NTuft

15 hours ago, studiot said:

I'm sorry, I have told you something very important about Fields and you have failed to address this point each time you have replied.
Instead you have introduced all sorts of irrelevant material.

I have failed to understand your point. I suppose I was working with a group of quadratic surds, and then looking at fields in terms of physics. Still doubt anything I derived is correctly done.

I'll leave off on further developments, and only refer to the work by Reg. Cahill for dynamical space and process physics as a better derivation alternative to GR than Suchard as a correction. That invalidates part of the premise, being that Cahill extends a flat space, but that seems like a fine way to wrap it up.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Have you heard of The german 'Erlangen pogrom', Felix Klein and David Hilbert ?

The most famous mathematicians of their day set out to axiomatize the whole of mathematics in a systematic and self consistent way.
There was mush upset and furore when they failed and Godel came along and proved that such a task will always result in failure.

However the idea is so seductive that another group in France also tried this under the banner 'Bourbaki'.
There was an original soldier called Bourbaki. Subsequently it became the name of a secretive group of elite mathematicians which has continued to this day, despite knowing that the goal, like the holy grail, cannot be achieved.

You will often find references to the terminology, structures and definitions set up by these two groups when reading about mathematics.

I have read over this

Quote

The early enthusiasts for the constructivist approach, like Kronecker and Brouwer, proposed rebuilding the whole of mathematics constructively, avoiding the use of non-intuitive entities like infinite sets. Not surprisingly, this overly positivist proposal did not meet with great enthusiasm. It would have decimated mathematics (remember that depressing feeling when it was suggested that your high-school essay or scientific paper be completely rewritten?!). Hilbert believed that Brouwer's programme would be a disaster, even if it succeeded. He claimed that after the constructivists had finished with mathematics, "compared with the immense expanse of modern mathematics, what would the wretched remnant mean, a few isolated results, incomplete and unrelated, that the intuitionists have obtained."

What is Mathematics? by John D. Barrow, from The World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics, Ed.: Timothy Ferris; Little, Brown & Company: 1991.

I would infer that Bourbaki does not agree with Godel's incompleteness theorem, and I have read previously that some other contemporary luminaries of his were also not convinced by the theorem. Very interesting. I also assume you mean the Erlangen program? I will have to read up on the history of Klein and Hilbert in that context.

On the two examples, unless
+ b = - b

is some special property you're defining, yes it is hard to escape 2 b = 0. However b =/ 0 should then be sufficient to qualify the contradiction?

In terms of entropy, a concept I find exceedingly difficult, I would phrase it to be "possible degrees of freedom" for a particular thing under consideration. Energy in a system or a chemical tending towards lowest equilibrium value I do not think necessarily goes against the tendency towards increased entropy: a molecule in a ground state of excitation still has the availability to be excited to other entropic forms. I might even go so far as to say an energetic system that is excited may have less entropy than the one in a lower state, but I don't understand entropy well enough, and I'm not sure the excited state necessarily precludes the other degrees of freedom towards to the ground state or is active to reduce/increase entropy.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

This is what I mean when Is say that maths wants to make everything part of a grand consistent scheme where everything always works with everything else, whereas physics allows schemes where everything pulls 'every which way'.

I think physics is trying to do that, too, don't you? In order to make the scheme explanatory I would agree there are some extreme conceptual difficulties.

On 7/1/2022 at 10:31 AM, studiot said:

The underlying approach to their subjects by Physics and Mathematics are the antithesis of each other, curious because Physics relies so heavily on Mathemstics.

On 7/1/2022 at 10:59 AM, studiot said:

The point is that Mathematics is (or would like to be) axiomatic based.

Whereas Physics has no axioms, only principles.

In fact whilst is is a requirement of a system of axioms in Maths to be self consistent, Physics (and many other sciences) is a study of the opposition of different agents and what happens when the result needs to satisfy both (or them all)  in some way.

I agree Mathematics is indispensible to Physics in its descriptions. I do not think that the approach to their topics seperately should be construed as antithetical. I think this comes from the conception that mathematics in its development has not always needed to correlate its constructions with any tangible reality, whereas physics is concerned with precisely trying to describe what can be observed as reality. However, I think there have been many times where mathematical developments that seemingy had no physical reality came to be found to be useful in descriptions of the natural sciences.

Perhaps you're saying that mathematics is more akin to logic in requiring self consistent axioms, whereas physics has to account for contradictory (i.e. not necessarily self consistent) phenomena? I do not necessarily agree that mathematics is or would like to be axiom based, but rather that it is constrained under axiomatic sets in some formulations (like physics is in some of its specific formulations) to maintain self-consistency, remain coherent and logical and thus create a system that can express ideas with mathematical rigor. I do not think that setting axioms (mathematics) vs. establishing principles (physics) can be said to be truly antithetical approaches.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

We want science. This being a science discussion board.

