PhOENIX: The Physics Of Entanglements Networks and Information eXchanges is based on topology and combinatorics whereby all the known “particles” in physics can be represented as information which has been spatially entangled onto networks of vertices.

According to E=mc^{2}, mass is nothing more than entangled energy. With PhOENIX, we have decoded how that energy becomes entangled, how it forms particles, and how those particles interact according to simple rules, using Graph Theory. A graph with *n* vertices is represented by an *n*x*n* matrix, called a coordinate matrix.

In PhOENIX, this quark-confinement is necessitated by the requirement that all vertices be connected with edges and/or tadpoles (Loops+ and Arrows-); a particle graph cannot have unfixed edges; it cannot be a “tree.” In this way, the entirely combinatoric structure fully maps the gluonic structure of quarks. As such, we can identify the structure of the charged-quarks via this structural correspondence. Because the electron is a real independent particle graph with three loops (t = 3), it establishes a benchmark for the correspondence between the number of tadpoles and the “electric charge.” From this, the quarks-vertices must be interpreted as having fractional electric charges. But because they cannot exist in and of themselves, the association is merely a method for mapping.

*t=loops-arrows*(or the trace of the matrix) of any completely independent graph or system of graphs. We also prove that this new # of tadpoles property is Invariant (conserved in all particle reactions).

This is our Rosettastone (Correspondence), our Quark Methodology, between the original charge concept and the New tadpoles on vertices combinatorics concept.

Basically, the concept of “charge” in PhOENIX is expressed through combinatoric principals. In order to connect that with the language structure of the Standard Model (which other physicists are going to be more familiar with) we have to use a mapping or “Rosetta Stone” to connect our new methodology with the old methodology in a way that follows the principle of correspondence.

The map above shows the visual “knot” structures of PhOENIX and how they relate to the fundamental particles in physics, such as quarks, leptons, hadrons, baryons, photons, etc. as closed-loop knots.

Photons are minimally interpreted as a connected point of information exchange between two vertices. The simplest Leptons are single vertex particles, while Mesons, and Baryons are bundles of 2 or more entangled vertices.

Anti-matter looks similar to matter except the loops are replaced with arrows… and this is what leads us to the topological conclusion that antimatter is the key to quantum disentanglement. Because it will isolate and close all the particle loops inside of a bubble surrounded by this special type of quantum-topological landscape of antimatter also called “Dirac Holes”.

According to PhOENIX theory, antimatter is the key to shutting off quantum entanglement and closing off those information loops which ordinary matter uses to communicate it’s presence, and if quantum entanglement is the key to gravity, then this should also shut off gravity. It also gives us the “Negative Energy State” solutions to the Alcubierre-White Warp Drive Theory required to build warp drive technology. It’s a worthy idea that has never been tested and is absolutely worth a try.

The leading physics journals in just the past few years, are all leaning towards that same idea that quantum entanglement causes gravity, as no evidence can be found for the graviton.

We are on the verge of a major scientific breakthrough in physics, and we want to be on the cutting edge of that discovery, and the amazing technologies that will be brought to life from this deeper understanding of the core of physics.

**To mark this momentous event, we are releasing the first of three revolutionary papers on PhOENIX (Click Here). In this paper entitled Combinatorial Relativity Theory in PhOENIX, we explicitly derive Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity from combinatorial first principles, and in so doing spark the revolution of PhOENIX.**

PhOENIX sees space and time as if it were a hall of mirrors. Focus on the hands and phones on the left as you look into the reflections, and notice how the phone alternates from facing forwards to backwards. The slightest variation in the two mirrors, will produce an angle which produces a curved space time. This in another way to visualize the Odd and Even parts of the generating function which is used to derive special relativity in the PhOENIX paper.

The Odd frames (phone screen facing us) produce the particle’s Rapidity and the Even frames (phone screen facing away from us) defines the particle’s Lorentz Factor with respect to the original phone. And as will be explained in our third paper on Quantum Gravity, the subtle differences between the two reflection parities give rise to spatial curvature (gravity).

Back in December of 2015 Stephen Wolfram Published an article on his blog titled “What is space time, really?” In this article he masterfully outlines a new mathematical framework for looking at our Universe and a path which he believes could lead to a complete theory of physics, unifying quantum physics and relativity, through finding the most simplistic building blocks and rules for the known universe, using a method similar to what he wrote about in “A New Kind of Science”, his pivotal 1,000+ page tome on how highly complex patterns could emerge from simple 1 dimensional, 2 bit systems using basic iteration algorithms. In this article he went on to postulate that our 3D Universe might be constructed using a similar algorithm, and even went as far as talking about knots, graphs, nodes, and networks which are all integral parts of PhOENIX theory.

