a pyron will be to or from another adjacent pyron, and not possibly create a new one, as it would have to if it was The Original Pyron with its Fundamental Anthropic Energy, or the Edge Pyrons, which are constantly creating new Pyrons as well as bouncing MatterWaves that reach the Edge back into the Universe.

We are moving rapidly through this field, which is static.

Energy is defined as massless bundled up waves.

Matter is defined as bundled up waves with mass.

What we call "quanta," i.e., particles, are therefore defined as a concentration of pyrons rapidly gaining or losing "on/off" energy states, thus giving the illusion of particles.

Think of the pyronic field as being the blackboard upon which all energy and mass are written, and you will be well on your way to understanding this theory, and hopefully coming up with experiments to either prove or disprove it.

A good analogy would be the screen at a cinema. The film is projected onto the screen. The screen is the pyronic field, and each timestep of 3-D space is one frame of the film.

With these few assumptions, and based on experiments to date and other theories, we first hope to show the exact dimensions and structures of photons, gluons, neutrinos, quarks, and electrons.

I am indebted to Louis-Victor-Pierre-Raymond, 7th duc de Broglie (1892-1987), better known as Louis de Broglie, whose seminal 1924 paper first positing the wave nature of matter got me thinking of this subject in the first place.

Monday, March 23, 2009

7. The Tessellation Problem

Congrats to those who figured out "The Tessellation Problem" before reading the following:

A pyramid can tile, or "tessellate" a 2-D space, as can a square. A circle or oval cannot.

A pyronic tetrahedron on the other hand, cannot tessellate a 3-D space, but a cube can, and a sphere most certainly cannot.

Is this then, a problem?

At first I thought so, then I realized this:

The "out" is that two tetrahedrons and one octahedron can tessellate 3-D space. All three would then constitute a rhomboid, of which a cube is a special case (all right angles and vertices of equal length). And once again, the number "three" shows itself in Physics.

Can "The Old One" as Einstein called him settle for such a situation, especially if He uses Occam's razor?

Perhaps, and here's why:

With Pyrons alone, I could figure out what alleged "point particles" (they're not points) photons, electrons, quarks, and neutrinos look like, but not gluons, and those are the 5 things that make up 99.9+ percent of our Universe, and each of us.

But having TWO basic shapes would solve the gluon problem, and chirality too.

Friday, March 20, 2009

6. The Pyronic Edge

The Pyronic Edge is the edge of the Universe. It's out there, it's roughly spherical, it is expanding.

At t=timestep 0 (the moment of creation), the initial pyron was the only thing in the Universe, and "the edge" were its four faces.

Ar t=timestep 1, there were 5 pyrons, and the edge (and Universe) was quite tetrahedral. Beginning at t=timestep 2, the pyramidal structure changes from tetrahedron to "toward spherical."

The vast majority of this website will be devoted to what goes on between The Original Pyron and The Pyronic Edge. To whit: The Pyronic Field.

However, the edge is important, because that is where new waves (which eventually become particles) are freshly created, in addition to those wave particles that previous edges have made to exist.

As far as "what lies beyond the edge" or "what are pyrons expanding INto", that is not the purpose of this theory.

This theory will constrict itself, for now, to the Universe we live in.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

5. The Original Pyron

The original atom of space, and all pyrons for that matter, are roughly 1.6 times ten to the minus-35th power meters (the Planck length) across, based on what the Loop Quantum Gravitationists say.

The original one had the following three properties:

1) It was (and still is) homogeneous. Simplicity demands it. Mandelbrot (Chaos Theory) and Wolfram (cellular automata) will explain what happens next.
2) It radiated, in the first atomic time step (from Loop Quantum Gravity: 10 to the minus 23 seconds) from its 4 faces, thus creating 4 more adjacent pyrons (faces meeting) at t = t-one step. The process continues with them as well at t=timestep number two, t=timestep number three, ... , t=timestep number infinity
3) It had an initial, specific anthropic energy. If the energy value (a single number) weren't exactly what it was, we wouldn't be here to consider it.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

4. The Three Branches of Pyronics

Incidentally I will never publish here until I have had a month to quintuple-check my mathematics and ask an outsider to confirm and agree with my positions. This means my progress will always be on the order of a month ahead of this website. Yes, I do this for reputation reasons, sure, but primarily because I wish to be correct.