That is to say, I am paraphrasing what I've read without re-checking everything.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Which all beside the point, since GR reduces to Newtonian gravity and quantum gravity is similarly only important for small scales.

And doesn’t look like magnetism.

I think the idea is that quantum gravity as an emergent phenomenon can explain gravity writ large. What is going on with the electric field lines at the event horizon of a black hole? Or out from the theoretical white hole? GR reduces to Newtonian gravity when you remove the equivalence of inertial to relativistic masses? Magnetic fields can be induced by current flowing. Is there a reliance for G.R.'s explanation of gravity to have the existence of magnetic monopoles, or what were you alluding to? Or if you would explain what you know about monopoles vs. dipoles and how that's relevant I would appreciate it. If magnetic field lines are induced to run along the geodesics of curved spacetime I do think that looks like gravity.

On 6/30/2022 at 3:59 PM, swansont said:

How else do you get it to look like gravity, which has monopoles?

I am spit-balling. I have been reading The World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics, Ed.: T. Ferriss, Fwd by: C. Fadiman: 1991.

From Wheeler, we read that Einstein's idea for G.R. was to get rid of gravity in order to re-claim it. Rather than direct force attraction between gravitational masses, relativistic masses were under a sort of tension along a curved, complexified time and space. There he was combining the ideas from Riemann on closed or open spaces and geometries, and Mach on acceleration being reference-frame dependent. However, I think there is a need to assign a cosmological constant to explain the expansion of the universe. I think that this is a close or replaceable corollary with the uneven repulsive>attractive force interaction pairs or triplicates postulated by Suchard.
From S. Weinberg, we learn that early on in cosmological expansion there is little neutron-proton material, and the interactions are: 
*antineutrino plus Proton yields positron plus Neutron (and vice versa)
*neutrino plus Neutron yields Electron plus Proton (and vice versa)

and that since we have been experiencing expansion, cooling to 3 degrees Kelvin, and a preponderance of increasingly quantized photons(see also G. Maitres) that've absorbed heat energy relative to the neutrinos the wavelengths of which have bounded out as inverse to the temperature which has decreased orders of magnitude. So we have the standard model, with the excitations of particles (silly strings) and the ideas of creation and annihilation? And what about nucleation -- Maitres posits that the nucleus is contiguous protons even through heavy elements! What do you think? A proton-neutron disparity develops to the order of 86:14, IIRC, and the masscharge of a neutron is significantly greater than a proton; and the thermodynamics of cooling dictate the matter-antimatter component of the energy in preponderance over the nuclear particles.
**Edit**
I got off track. So, whereas G.R. gravitation needs magnetic point charges as I rephrase your postulate, the theory of quantum gravity would use gravitons -- conceivable as a string with seperated charges inducing self-interactions akin to Newtonian gravity + universal expansion or Relativistic Gravity with cosmological constant. I don't know about quantizing gravity with gravitons -- but I think that that will have to be experimentally verified. As for quantizing time with chronons, I don't think that can be quantified but would have to be qualified obligatorily by the equations' or measurements' makers.

On 7/1/2022 at 2:25 AM, studiot said:

Yes there are different ways of specifying many things in Mathematics, but in the case of a Field they all specify the same thing.

However a Field in Physics can be shown to directly contradict any of these specifications.

 

I think we need Galois' Group Theories, Algebra Geometry Trigonometry?

I'd bet I'm doing a Gish gallop, so I'll refrain from the usual reference manual quote. 

studiot, what do you think of the footing for algebraic quadratic roots as being four part? Negative roots having two compositions as do positive roots. Also, I'd say what you cite as a contradiction will show up in the unit's definitions.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Mathematiclly a field is a non empty set of elements equipped with two binary operations, usually called addition and multiplication.such that the set is a commutative group under addition and the set, with the exclusion of the zero element, is a commutative group under multiplication and that multiplication distributes over addition.

Classic and alternative definitions for mathematical fields, wrt axioms, constructive mathematics:

Quote

Field(Mathematics:
Formally, a field is a set F together with two operations on F called addition and multiplication.
...

These operations are required to satisfy the following properties, referred to as field axioms. In these axioms, a, b, and c are arbitrary elements of the field F.

)Associativity of addition and multiplication: a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c, and a · (b · c) = (a · b) · c.
)Commutativity of addition and multiplication: a + b = b + a, and a · b = b · a.
)Additive and multiplicative identity: there exist two different elements 0 and 1 in F such that:
a + 0 = a and a · 1 = a.
)Additive inverses: for every a in F, there exists an element in F, denoted −a, called the additive inverse of a, such that a + (−a) = 0.
)Multiplicative inverses: for every a ≠ 0 in F, there exists an element in F, denoted by a−1 or 1/a, called the multiplicative inverse of a, such that a · a−1 = 1.
)Distributivity of multiplication over addition: a · (b + c) = (a · b) + (a · c).