**Here is an excerpt from the Blog of Stephen Wolfram :**

http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/what-is-spacetime-really/

*“So what about spacetime and Special Relativity? Here, as I figured out in the mid-1990s, something exciting happens: as soon as there’s causal invariance, it basically follows that there’ll be Special Relativity on a large scale. In other words, even though at the lowest level space and time are completely different kinds of things, on a larger scale they get mixed together in exactly the way prescribed by Special Relativity.*

*Roughly what happens is that different “reference frames” in Special Relativity—corresponding, for example, to traveling at different velocities—correspond to different detailed sequencings of the low-level updates in the network. But because of causal invariance, the overall behavior associated with these different detailed sequences is the same—so that the system follows the principles of Special Relativity.*

*At the beginning it might have looked hopeless: how could a network that treats space and time differently end up with Special Relativity? But it works out. And actually, I don’t know of any other model in which one can successfully derive Special Relativity from something lower level; in modern physics it’s always just inserted as a given.”*

**In this same blog, Wolfram goes on to state:**

*“OK, so it’s conceivable that some network-based model might be able to reproduce things from current physics. How might we set about finding such a model that actually reproduces our exact universe?*

*The traditional instinct would be to start from existing physics, and try to reverse engineer rules that could reproduce it. But is that the only way? What about just starting to enumerate possible rules, and seeing if any of them turn out to be our universe?*

*Before studying the computational universe of simple programs I would have assumed that this would be crazy: that there’s no way the rules for our universe could be simple enough to find by this kind of enumeration. But after seeing what’s out there in the computational universe—and seeing some other examples where amazing things were found just by a search—I’ve changed my mind.”*

PhOENIX *is *that Network based model which gives rise to our Universe, and the particle graphs associated with PhOENIX, have revealed the mathematical nature of the laws which govern particle physics at the most fundamental scale of our universe. This theory was independently discovered by a method very similar to the one described here by Wolfram, and we can’t wait to put it to the test with bigger and better simulations and computational models.

Whereas Stephen has suggested pursuing a random computational approach, we have instead pursued the theoretical approach, and actually discovered a discrete theory of quantum gravity which captures the essence of what Stephen was talking about in this article.

**A New Topological Order:**

A recent article was published in Quanta magazine that talked about how changes in the phases of matter were actually linked to symmetry breaking by condensed matter physicists, for example liquid water turns to solid ice when the molecules lose rotational symmetry, and become locked into a lattice. In addition to this, are these weird effects which show up as matter is cooled near absolute zero, which can’t be accurately described by a symmetry breaking, particles which normally act like tiny spheres, suddenly grow legs. Electrons begin to demonstrate fractional charges and experiments have begun to reveal more exotic phases, which symmetry breaking alone cannot explain. What is needed, according to the scientists in the article, is a new topological order. Which is BTW exactly what we are now claiming to have with PhOENIX theory.

To quote from the article:

“The topological phases only show up near absolute zero, because only at such low temperatures can systems of particles settle into their lowest-energy quantum “ground state.” In the ground state, the delicate interactions that correlate particles’ identities — effects that are destroyed at higher temperatures — link up particles in global patterns of quantum entanglement. Instead of having individual mathematical descriptions, particles become components of a more complicated function that describes all of them at once, often with entirely new particles emerging as the excitations of the global phase. The long-range entanglement patterns that arise are topological, or impervious to local changes, like the number of holes in a manifold.”

**Ken’s 2012 Video Series Introducing PhOENIX Theory: **

01 Introduction to PhOENIX: the Principle of Existence

02 Introduction to PhOENIX: the Particles of PhOENIX

03 Introduction to PhOENIX: the Particles of PhOENIX, part 2

04 Introduction to PhOENIX: the Photons of PhOENIX

05 Introduction to PhOENIX: the Matrices of PhOENIX

06 Introduction to PhOENIX: the Matrices of PhOENIX part 2

07 Introduction to PhOENIX: the Matrices of PhOENIX part 3

08 Introduction to PhOENIX: the Matrices of PhOENIX part 4

09 Introduction to PhOENIX: the Queer-Matter of PhOENIX

10 Introduction to PhOENIX: the Nucleons of PhOENIX

*“If I have seen so far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” – Sir Isaac Newton*

Additional reference links and resources for further exploration:

Math & Physics References:

TOPOLOGICAL QUANTUM INFORMATION AND THE JONES POLYNOMIAL – Louis H. Kauffman

Physicists Aim to Classify All Possible Phases of Matter – Natalie Wolchover

http://teaching.csse.uwa.edu.au/units/CITS7209/lecture08.pdf

Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe – Erik Verlinde

Analytic Combinatorics by Flajolet & Sedgewick

Modern Graph Theory by Bela Bollobas

Warp Drive and other Propulsion Technologies:

http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/

https://tauzero.aero/making-progress/propulsion-ideas/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer

http://lheppc91.unibe.ch/WAG13/Talks/Klaus_Kirch/Kirch-WAG2013-submit.pdf

Holy moly. Quantum mathematics applied to hovering things (at will) mind-blowing tech. Ad astra; to the stars. What future holds in the next 100-1000 years?

