Dirac Equation for Accountants (contd.) / Field Structure Theory

0:00 He speaks of the state changing, switching, so that the velocity is either plus or minus c on each component. And what he's actually describing is chaotic dynamics, but he doesn't use a chaotic dynamic. He doesn't use that terminology, of course, but he also says the classical thing is just the average of this. That is, that when you try and measure what's going on, you take so long that it's done many of these before... I tried to reverse this argument to produce all these rules, but I couldn't quite do it. It's interesting to hear that Durant said that, and that certainly sort of leads to this. Okay, so special relativity, there's some obvious things that has a problem, and other things that I think are more subtle. In terms of interpretation of quantum mechanics, right, I mean, the accountant doesn't have to worry about interpretation, he knows exactly what he's counting. In the quantum context, we don't know what the weight point is, so it's interesting to compare the two, the fact that in one case, you're dealing in a sense of a solid thing, and in the other, you don't know what you're dealing with it. So, let's just have a look at one, sort of physics-by-pictures. So here's one of these entwined paths, right, the way we generate this is we sort of go forward in T and then at some point we return, and we return the desired way, so these paths always occur in pairs. So let's take sort of the final point of view and say, okay, let's say, supposing the electron is blue, then this red thing is just a positron, and when you put the path together, and putting

2:30 back together again and say, oh, well, look, we've got a particle creation at this point, annihilation at this point, and then a recreation and annihilation. So, what this thing is really doing, what the whole entwined path idea is, it's building up the Dirac-C in a very, very special way. It's building it up by these pairs. Well, in a sense, it's being incredibly literal with Dirac notation. So, you know, maybe this should have been a draft equation for children, having just looked at the geometry of dynamite. So, this is really what appears to be happening. The entwined path is building up gradually with this dynamical process, the draft C. And the wave function itself, you have actually a frequency modulation superimposed on that. What happens if you take one of these long things so t is vertical take one of these long things and push it so it has a net velocity then it's like having two either clearing frequencies because then m which responds to to the velocity gives you two different um m's that are very very close together and the net effect of that is to make a frequency on modulation on the easy ion t Okay, so that's seemingly what happens. And the self-interestedness arises because the oriented areas can annihilate each other, right? If we took one of these things and then superimposed the opposite, so this was red and this was blue, then the net orientation would be zero. So the subtraction here is real. And all of this process actually does is allow you to propagate subtraction, Whereas classical processes like diffusion, all they ever do is propagate addition. In classical processes, there's no way to rub something out once it's there. This, you can rub something out if it's been put there by a previous class. So, now there is this issue in sort of interpretations of quantum mechanics, of collapsed areas versus broadly bone. And in principle, since this thing gets the giraffe equation, you should be able to look at both of these things and compare them. And there is such a thing as

5:00 You can construct these in a deterministic way, and that makes the comparison with DeVore-Bohm actually a lot more interesting. Who constructed it stochastically though? He said that there is a probability weighting. That's right. So let me just sketch what I mean by collapsed models. I mean, it's all very, anyway, the idea behind class models is that initial conditions are set up on sign, then it's unitary propagation, right, and it's the unitary propagation which is so well described by the usual mathematics, either the Schrodinger or the Grant question. And then when we observe it at the end, when we get out, the output from this probability calculus is just to say, okay, well, what we get at the end will be, you know, eigenvalues according to whatever it is we're observing. So there's a collapse that has to take place at that point. Now, the entwined path mimic of that, the way you could do this is to say, well, okay, we're going to start here and end here, we're going to observe here. We're going to let the process happily go back and forth, right? Because in this, in a sense, we're writing on space-time. And these entwined paths can quite easily reproduce the propagation. right? And we actually showed that from the accountants model. So if you want to mimic this thing, we just say, okay, well, at some point, the path exits at the observation time, and once it exits, if it is an observation, it can't go back and rewrite history, right? So the interesting thing to note is that even in this class version, you really have two things. You have the history impended on space-time, which looks like a wave function, but you also have this stray. All the other ones are paired. The last one can't go back to the origin, so it has to be unpaired. So you have these two things. So it looks a little bit Bohm-esque. So you might ask the question, Well, since this whole model has both, it has the wave function and it has an extra trajectory,

7:30 could that be the bone trajectory? And the way it's set up, the answer is no, because the diagonal process we have, because it's stochastic, is going to give it a fractal, it's not smooth, we know that the bone trajectories are smooth. Well, they could be. But one thing we can do is we can turn this whole thing on its head and say, well, look, de Broglie-Bohm is supposed to be observationally equivalent to regular quantum mechanics. So it suggests there should be an entwined class model that's completely deterministic, and just guess the uncertainty principle from the initial conditions. Okay? So, we turn it around and say, can we do this whole process in a completely deterministic way and just feed in initial conditions that will give us the uncertainty principle? And the answer to that is yes. And the easiest way to show you this is just to show you pictures. And these pictures my colleague at Rarson, Eric, Holly has finally generated these things. So, here we go. So here's all this stuff by pictures alone. Here's one of these entwined paths. So what we're going to do is we're going to completely remove the stochasticity out of the entwined paths and just keep this aspect of entwinement and see that we can actually get what we need. So here is the path. Here is counting. counting. It's counting right-moving particles. So here, you know, we're going along this axis and we're saying, oh yes, there's a right-moving particle, there's a right-moving particle, but it's disappeared at this point. It's turned left. Remember when we count these things, we just look at the right-hand one or the left-hand one. I mean, if we don't count one or the other, you know, we double count. So here there's a right-moving particle, no right-moving particle here. Here's a right-moving particle, but it's red, so it's minus one. No right-moving particle here, right-moving particle is blue, no right-moving particle here, it's a red-right-moving particle. So all we're doing is counting. And you can see, I hope you can see, that what's going to happen here is when we do this counting, because we have this alternation, we can quite happily mold that into the IMT.

