Need a draft to be reviewed (like peer reviewed)

[saidani]

I am an independent researcher and I need to review my article. In the past, I published an article entitled "The Nokton Theory", but I have received no advice or assistance. I therefore reviewed the document (version 2.0) and I wish a more important review by helping me from the community of ""https://figshare.com/articles/Nokton_theory/1549720". Here is the plan of the revision:

1. We will look at the form of definitions and propositions from a mathematical point of view.
2. We will look at the mathematical content of definitions and propositions.
3. We will look at the total content from a physical point of view.
4. We will look at the content from a languishing point of view.

 

1. We will try to extend the document with new definitions and results.

nokton-theory-en.pdf

Edited May 15, 2017 by saidani

[Mordred]

Well you definitely have done a lot of mathematical research. The math details itself will take a considerable time to go through.

 

I should note a peer review done by a forum regardless of how good that forum is. Would not carry any real authority.

 

About the best we can help with is spotting errors or possibly finding ways to improve the article.

 

On that note a better math notation in many places to improve readability might be a suggestion.

 

For example definition 3 can readily be simplified by simply using tensors. On this particular case the Euclidean Minkowskii tensor would be suitable. Particularly since your introduction mentions both QM and relativity. Which both metrics are primarily 4d. ( once you apply the Schrodinger and Dirac equations) under the QM side.

 

Reduce definition 3 to the Minkowskii tensor and the show the vector inner dot product is a far more elegant method to show the vector displacement elements.

 

 

[latex] ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}[/latex]

 

[latex]\eta=\begin{pmatrix}-c^2&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

 

[latex] u*v=v*u[/latex]

 

Though your paper did not include the time coordinate component under definition 3. (adding the full 4d geometry is my other recommendation) Particularly in the infinity issues your paper is addressing.

 

You are specifying R^3 as opposed to R^4 not sure why this choice at this stage.

 

Particularly since QFT already uses displacement in its metrics via action and the Hamiltons.

 

I am curious why you have not included the time coordinate in your observable displacements? Within the full paper I do not see the time component which is primarily needed to detail rate of displacement.

 

you won't be able to property define mass and energy as per your conclusion section without the time component.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Mordred

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

We've been here before.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92280-help-calculation-probabilities-new-theory/

 

Thread closed.