Very interesting presentation, nice work! The video format is great for initial exposure, but papers are better for detailed reference. Maybe a searchable, time-tagged transcript someday?

Is the discrete nature of time-space in your theory related to Planck limits? More on the emergence of space-time via node relationships/transforms would be appreciated. (I believe you said there would be further explanation, which I never saw but might have missed?)

There also did not appear to be much detail on entanglement in this presentation, is there more available on this phenomena in the theory?

The wave-particle duality observations in nature seem to be ignored thus far, or did I miss something? As an example, does the theory provide deeper insights into outcomes from the double-slit experiments?

Thanks for sharing!

Fascinating theory. I recall you saying that anti-matter is needed for the warp drive technology to create the Dirac Holes for negative energy synthesis and that the anti-matter had to be the kind that wouldn’t destroy the ship. If so, what type of anti-matter is that? Never heard of it.

KIEFER Thank you for your concern and great comment. Not all types of antimatter are harmful to normal matter. Most modern particle accelerators, use antimatter of some form. There are many different types of anti-matter, including some which are quite benign:

http://lheppc91.unibe.ch/WAG13/Talks/Klaus_Kirch/Kirch-WAG2013-submit.pdf

Google “Positron emission tomography”, and see how antimatter is used in hospitals everywhere.

I applaud everyone who helps move mankind toward a future without boundaries. I personally fear that corruption and greed cloud many but it is time to move past these “false prophets” and Hover Brothers, you have my support. God speed

Your ideas are something I have been thinking about for years. I will study more on it in days to come.

I also would like to know about a buy in.

I love science oh I think it’s science I have series ideas I like one of my theories is the infinite universalness Theory which involves which pies not can be spelled right these surreal generator or engine and is the answer to all time and space as far as the speed of light is concerned being able to go the speed of light in an exponential manner causing you to go to the beginning of creation and or time cuz light is time x light the switch in my theory leads you to a black hole which is where are the creative power of creation is happening. I want to build things I want to fly things with the testing I want to be things feel free to swoop me up and put me in the path of science thank you

I know of the property’s in which you speak of. Ive been theorizing a similar concept for a time of 6 year now. Using knowledge acquired to change the perception and lives of those around me. Im sincerely appreciative to have found your video and webpage. You have in addition made great strides in a theory i once thought i was alone in. De-tangling Quantum gravity is a bold approach. I feel your team will discover something more grand then just floating objects but as to consider the possibility watching them “vanish” seemingly. Quantum Dimensional geometric physics perhaps. Im no good with names but graphs i got . Consider that our existence consists of multiple vertices on 12 dimensional planes which reflect a 3d holographic entanglement of macro cosmic proportions. Why are these particles so undefined in measurement? Just that they are undefined in multi space till rectified in a “matter of speaking” Of course this is just theoretical through observance but has been a advancement of mine on a study similar to that which you have presented. Beyond manipulation of matter i do believe there to be a focal point to our existence.

Well i can say no more or maybe too much.

Thank you for what you stand for .

In good faith

Aurora -Benito

I know nothing about quantum physics but for some reason I have been interested in the mechanics and orgin of gravity. I cannot donate thousands of dollars to help but I would like to donate a few dollars here and there to assist you, for some reason I have been interested in the your endeavor. How do I go about helping you, if your willing to take a few dollars over time from a lowly truck driver

i am intrigued

Nice work I just discovered your site and will be sending you many questions and data sources. Are you familiar with tetryonics.com he uses a similar geometry system to explain atomic structure? I also have some very unique matrix systems you might find helpful.

Best Regards,

Robert Hutchings

Guys, how can we be a part of this?!?!

You are closer than you think. Nice work!!

To finance your project with effect capital to grow it , I can help i run 100s of restaurants and supermarket in NYC we can use a crypto within this Market to generate the capital needed to continuously manage this program.