10:00 If we were counting left-moving, right, left-moving is always going to be 90 degrees out of phase with the right-moving. When this thing goes to zero, the left-moving goes to one. Right, so filling in these bits here is the other component. If this thing turns into a cos, this thing turns into a sun. So it's really very, very simple. So let's just watch it and see what we do. So here's two concatenated paths. We've just chosen them cleverly in such a way that we're sitting here, we're counting the right-moving. So here's a right-looking blue, this one disappears at the same time this one reappears, so we still get a one here, right? And then, when we get to the end of this one, oh, well, at this point, we'd have a right-looking path, but now it's blue, now it's red, so it's a minus one. And then there's another one that appears here, it's also a minus one, so we build the square wave. So, you can see we can play this game in such a way that it's obvious that we can construct what we want to construct to be the IMT. So here's four paths, and we've just spliced them slightly so that they almost completely rub out the square wave, but not quite. So there was a square wave here, we've rubbed out everything but a little thing that looks like an alternating delta path. So then, once we have the opening delta function, we just do that again a number of times, and then you build in one of the components of the int. So, you can do it. I mean, you don't really expect that there's a little demon sitting at the initial conditions that's going to do this, so it's a bit clunky, but at least you know you could do it in principle. So, since we don't like to do that in a detailed way, what would be nice to do is see whether this could just filter a random signal and build up what you want. You really want to say, you know, would this fit with the Brody bone? And the answer is yes, it would. So what we do here is we're just going to put the stochastics in the first two cycles. So here's a stochastic first two cycles, and there's the density that it fills. So, out of the first two cycles, it reverts to being completely deterministic.

12:30 So there's two cycles, and there's a number of cycles for the first cycle stochastic. Here's two paths. Again, stochastic only in the first period, and then completely regular there after. And you can see it's beginning to... So, you can sort of guess what's going to happen. Here's four powers. So all this is doing is this funny deterministic crisscrossing is filtering out of, actually, Poisson distribution It's actually filtering out the Taylor expansion. Well, it's a sort of discrete courier analysis. It's very like that. It's just a dynamical process. It's filtering. It's going back, in a sense, from something that's like the square way to... I mean, you can do this with Hadamard sequences. So, roughly 30 pi, you can see that the density is beginning to wiggle. There's an exponential superimposed on that. Here's another 10,000 parts. It's a single part, but it's counted 10,000 times. is the addition of the right-hand side. The red is just a plot and a sign thing for comparison. It comes out at the end because we draw the sequence ends too close to this, so you get a final condition like you get an initial. This just goes to show that you can use these deterministic in fine paths to filter the stochastic initial condition, and build up E, Z, I, M, P. Okay, so that's the, that sort of story. Let me just re-emphasize what this appears to be doing. I showed you all these pictures, and I'm probably trying to figure out what's exactly going on.

15:00 Let me just reiterate. So stepping back from this whole process, what is this doing, you know, why are we doing? What we're really doing is we're trying to build a mechanism for wave-particle duality. Now, in conventional quantum mechanics, wave-particle duality is a name. That's all it is. There's no, you know, it's like this black box that describes something that happens that we don't know how is the fact that waves and particles get mixed in the description of physics. And so what this is doing is actually trying to build a mechanism to produce that. And to sort of compare, in classical physics, we sort of believe in trajectories, right? I mean, classical physics of a single particle. The fact we use Newton's laws at all means that the particle trajectories are smooth, and so if we looked at them on a very fine scale, all we'd ever see would be a straight line, right? It always flattens out to be this straight line. Now, quantum mechanics says, well, okay, the above That picture is a mirage. That doesn't happen. That's not what's out there. If anything is out there, it's more likely to be waves, right? Schrodinger equation and Drach equation are both wave equations. And so conventionally we describe physics in terms of waves, but there's a disadvantage of that, right? When we look at this thing, the quantum mechanical description of this thing is through the substitution of waves, which extend from minus infinity to plus infinity in all directions, and in t, whereas we sort of look at this thing and say, it's supposed to be localized, right? So, unfortunately, our language in quantum mechanics, when we talk about waves, is not terribly good for thinking about things that are localized. So that's one picture. The other picture is a particle integral picture where we say, okay, well, we can describe propagation in terms of these paths, but the price we pay for that is we have to say their histories, We have to weight them with a space, which we don't know where the phase comes from. It's just this thing that we use in a sense to call it the trajectories.

17:30 Or another way of putting that is, it's a way of propagating subtraction, right? I mean, think of just a simple particle in a box. How do you get those nodes in there? How do you get nodes which have a trajectory that goes through them, but give you a probability of zero? Well, putting in phase is how you get them, and again, the trouble with this picture is that we know it's wrong on the fine scale. In the non-relativistic, it's wrong on the fine scale because you can't have arbitrarily large philosophies. And it's wrong on the fine scale even in the graph equation because you know that you can't maintain the uncertain principle with large philosophies. You've got to go to an increased particle number. So the disadvantage of these, they're different in a sense. This sort of has this long wave length at disadvantage. It's cumbersome from a matroscopic point of view. This is cumbersome on a small scale because you don't know where phase comes from and it's wrong on a fine scale. So, what's this, what's the entwined power idea to do? Well, it's really, in a sense, a hybrid. Just to say, well, if we go back to the idea of particle trajectories, which has some appeal, I think if the power chamber is coming well, there seems to be some reality to all that. We look at this thing and say, OK, if we would describe a particle in terms of entwined paths, so if we look at that trajectory on a fine scale, so we're looking around with the Compton wavelength, what do we see? Well, in terms of the Dirac field, you can actually build the Dirac field to meet some entwined paths. The transition to 3D is still in question. What seems to work is actually the entwined... What we look at as entwined paths that do this, right? They oscillate. The way that goes into three dimensions is you just wrap it on a cylinder, and so what happens is they go, say, around and back, and they keep crossing on front and back. It's like a double helix, except instead of helices chasing each other like that, they cross.