The Three Banches of Pyronics are:

1) The Original Pyron
- At issue: what was its original energy? Strange that but beautifully simple if the "initial conditions" of the Universe could be reduced to a single number.

2) The Pyronic Field
- I know this will be where most of the work will be done, because we live in it. No, it is not the "ether," although I sadly predict that the less-than-fully-informed will accuse it of being such.

3) The Edge of the Universe
- Just as the Universe began in the first "time moment" (a single pyron), then advanced to time moment #2 (by the orginal creating 4 more pyrons at each of its faces, and so on), so does this process continue (and has always continued) at the Universe's very edge. I will not concern myself with what lies beyound "Space," as our lives and my interest will be what lies within it.

Philosphers may note that one possibility it that we are the bud of another massively larger Universe, and that we live at the very center of a black hole in such a Universe. I will not concern myself with Philosphers or Philosophy at this early stage.

Monday, March 16, 2009

3. What competes with Pyrons?

Several "fundamental" shapes compete with Pyramids for the fundamental building block of Nature:

- Spheres
- "Ovoids"
- Cubes
-"Quantum Foam"

Ovoids are the "M&M" candy shape. Packaging Engineers have proven that such a shape is the optimal stacking shape for liquid containers, better than Spheres. I reject both however as there would be "space" between adjacent ones. Since "space" is exactly what we are trying to describe (and fathom), this is unacceptable.

A Cube like a Pyramid would not have that problem*. But a Cube, the second simplest platonic solid, is not as simple as a Pyramid. The Universe, many feel (e.g. Albert Einstein) is based on very simple principles. I feel so as well.

"Quantum Foam" as proposed by John Wheeler in 1955 may indeed be the way that Nature exists, but if so, QF should be composed of something, and this website suggests it's made of Pyramids/Tetrahedrons*.

I do not reject "Quantum Foam" nor do I embrace it. It has its points in describing what Experiments and Experimental Results reveal.

I just choose to dig a bit deeper.

* - Actually a Tetrahedron WOULD have the problem of NOT filling space, but there's an "out." I address the problem in the post "7. The Tessellation Problem." Test yourself and see if you can figure it out before going there.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

2. Pyron, defined

A "pyron" is hereby defined as the smallest "atom of space" that can exist. It exists in the form of a tetrahedron, or pyramid.

The tetrahedron is the simplest of the five Platonic solids.

Space is theorized as existing of these solids, which exist on the scale of the Planck length, which is on the order of ten to the twentieth power times smaller than a proton.

The universe is then described as stacks of these pyrons existing and vibrating between each other out to the Universe's ever-expanding edge.

Proper analysis will involve proper mathematics, and for this we shall require a new three dimensional coordinate system.

Currently, the 2 best known 3D co-ordinate systems are Cartesian (x-, y-, and z-) axes, and Spherical (r-, and 2 angles), and then there is Cylindrical (r-, angle, and y-), which is a combination of the 2.

Pyronic co-ordinates (x-, y-, z-, and w-) exist from the center of each pyron out through the center of each of the four faces. This theory is currently in development.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

1. Pyronic Theory (Tetrahedral Quantum Gravity)

Pyron Theory is defined as a fundamental bottoms-up theory of the 3 dimensions of space.

"Time," an over-studied theory of our 3+1 dimensional Universe, is treated as insignificant for the time being. While important, "Time" is not thought of as "a dimension" so to speak, but rather as "a step," as a sequence of stacked realities of the "space" in which we live. The question before us is "Space," not "Time."

One of the greatest articles ever printed at Scientific American magazine, "Atoms of Space and Time" by Lee Smolin, is absolutely crucial reading in understanding this concept.