Finnally There is light at the end of the tunnel. Phenix good job

Their seems to be no charge conservation in the many decays being described here. If 3 loops correspond to a full -1 charge, and 3 arrows to a +1 charge and this is taken literally to explain the fractional charges of quarks then the down quark was misidentified. In the videos the down quark was shown to be a line/loop/line but that would give the quark a +1/3 charge when down quarks in fact has -1/3 charge. So it looks to me you mixed up the down quark and the anti-down quark. The proton as shown had a total of 5 loops which would be a +5/3 charge, and the Neutron when shown with 4 loops for a +4/3 charge. substitute the correct down quark and they sum correctly to 1 and 0.

But then everything else flies off the rails (or at least needs to be recalculated), W particles as described should have fractional charges of +1/3 and -1/3, Neutrinos would not be neutral. Unless charge is completely unrelated to loop and arrow counts then it all falls apart and charge conservation needs to be explained by some other mechanism. I’d also expect other particle characteristics like spin to be explained by the graph but their was no mention of that.

I was confused about the charge too. I didn’t understand how the neutrino was neutral in PhOENIX. Ken Griggs replied to my question on youtube (8th video I think) and said that basically the full description of how charge works will be described in the second paper. I too was thinking that it seemed inconsistent in the current description. If you think that charge seems inconsistent with the current amount of information on the website and videos that is by design. We (those other than Ken and Jeremy) don’t have the whole story yet.

We have added a small section explaining “charge”, though we will give a more formal description of electromagnetic four potential in the second paper.

One should Google: Bezene and Quantum Entanglement..many appropriate hits. Also…search: Kagome Lattice and Space-time. Benzene is hexagonal..BUT it is really 6 equilateral triangles( Kagome structures). Have I seen Entanglement in Benzene series electrets..Yes….but only one amazing incident! Currently I am “waiting ” to see IF the material does it by itself again (no energy input). Ron Kita, . Chiralex Kudos to Jeremy!

Experimental Quantum Anti-Gravity Successfully Replicated :

https://benjaminfulford.net/2017/12/22/letter-editor-experimental-quantum-anti-gravity-successfully-replicated/

Re: Quantum Antigravity via Benjamin Fulford Biefeld-Brown Electro-gravitic coupling hypothesis.

I would very much like to see the proof of this effect working inside of a vacuum. I think it’s been pretty well established by NASA, ESA, and other top scientists that the Thomas Townsend Brown effect is very definitely NOT the key to anti-gravity or quantum gravity. And neither are super heavy element like element 115…

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKslg1LiDPI

I am currently interested in becoming an intern with you. But I do have some questions regarding where you are currently located and what are you looking for in an intern(Age and Education). I’m very intrigued with what i’m reading about currently and I would love to see how I can help with the project. Please get back to me soon. Thank you.

Roman Magana, Intrigued Youth

You and Jeremy’s recent statements have inspired me to take up physics again. Just want to say that. So, Since your last hangout on air, I been watching videos by Icarus Interstellar, particularly with richard obousy and alcubierre, and learning about the horizon problem as well as watching videos by Prof Sonny White at eagleworks. Something occurred to me: Very often, warp physicists make the analogy of “surfing” on a wave created around a starship bubble. But, thinking about the surfing analogy further, I envisioned surfers “catching” a wave created not by their surfboards but by some distant force (the wind.)

What if, instead of containing the negative energy density-generating fuel on board the ship and the ship making its own warp bubble, we created a stationary warp engine that sent out a wave into space. Like, suppose we build a massive space station with lots of fuel and energy. Suppose then this space station emits a wave of warped space and then the ship “catches” this wave just like a surfer on a surfboard. Then, when it arrives at its destination, the ship angles its craft (using rockets or EM) to travel sideways off of the crest of the wave, just like surfers do when they angle their boards up the sides so as to get back behind the crest and back into normal water again. Once at Alpha Centuari or wherever, we then build another massive space station to send our astronauts back home. It could become like an interstellar highway or mode of instant transport.

Could maybe Alcubierre and White be going about this all wrong, or could there be a better way of doing this, so you wouldn’t need to carry so much fuel payload? Or would there be boundary/horizon problems for the ship angling into and out of a “space wave” such that the true “surboard” analogy falls apart?

N radiation is scary but floating is floating

capitalising on this is WRONG

Greedy people

Why? They put in the work, they put in the sleepless nights cramming for exams, they have to pay the loans for college (Assuming Ken and Jeremy had to borrow for college), they took the time to get educated in physics, and they have to put up the money to buy the materials for the proof of concept experiments. Why shouldn’t they be rewarded monetarily for the work? Much less breaking even for all the monetary investment they had to put in? How is capitalizing wrong? Let me see YOU put in the money, time, and effort and get nothing back. Then come back and tell me capitalism is wrong.