20:00 It is a double helix, but it's not like the DNA where they chase each other in the same direction, they go in opposite direction. And that's why you get a diameter ratio as 2, because they go in opposite direction which allows you to build up a spin. Your switching of directions, really, is switching over spin stage to the opposite eliciting. So when you go, so you've got four possibilities, you've got plus and minus A as I would write here, plus and minus P, and you know that's your zigzag. Yeah, when you embed that in one dimension, it don't have sphere. So you just have to... when you embed this thing in three-dimensional... Yeah, but if you write your distance operator as a three-dimensional one, it does have sphere. Because let's see. That's right. And the sort of geometric manifestation of this, which appears to work, there's still a little bit of magic involved in it. If you do this, you know, actually out-drawn, you give it a net velocity of zero, it's just a cylinder sitting on the t-axis, and the paths go around like this, then only one gives you EVI and T. It's quite a treat to see. But then, the magic is that in order In order to get the non-zero velocity, the Vurence transformation is better. Now it came in automatically with the campus model. It's not so clear that it comes in automatically. That needs to be fixed. Or it just needs to be looked at. It is here because you can't have your distance and time. You've got distance and time built into your structure. You've got switches in distance, friction in time. So that's automatically bringing your Lawrence connection. Well, there's a subtlety there. They're on the same level. They're on the same level, but there's still a subtlety in that, you know, the only version of this is that you're building, right? I mean, in this case, there's no ambiguity. There's none of this flaky interpretation of if anything's either there or not. And that was the whole business about the account model. you can't argue with anything that's there you just let the process go, you watch it

22:30 here, if you in the end have to say, well okay, the way we get velocity eigenstates that are non-zero, I should say momentum eigenstates that are non-zero is we inflict the Lorentz transformation on that, then we've lost that one degree of reality, we can't show that if we do this exactly the same process and look at it from another reference frame You then get the pager expect. You can't show that when you've lost that very valuable thing that everything is there, right? We can simulate it. We know exactly what everything is. I mean, I agree. At this point, it looks like, well, okay, if you do it for p is equal to zero, just, you know, just apply Lorentz transformation and you're done, right? But there's applying Lorentz transformation to the mathematics, to the densities, and then doing the physical experiment by saying, okay, I'm going to walk past this at a certain velocity and describe it in a new frame. And you then have to say, well, okay, what does this look like? Do you indeed get what you expect? That's the difference. I'm sure you do. Okay, so I made just a few technical observations that are germane to false quantum mechanics which may illuminate this, or may not, the case may be, and then I'll pose them to questions to everyone else. Firstly, when you use the Dirac equation, or the Schrodinger equation, and the Dirac equation is only Schrodinger with a linear polynomial, a linear Hamiltonian, You don't actually have to know what the so-called wave function or state is at all. You don't have to know because what you're interested in is the eigenvalues of the operators. And you can represent the operators in complete mathematical ways. Let me remind you of an ancient calculation which Dirac did in his book. He said, now supposing we represent everything by Heisenberg operators, my alphas, which have these anti-commuting rules and scale and square to one, I will put them in the Heisenberg representation so they are functions of time.

25:00 and he shows, taking his alphas and his rules, that the velocity operator is in fact a momentum plus a wiggly thing, right? And he then says, ah, I told you so, experiments on a macro scale average out the wiggly thing to nothing. You know, it's all sines and cosines. So my feeling about this is, firstly, it gives you an insight to half intervals, which Feynman never did. He just said, here it is, isn't it wonderful? And secondly, you can do the averages all sorts of ways. And the only time you really have to admit that pi, pi star might be a probability density at our max form is when Can you consider the rate at which things change state when they're perturbed? Those transition rate calculations seem to come out right experimentally. Anyway, I'll shut up now. But, I mean, an interesting point, another way of saying this is that Siddhartha-Veghan is, in this model, is very, very structured, and it's structured to the point where you can build a dynamical process that, in actual fact, in a sense, weaves the wave function. And it's that weaving that gives you the final phase, and in the end, the spin. So that algebra that you associate with one of the counts is built into geometry. One of the reasons I'm very excited about is the fact that standing back from all of this, the way historically we walked into quantum mechanics was from the perspective that we have classical mechanics, we all think about the real numbers and the continuum, so when we walk into quantum mechanics, we say, okay, what are we going to do? Well, if we expand the number field from real numbers to complex numbers, we'd have this built-in algebra that works like a charm for formula counts.

27:30 And the trouble was, we don't seem to look underneath that and say, well, where did that come from? If we back up and we go back to the integers to counting, right, and then ask, well, okay, can we invent systems which, instead of just giving us the real numbers, when we look at it carefully we can get these other alphabets and we get complex numbers maybe that's the way to go instead of going rational numbers, real numbers and then in desperation complex numbers as we did for quantum mechanics we go rational numbers can we do something that will give us this whole hierarchy of number systems, complex and quaternion And it seems to be a matter of this very, very simple picture. I mean, you know, it's incredibly naive, but it just does sense it. Where's your quaternium? Pardon? Where's your quaternium? Oh, okay, quaternium. If you take this to three dimensions, there's a way of brightening the direct propagator, where you part integral well in the I guess this will do. All of this came from something called the Chet-Word model and the Chet-Word model was this part integral approach to the And, you know, here are the paths, they're just broken line segments that look like this. And Feynman, when he did the path, he said, okay, suppose when the paths look like this, so here's S, here's T, he said, okay, how do we get phase into this thing? You see, phase, in the non-religious case, is a wave concept that's grafted onto paths. Here, because you have special relativity and you can't change the slopes here, you have to figure out a way of getting phase in. The way he did it was to give us this rule which said, with each corner, we're going to associate the square root of the minus one. Just that rule. Remember when Lou was talking about this lovely commutator, a representation of the diffusion equation?