EDIT: On March 31, 2009 I became aware of the following T.O.E. website and find it intriguing ... in a "finding a needle in a haystack" sort of way:


Here is how I answered the introductory questions:

1. Where are you from?
New Jersey.

2. How did you locate the website?
It was linked at what I (and Scientific American) believe is the very best Introduction to Quantum Physics I have ever read, which is written and maintained by one Andrew Thomas in Wales, UK. It's "What is Reality".

Previous to that website my favorite Introduction to Quantum Physics was Kenneth Ford's book. I've since discovered a better book that I strongly recommend: The New Quantum Universe, by Tony Hey and Patrick Walters, but Andrew's website, being constantly updated, is my favorite.

3. What got you interested in the Theory of Everything?
First, let's define some terms. GUT = Grand Unified Theory which seeks to unite The Electroweak Force to The Strong Force. TOE = The Theory of Everything seeks to unite GUT with Gravity. I believe in crossing bridges in the order you come to them, so I seek to explain GUT first.

4. Do you have a unique perspective?
You bet. My focus is on how the Universe is structured at the Planck-scale of space/length/volume, and time. I seek to "unify" the Wave-Particle "Duality" which I call the WP Equality, with the seminal work of Louis de Broglie in the 1920's, which describes matter as having a wave nature, and the thought process of William (1285-1349) of Ockham (Occam), England, and the "razor" he was famous for applying to decrease complexity which is "Do not multiply a thing unnecessarily". In other words, keep it simple. It does NOT mean the simplest solution prevails, just that it usually does.

5. Where did you go to school and what did you study?

BSME = Bachelor's of Science of Mechanical Engineering at Rutgers University College of Engineering, specializing in Heat Transfer (Radiation, Conduction, Convection) which itself is a specialty of Thermodynamics. The other two branches of Mechanical Engineering are Fluid Dynamics, and Mechanics, of which Quantum Mechanics is a specialty.

MBA = Master of Business Administration at Rutgers Graduate School of Business Administration, where I specialized in the Mathematical side of business, as opposed to Marketing or Accounting and Finance. Lots of Linear Algebra. I like Math.

6. What areas are you most familiar with or interested in?
Quantum Gravity, therefore, Quantum Physics and General Relativity.

7. Have you written any books or publications?
I have a website on my Pyron Theory :

I have also done work for The National Science Foundation re Heat Transfer, but that was long ago. In High School I won a Math Fair prize for a unique co-ordinate system called Spherical Plane Geometry.

8. What past influences have shaped your opinion of our world and its greater reality? This might be family, culture, education, various leaders, scientists, religion, personal experience, etc.
Far too many to list. Euclid, Newton, and Einstein for starters, and the other pioneers of Quantum Physics besides Einstein, notably Planck, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, Pauli, de Broglie, Dirac, Schrodinger, Bohm, and J.S. Bell.

Currently I am excited at what Causal Dynamical Triangulations and Loop Quantum Gravity have to offer in explaining fundamental reality, and am exploring the Maths.

Here is my original About Me:

I have too many interests to list, but my first loves that I have recently returned to are Mathematics, and Physics. The first book I ever read was The How and Why Book of Mathematics, at age 3. The second book was Codes and Secret Writing by Herbert Zim, at age 4. In my 2nd year of High School I won 2nd Place in a Math Fair that was open to all four grades. It was called "Spherical Plane Geometry." It was about 2-D co-ordinates on a 3-D object, and I knew nothing of Manifolds at the time. It began as many ideas begin, with an intuitive thought, combined with a rebellious nature. Taught that every triangle can never have angles that add up to more than 180 degrees, I envisioned a triangle that starts at the North Pole, runs due south to the equator, then around the globe ninety degrees, then up again to the North Pole. Such a triangle would then have three right angles (ninety degrees each). I have found "thinking outside the box" so to speak a great help in obtaining my Mechanical Engineering degree, an education I thoroughly enjoyed.

Here is a picture of Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, whom I credit for getting me interested in Mathematical Physics again, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Thank you, Lee.

Lee Smolin (1955- )