30:00 The diffusion equation differs from the Schrodinger equation by the fact that the diffusion constant is real or in the Schrodinger equation you just stick an i in The quick way to do that is just to replace the diffusion constant by the i times the real constant when Feynman did this he had this lovely little rule that said okay, square root of minus one for each for each corner, which means a minus one for each two corners thing work. All I ever did was say, oh, well, if you pair this with the other path, then the minus one comes from time across it. So you then ask, well, okay, how do you build this in three dimensions? And the jury is still out there on that. I mean, I think there's a way of doing it. I don't know whether anyone else on the planet yet agrees with me. But But there is a way of formulating the path integral in three dimensions that gives you this one-way choice, right? I mean, at this point, the reason this works in one dimension is there are only two directions, right? And so you can associate the square root of minus one with a corner. If you embed that in three dimensions, you know, what are you going to do? Because at any point, if you think that the sum will pass, you've got this whole two-dimensional space to embed this thing in. but it turns out that the geometry in the Dirac equation is such that you can make it a system of binary choices and the way to see that you must be able to do that is take any two points in space and ask for the propagator between the two points in space now it's going to look complicated if the coordinate system doesn't have an axis along the direction But if you rotate the axis, so that, say, this direction of the z-axis, a very neat thing happens, that the direct equation factors into two. And those two, surprise, surprise, you can ride as a path integral in one dimension, which turns out to be basically the other path of that path. So, in a sense, you can say, okay, if you want to write a path integral for the propagator between any two arbitrary points in space, you've got this clunky thing that says, well, all right, reorient the coordinates so they're aligned along the axis, do the path integral,

32:30 and then orient back. Okay, so that's rather clunky. But an alternative to doing that is to actually take Heston's picture and say, well, okay, what do these alpha matrices do? If you take them as vectors, and so you're really just constructing a coordinate-free description, then it turns out you can look at the sum of the powers in one dimension, Pluck out the one-dimensionality, stick in the alpha matrices, and do that sum with the alpha matrices in there, and you get the probability. And all that's really saying is that in the relativistic case, the 5-end rule does a very, very different thing than it does in the non-relativistic case. It seems in the relativistic case, all you really do with the power of the integral is you create a phase. In the non-relativistic case, you're given complex numbers, and the paths themselves, which are these infinitely long things, you extract a pattern from them with this given phase. In the relativistic version, the chessboard model, what it actually does is it creates the phase. It smooths these four directions into the unit circle, which is what you extract when you go to the 9-0-5-day as being a complex. Do we have any more questions? Getting back to the square of minus 1. Yeah. which is, you can think of the square root of minus 1 in a way as a kind of ordered ambiguity in the plus 1 and minus 1. And we all know it because you represent the square root of minus 1 as the matrix 0, 1, minus 1, 0. Or the other way around, plus 1, minus 1. Which one do you call the square root of minus 1? Well, Paul, one of them is the other minus. The other is minus, and the matrices tell you what algebra makes it all work. But it's really kind of... So, in fact, you get two power matrices each time you make this argument, and if you rotate to another coordinate, you get two more, and they're not the same, or at least one of them isn't the same, and eventually you run out of possibilities.

35:00 That's right. And the reason the I, you're stuck in the end with the I, as Peter pointed out, two of the powering matrices you can create with the, that's right, but you need the square root of minus one because powering matrices aren't, in a sense, big enough to describe three space without it. So you have to, in a sense, tack on the extra dimensions. Well, can we express our appreciation in the usual way? you talk about going back within time you're not transferring it doesn't become a problem that's just the vacuum state associate it never becomes it becomes the congress i mean you can just you can just single times phase And that's the end of the talk by Garnet Ord. it is now time to start the talk by by Don Bridell and it's about field structure theory

37:30 something sounds rather technical field structure theory Don Bridell Just a quick note of where this comes from, so we'll understand the context. As a college student at Pratt Institute, I became enamored with Buckminster Fuller and the work that he was doing, and appreciated his structural approach, as it's called, to working out problems in three dimensions. Mr. Fuller is the creator of the Geodesic Dome, and getting into his work, we decided to do a thesis on form and structure to see if we could come up with a unifying element. And my roommate and I worked on this for junior or senior year, and we discovered a new set, a new structural form, and at that time we called them torsion structures. And I had been working with that single discovery for 40 years. In fact, when I told Kevin that he initially was going to offer me 30 minutes, I said 40 years and 30 minutes is a key name. Keith, sorry, Keith. And so he replied back, well, how about a minute a year? So we negotiated and we got an hour out of it. I thought that was pretty funny. But only last year did I begin talking about this in public and just everything just has been happening very rapidly since then, and a lot of new discoveries of this family of forms now called field structures have developed. So rather than chronologically go how the forms developed, I'm going to present this in terms of how I now see structure forming, and going back to the basic notion of action, and what we wanted to find out was what is structure? What actually is it when it comes three-dimensional forms and working in three-dimensional space so we the first

40:00 thing that we noticed in working is the only structure that we can make is the tetrahedron that will be self-sustaining or variations on the tetrahedron why is the cube and all the other polyhedra collapsing if they're not if a tetrahedron isn't introduced in some position and that led us to the Nature builds with a field when it builds form, and that architecturally, at this scale of buildings, we are not using fields, except for the tetrahedron, which has the field inherent in the structure. So, we took a cube and noted that the difference between a cube and a tetrahedron was the tetrahedron, all the lines are in communication with each other in a direct way. Whereas with a cube, you have visible lines that are not in touch. Yes, you do, but I'll address that in a moment. Now, if you took and connected the lines on a polyhedra, any polyhedra, and do it in the right way, You introduce, you do it with a spun line of force. That the, what happens when you assemble it properly is that that is now a structure. I can make a cube, a structural experience. And this has quite a bit of rigidity to it. And so what we found is, this is the start of the story. We start with a circle, and we twerk it. We introduce, twist it to it. Then we found if we introduce three circles, that we can twist them to form a tetrahedron, or we can twist them in another way and form or we can twist them and form any polyhedra there is. Now, the thing to note here is that this structure, called an actor, is only held in three-dimension, in a three-dimensional position by these little rings around here.

42:30 This is cheating, but it is important to note. If that string, if this ring is cut, this will, you can see the blue circuit, will pop into, back into It'll relieve its stress. But when they're held in position, these three circles make a technique. And then something... So what we have here is what I call an exploder. This structure is a radiant structure. If I release it, it will open. It will open into three flat rings that are connected, knotted together. So, the next thing, the next development of this is this, and what we discovered here is that here we have, oh no, I've got to talk more about this. If you notice, the sticks are twisted in one-handedness, and the circuits are twisted in the opposite-handedness. So the internal form has a right-handed twist, the external form has a left-handed twist. When you put a right and left together, and this is, I've done it with two, you get a stable structure, and this is with three. This is a right and left-handed version of this, and now we don't need the rings anymore. There's nothing holding this together but torsion, working against each other. So the concept of a field comes in, in that we are taking energy and establishing relationships that are trying to move through space in opposite directions and thus create a three-dimensional event. So we've taken a simple circle and made a stable, three-dimensional event. What do you mean by physical field? What do you mean by physical field? It means a physical field, I'm sure. Well, I mean, I'm differentiating, I'm calling action that is put into a circumstance whereby

45:00 create space as creating a field to me that is I look upon this as purely a field but it has two domains this interior domain defined by the polyhedra and the exterior domain so I call this the mass field and this the energy field but they are the same they are generated by the same action and yet they're You're creating completely different events, and you could say that you're talking about the field of balance of forces that's, of course, concentrated on the troops. Right. It doesn't really exist very far outside the troops. It could exist as far as I want to run the troops. Yeah. This could be tiny and these could be huge. This could be at the scale of a proton and the field could be at the scale of the electron. And yet we're still going to have structure. If we can get the orbital to follow this structure and do it instantaneously, in other words, it's all there at all times, then we're going to create a three-dimensional event. I can't see the difference between this one and your previous one, because there's a lack of sticks. That's all. This has only two circuits, and this one has three circuits. I can't see the three circuits. Well, here's one. Here's half of the picture. You see the blue one? There's one circuit, and there's two white ones. this is now this one's right-handed and the right-handed one is the the one on the outside the one on the inside is left-handed so it's two of these makes this well these are three circuit systems this is a two circuit and you do with the one circuit system if you can imagine just that white one will stand alone and define a tetrahedron now in terms of the forces it it maintains its shape partly because struts come up against other struts transversely pushing against each other and um right so here they

47:30 don't do that if you were thinking of it as an orbital field or trajectory then then there wouldn't be the phenomenon of the struts touching on the struts immediately. Well, that's the reality of the tubes for that. Well, the way I look upon that is the magnetic field is not expressed here because that is what's going to keep the struts apart. That's what's going to be an operator in this. The yellow one has six distinct surfaces. This one? Yes, because isn't it true that the red thing outside goes to a different strut to the yellow one? Well, a red go to red, and yellow go to yellow. No, but when it gets to the struts in the middle, not that I can see it completely, isn't it true that the red and yellow ones are parallel to each other on the outside, Pisting each other on the outside, go to distinct sticks. The distinct sticks, I mean, each half of the circuit is connected to distal sticks. This red circuit is connected to this one, which are distal sticks that are now intact. Here, take it forward. now that one is without twisting the the the orbital field this one but it's enhanced that if you follow the plane created by those two red and yellow you'll find that that rotates as it comes back around. The neat thing about structuring a polyhedra in this way is that it automatically knocks itself. You introduce knot into it without even knowing you did it. And that's why these are staying together. Now, in this circumstance, when I came off with the tubes, with these circuits, they are naturally wanting to wrap around each other. And I've never thought of a braided cord like this as being the product of a right and left-handed wrap, but that's what is happening. Because the red circuit is spiraling one way,

50:00 and the yellow circuit is actually spiraling the other way, and they wrap around each other. If I want to explode this apart, I just reverse the circuitry, and this whole thing comes apart again, the way this would. I can go from a contained action event to a radiant action event simply by reversing circuitries. And handedness becomes the huge issue in building in three-dimensional space because that's determining how the circuits are going to behave towards each other. So here's a photograph, and that's a CAD rendering of what's going on in the actor or introducing any further elements. So this is the start. Well, in case the models didn't make it, I did a stereo of this. If you know how to see stereo, you can see that thing pop out. It's kind of nice to see it that way. How many can see that? One, two. It'll take a little bit and it's a really nice technique to really, it sorts everything out when you see it. Kind of put your gaze right here. Quite close in the back, because those are so far apart. Yeah, that's true. I can't do it. Except I take my glasses off and then I can't see it. Okay, well, so the things that seem to be important is that action in this world does not intersect. It interacts. And this interaction in here is the defining moment of this form. Action is our loops, and it's important and imperative that the action have dimension. Otherwise, it passes through each other. So you need to have

52:30 separation. This form is the form that's in the back of the room, being passed around, and it's called Anadi. Anadi is Sanskrit for a conduit of energy. And in looking for names for things, I tried to use names for the people that had the idea of first, And often as not, that goes back to Sanskrit. And I'm very much into Vedic studies and spent time in India, so I'm influenced by that. And I found a lot of these ideas are actually there. So this is two views of the form. And note that if you have a right and a left, a right spin and a left spin, then you have a stable structure. You've created a spatial event. and those kind of events have a spin one, and whereas I consider this as a half-spin type structure. But when they're put together, they add to a whole event. So that's where I'm getting the origin of spin. Now, once you have created this structure, And the next development is this structure. Now note that here is a stable structure that's not collapsing. It's holding its position. It's enduring in time. And it only has one circuit. And I couldn't do that with this event. One circuit here, if I cut the rings, would explode. So it took two circuits to make a spatial event when the mass field is the opposite handedness of the energy field, but not when we circuit it this way. And the only difference is between these two structures is what I'm calling the mass field has got the opposite handedness to the energy field, and here both handedness are the same.

55:00 If you look at the vortex here. Oh, by the way, in field structures, vertexes don't exist, and the word is vortex for these things interacting but not intersecting. So, here we have the internal spatial event, the same handiness as the external energy event that's circuiting this thing together. And the only difference is, when your tubes come out, they're together here like this. When they come out, instead of this tube connecting to this tube on this side, you simply take the circuit to the other side, and then you preserve the handiness. And you can end up making a three-dimensional event with only one handed circuitry. So only a single circuitry, right? Right. No, no, those are three circuits, But they're all, the mass field and the energy field are the same handikens. Okay? And again, here's that same rendering. Now, if you look, here's the beauty of this. When you look what happens, you take a circle and you bend it. And then you interact with other circles that are bent also. every time. And so each circle is bent according to the polyhedra. So the polyhedra is telling the circle how to bend. And every polyhedra has its own unique signature. Here is the cube. Now the cube is, in this minimal circuitry, is hooking three lines together. So the signature the wave is different than the simple tetrahedron. This is going to have three nodes, that's going to have two nodes. And so if you circuit up all the different polyhedron, you'll find each one has its own wave signature. Don, how do you get the concept of minimal circuitry? How do you know what circuitry? Good. Good question. Thanks for asking. That's the part I really like about this, because

57:30 I could hook this up wrong, and when I cut the rubber bands I use to hold it together while I'm building it, it'll just fly apart and just be a tangle. But if I've got the right circuitry, when I cut it apart, it's there. It doesn't fall apart. So it's like a built-in proofing mechanism as to what are structures that endure and what are those that aren't. Now there are several different circuitries possible. And the more complex the polyhedra, the more choices you have to make. And one circuitry would connect just That's two opposite sticks. But to do that, it's got to travel in a longer orbital in order to do that. And it's interesting to go through the permutations of how many circuitries you can do and what the length of this line and the wave signature is going to be as you change the circuitry. So you have some sort of function that will give you that circuitry? Yeah. That's right. This is the, in the cube, this is the minimum length line and number of elements. In your tetrahedron back there, there's a very sort of beautiful perfection about how you have the three circuits, and each circuit goes through an edge and an opposite edge in the tetrahedron. Yeah. I imagine in a more complicated polyhedron, there's also some balance and some kind that happened. Yeah. The bigger ones, I couldn't bring them. Did you have a hyposahedron with you? No, I don't have one. It's been done. And there's people now working on doing all the larger ones, including Archimedes, polyhedron, and irregular ones. I'll show some new regulaments, too, as we go along. Quick question. So, when you talk about stability, is stability with respect to these plastic things that tend to pull things apart? So, and then minimization with respect to some tension that tends to try and straighten things. Now, if you inverted that and made it instead of elastic bands,

1:00:00 Well, you're introducing new forces there, and the only way I can see if you introduce elastic bands was you rotated this at high speed, you know, because otherwise it's just going to collapse. I built these by the tensegrity method. In fact, this was discovered to be a modification of a tensegrity. Do we all know what a tensegrity is? Okay. There are three families of forms now, three families of structure. There's the geodesic family, the tensegrity family, and the field structure family in struct theory. And the tensegrity is where, I should have brought a model, that's a good idea, I'll do that in the future. Tensegrity is you have your sticks. and you have this line up here the sticks are not touching each other they're hanging out there in space and you have lines pulling the the vertexes together and you have other lines that are connected to the other sticks that are pulling them away from each other so this this arrangement stays stable in space by the stick being the balance by the push and pull of these strings in three dimensions. This was discovered by Kenneth Snelson. Now, what I did was, at this point, we left this. See, in a tensegrity, you would go with your rubber band or a piece of metal, I mean a wire. You would connect this point to this point with a straight line, you know, and put, try to wind tension into it. And that will create a stable situation But you are introduced in terms of, so what we did is we built that, then we cut that line and put this torsion circuit on here and introduced a new force. Not tension, but torsion. And that's the difference.

1:02:30 That's what happened. That allowed us to build something more resembling what nature is doing. And then, this actually doesn't exist in nature, but this does. And this is where the right and left are now completely responsible for creating the three-dimensional event. And it's done with simple loops of action. Whereas a tensegrity had to use what I feel is an artificial device in order to make the structure. Well, I see this as the model for what's going on at all levels of structure. From your simplest action event, your photon, right on upscale. And what we're doing now, which I'm not ready to roll out, is showing how these forms evolve into the different structural particles and how the particles then build the atoms and the atoms then build the molecules, all done with circuitry. We'll be coming to a little bit of that in here. Can you do it from the toilet or does it demand a continuum amid structures like the Yes, you can. But I'm getting to that, let me see. Again, these are different ways of going about looking at the cube. This is simply a different view of that. And the point being that any three-dimensional form can be structured. This one is more complex again. This is five tetrahedrons sharing the same mass domains. And what we're getting happening here is the tetrahedrons are working against themselves to position themselves in this structure. So it's a further complexity that is built into it. There's your octahedron. This is the structure now.

1:05:00 And the way I'm envisioning things is I'm envisioning the structure, each circuit, to be made of this braided line of the right and left actor. It is now a part of this. And as I build hierarchies, build the hierarchy up, they're all reducible to this structure. And even this structure is reducible to this structure if i reverse the circuitry on this event so this is like going from a situation like if you bring a electron positron together you get energy you get radiant energy that means to me that the circuits have been switched and now this structure is free to explode and so all we're dealing with is basic notions of circuitry. Okay, now we can build another level of complexity. I don't have the model here for that one for some reason. Here is a structure, a right and left-handed structure together. Now, in terms of a charge, because I look upon the the rotation of these fields as a charged event. But I can neutralize the charge of a form by introducing its opposite. So here, there's a right and left-handed field that are structure fields, the kind that don't explode. And it's a stable event. In fact, it's a very stable event. So if we're looking at a neutral, charged, three-dimensional situation, and left-handed field occupying the same domain. And the structures are telling me that this is the only way it would work. You know, it's not an arbitrary thing. If I try to do it any other way, it falls apart. This is the same as the last one we saw, but when I circuited it instead of going to a distal member i took the circuit back around and hooked it into its opposite handedness and and now we've ended up with a a new form that resembles

1:07:30 i mean this is the shape methane has if you look at the probability clouds of methane It has the tetrahedron shape. And the way I can generate this with a structure of this family of form is to circuit it in this way. So instead of having a shape that looks like this, where the circuits at each vortex are going through other ones, I bring all these right back on themselves. And that's how I get back. Okay. What is the simplest appearance of the truck oil knot in your systems? The simplest appearance of the truck oil knot will be the simple overhand knot, the first knot. How does the first knot occur? To build it as a structure? No, in what structure does it occur first? That's the way I thought I best asked it. This structure, when I reversed, when I plugged, you can't see it very well, that's a green stick and that's a yellow stick, when I plugged in green to yellow and generated this form, I've now got one continuous circuit. I don't need three circuits anymore by reversing handedness. So that's the first... So I would say that's the first... First structure that has a single circuit. Right, right. And this is the tetrahedron. You can do this with all polyhedra. Every one of them can be done in this way. Okay. Now, the next event... This was pretty exciting when I got to it. Uh-oh. I've got a stickiness. Forget all the smudging, this blue smudging. I didn't realize that was such a crucial issue. Yikes. This is the first time I've ever done digital projection.

1:10:00 Sorry about this. Forget the blue. So what we have here is a unit, and that occurs out there. Maybe I didn't bring the Santa there. Oh, yeah, I see those. No, they're not. Alright, what a U-Net is? One of them? Now, it's just down here. But here's what the idea behind this form is. We know that actors are radiant in nature. If I cut these little tubes, this thing flies apart. And the three circles stay connected. And I think this is an important thing to know, that when we're talking quantum systems, that even in the radiant form, they are connected. And I think that's a clue to Alan Aspect's experiment there of how do you keep systems coherent and connected even though they're flying apart. So my thinking here was this structure is a stable structure. It holds its position in space. and it finds its own natural position. For instance, notice that the sticks are not determining what this looks like. We can eliminate the sticks, and we'll have this. So the sticks don't matter. They're just to help us see the tetrahedral more clearly. And we can also do it with those straight lines if we need to. Now, in nature, we have mass particles that are connected to other mass particles.

1:12:30 And at the fundamental level, we find that there needs to be a structure that goes out and connects to the other particles. the gluon. Basically, it's got that job. The energy particle has a job of going out and hooking up everybody into an assembly. And the only radiant, expansive structure that we have is this form here. So we put the expander inside the contractor, and we get this form here. So the red circuits are holding in the outward expansion tendency of the smaller circuits here. And that allows us to do things like this. If you notice with the tetrahedron structure, all the circuits are coming back to it start with. So how do you grow that form? How do you introduce the notion of hierarchy? And the first way we discovered of doing that was to put start with a structure, put an actor inside of it, the expanding one, and use those circuits to go out and join a larger tetrahedron. So here we've got three tetrahedrons nested inside of each other. And the outer one and the most inner one are joined by the actor circles. And we can keep building this simply by introducing this form into inside of the mass form destructor. Then, now, here's another interesting thing. So, what about connecting two structures together? How would you do that? And here, and in this circumstance, this is all one circuit. What we found is that if you have more than one tetrahedron, then you don't need three circuits anymore.

1:15:00 You can do it with one. And we have since found that every arrangement of any polyhedra group can be circuited with just one circuit. Or, you know, if I choose other ways, other plug-in arrangements, I can have more circuits, but it's nice to know, And it's important to know that it all can be done with one loop of energy or action. So these are some of the variables. And what you always have when you're working at this level is you have a rotation of one set of circuits that are trying to rotate these tetrahedrons opposite in one direction. surrounded by another circuit that's trying to rotate the other way. And that's why this thing is stable without the need of rubber bands or any kind of connector. We've got the right and left rotations working against themselves, even though there's only one circuit. We can still do that. More complex variations and some notes about them. Oftentimes, building something, cutting it apart, and seeing whether it survives or not is more instructive than the ones that actually work. This one, for instance, when the rubber bands were cut, just assembled into just a tangle, and these did not. Do you always think of these as isolated circuits in space or do you think of a large web or network of connectives going through all of the space? Well, any platform of structure, particle, atom, molecular, has the ability to organize itself as an entity. and it's held together, no matter how complex it is, by circuits that are running through that. So we've got a way of energizing the whole form and it's stable because we've got the circuits to match up. Now, you can try to match up things and you'll end up with an odd circuit that won't go anywhere. That structure's not going to work. The only ones that sustain themselves are the ones that resolve themselves. What I was wondering is whether you were going to go and model

1:17:30 that ether is those circles that i start with and by some process and this i think gets us into metaphysics is that those circuits are drawn together those little loops are drawn together to form your initial event, your localization of energy. And I can delocalize it by changing the circuitry and creating an exploder, and that action goes back into the matrix, what I call the absolute action matrix. And so I see the material universe in energy and mass forms as special circumstances that the absolute action matrix has performed just the way a string and a knot is. A knot does not exist apart from a string. Yet it is a special circumstance that's right there. The rest of the string doesn't have it. So I've taken something that's undifferentiated and made a distinction. And I can do another one. And now these two knots can talk to each other, and this is in the metaphysics, but this is what I see as consciousness, that it is the ability to communicate without, through the medium itself, to the material manifestations of that medium. So in these structures, you can see how the benzene ring here, if you will, can be generated. And this is one continuous circuit. This is a cell-like form developing. These are all structures. They're all held in...this is a very rigid form. And they're all held by the fact that each vortex of the tetrahedron is being twisted to move in one way, and then when it's connected three-dimensionally, it can't move at all. It's frozen. And so I can build this forever. Something like this has no end. Another thing I notice is I can have an internal structure and then build structures through the circuitry around it

1:20:00 that leap from one side of it to the other, which allows me, it invokes the image of, like an organism, can organize its individual components, particles, atoms, and molecules, to perform functions that are far transcendent energy-speaking than what any of the individual units. So this is the synergetic concept really at play as you get bigger with these structures. Let's see. That's the last transparency I have. And one thing I wanted to show here was how how this breaks out in terms of twist. This side of the board is the actor side, and this is the structure side, and I start with a circle, and for whatever reason, this circle cannot get back to its starting place, and so we We introduce an elliptical element, and it takes three rotations to get back to the starting point, and we're dealing with a triangle here. And then what is happening is that this evolves into this if we push this line here tighter. And as we push this line here, the overall form starts taking on this form until we get to this moment of transition. And then it crosses. And now this line is going that way. This form is moving apart. Does everyone see how that's working? So as you go down, you end up with this form, with little twirlies at the end. And I love the range here in that here the actor part is, this form is always willing and able to go back. It's a radiant

1:22:30 form. But once it crosses over the center line, it can't go back anymore. And in fact, In fact, it doesn't want to go back, it wants to open up, so it starts moving in this direction because once you're over the 90 degree, it falls the other way, and so we end up here with something that looks very much like a situation where you have your unique event, your knot, as it were, occurring in small little areas on the outside, whereas here the knot is occurring in the center. This has very much an atomic particle quality to it. These two ranges in here. And this and this have a universal quality to it. So I'm pretty sure that when we start to develop all the family forms in the next stage is to really start modeling each particular particle and get the relationships right so that when we're modeling a hydrogen event, for instance, we've got the right diameter increment because the defining issue is what is the length of the stick? Is this Planck's length in here that we're talking about? And if so, what is its relationship to the overall length of the action event? So there's a lot to do to work out how those relationships occur and how they build on one another. Each platformer structure adopts a certain size to it. It has a certain range, and it has a reason it's that big. And it must be related to the basic structure that you started building with. well those are some ideas on this approach and it it comes from an alien direction I feel to to what's going on but I'm certainly having fun with exploring the possibilities of what could be done with this new form structure and maybe maybe though others will find some relevance to it that would be nice but in the meantime off we go thank you very much

1:25:00 This is an ill-formed question. I don't really want to ask the question the way I'm asking it, but I'm going to ask it anyway. What do you imagine the stuff is made of? What action is? You know, you imagine it's made out of plastic tubes and sticks and elastic things, and yet, in some sense, that elasticity and materiality that we're used to is being projected down into the micro-rounds. So, of course, you mean it to shift in a certain sense, but I'm wondering how you imagine that. Well, I see from the biggest to the smallest event as a structural continuum. And there must be some relationship between small events and big events. And so here we are in the middle, and we have a way of replicating what is going on at the small event. I'm concerning myself most of this small event, not many thoughts on the big one, but it makes sense to me that if I can create a structure that has the integrity that I need at this human-scale building, and I know what the parameters are that is involved in that structure, I ought to be able to ratchet down, making transitions along the way. to work with a world I can't even see anymore, or can't even verify, a world that is forbidden to me to build structures from because of uncertainty. But if I can build it here and find the relationships going down that are verifiable, then I have a pretty safe, I feel I'm on safe ground to project what it looks like beginning event, and thereby penetrate through the veil that uncertainty puts before us.

1:27:30 So I really do feel that at this level where we're simply talking action, to me action means relationship, means this point is related to this point, I draw a line in any old way i want but those those two points are in relationship that's what action means and these structures are all manifestations of relationship that's all they are and like i say relationship means action so i i simply ascribing that word to the fact that these two are now related relationship to each other but what action is other than relationship No idea. No idea. To go, you know, to define anything better. I have a thought that crossed my mind about this, that these things represent the pads of electrons in complicated systems. And then they have several different edges representing a molecule with several things in it. But these things go around and around and connect the whole thing together and hold it together. On the other hand, you've put tantalizing names on one of the two of them, like you blew off. I wondered whether in any more serious way you've tried to map the structural relationships onto the standard model. No, no I haven't. These are just hunches at this moment. I forgot this one. This one to me is the most important of them all. What I built here was an actor form in the center, and around it, a structure. Now, remember, the actor is the one that wants to expand, and the structure is the one that wants to stay still. When I built this and cut the sticks loose, this part jumped out, the actor part, I mean the instructor part jumped out, and the actor collapsed to a point. And I thought, hmm, now we have a structure here that is trying to center itself at a point, as hard as it can go, all the forces are moving towards the center in here, and then on the outside, they're trying to move away. And it's like a beautiful model to me

1:30:00 of the relationship between a nucleus and the surrounding action field. Now, here's another thing. If I build, let's say I put an icosahedron in here and instead I build one triangle here and another one out here and another one out here I have enough points enough vortices in the nucleon as I call it to structure all these other shells. we're getting happens if, I mean, can we create a nucleon that is plugged into larger structures that replicate the shells, the electron shells? And to me, that would be really convincing to be able to do that, to get the numbers right. And it's all going to be generated by the geometry of the polyhedras. Have you tried to build the structure of the nested, the pine nested, on the Indian? No, no, that would be a nice one to see. Yeah, that's true. That's true. This is so, so, it's just the tip of the iceberg, and there's just all these things to be done. All the Archimedes and Platonic Silas have been done. Yeah, yeah, they're really... Yes, ma'am. Is it possible that the first connecting lines are actually shorter?