This may be summarized by saying: a field has two operations, called addition and multiplication; it is an abelian group under addition with 0 as the additive identity; the nonzero elements are an abelian group under multiplication with 1 as the multiplicative identity; and multiplication distributes over addition.

Alternative definition
Fields can also be defined in different, but equivalent ways. One can alternatively define a field by four binary operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) and their required properties. Division by zero is, by definition, excluded.[2] In order to avoid existential quantifiers, fields can be defined by two binary operations (addition and multiplication), two unary operations (yielding the additive and multiplicative inverses respectively), and two nullary operations (the constants 0 and 1). These operations are then subject to the conditions above. Avoiding existential quantifiers is important in constructive mathematics and computing.[3] One may equivalently define a field by the same two binary operations, one unary operation (the multiplicative inverse), and two constants 1 and −1, since 0 = 1 + (−1) and −a = (−1)a.[nb 1]
Axioms(Philosophy)
Non-logical axioms
Non-logical axioms are formulas that play the role of theory-specific assumptions. Reasoning about two different structures, for example, the natural numbers and the integers, may involve the same logical axioms; the non-logical axioms aim to capture what is special about a particular structure (or set of structures, such as groups). Thus non-logical axioms, unlike logical axioms, are not tautologies. Another name for a non-logical axiom is postulate.[15]

Almost every modern mathematical theory starts from a given set of non-logical axioms, and it was thought that in principle every theory could be axiomatized in this way and formalized down to the bare language of logical formulas.

Non-logical axioms are often simply referred to as axioms in mathematical discourse. This does not mean that it is claimed that they are true in some absolute sense. For example, in some groups, the group operation is commutative, and this can be asserted with the introduction of an additional axiom, but without this axiom, we can do quite well developing (the more general) group theory, and we can even take its negation as an axiom for the study of non-commutative groups.

Thus, an axiom is an elementary basis for a formal logic system that together with the rules of inference define a deductive system.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

That sounds like word salad. Explain what "limit momentum" is and show me where you used that phrase in this thread.

Sure, it is word salad. I don't know how to account for that other nucleon, how massive it is, how massive the proton is, what the equivalency is between mass, charge, and energy; how any conservation or interconversion should be.

On 5/14/2022 at 12:34 PM, NTuft said:

... set that limit velocity as equal to the mass of the proton.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Just posting this is insufficient. You need to make the connection between what you post and what you are responding to.

As I mentioned with the Suchard paper, it is possible that potential energy can be stored in an accelerating frame. The connection is that what is taken as universal gravitational attraction, dependent on both mass and distance, could be accounted for by a potential (although I'd call it kinetic) energy. That there could be long-distance weak attraction, and singularity type situations accounted for by charges, instead of mass at close distance overpowering other forces? Word salad.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

You are rapidly using up any goodwill that this is a good faith discussion, and that this isn't just spamming nonsense.

I will suppose you've read the whole discussion. If you think that the question of how to define certain square root mathematical objects does not have implications following along the lines I've gone to discuss here, please continue to probe. I think there is sense, and I've noted your advice.
What of the issue of the magnetic monopole and dipole? I do not see any need for magnetic point charges here. All I want is induced magnetic field lines to try and describe gravity. Do you think the magnetic monopole is a sure bet, as most others seem to think?

Foundations of the Quaternion Quantum Mechanics

Quote

Quaternion quantum mechanics today. The first suggestion of quaternion quantum mechanics appears in a footnote of Birkhoff and J. von Neumann 1936 paper [13]. They suggest, in particular, that the physically significant statements in quantum mechanics actually constitute a sort of projective geometry, while the physically significant statements concerning a given system in classical dynamics constitute the Boolean algebra. This indicates that quantum mechanics has greater logical consistency than classical mechanics; a conclusion validated by the impossibility in general of measuring different quantities independently.

Yang has pointed out [14] that it is always possible to represent the pure states of a system of “general quantum mechanics” by rays in a vector space in a one-to-one manner, and for this, it is necessary and sufficient to employ suitable orthogonal vector subspaces of some Hilbert spaces, H, over the following fields of numbers:
 the real numbers

 the complex numbers

 the quaternions

 This result suggests that it is not necessary to go beyond the three possibilities R, C and Q for the representation of general quantum mechanics (the Hurwitz Theorem states that the real numbers R, complexes C, quaternions Q and octonions O are the only normed division algebras over the real numbers). A quantum mechanics coefficients assuming values that are quaternionic was proposed by Finkelstein et al. [15]. It was shown that a quaternion calculus exists that they called general quantum mechanics (as distinguished from complex quantum mechanics) and it is always possible to represent pure states of a system of general quantum mechanics by rays in a vector space over the quaternions, but not so over the real and complex numbers. These authors use Stone’s theorem to explain the imaginary number “i” in the Schrödinger equation however, the central problem of finding feasible dynamics for quaternionic quantum theory has remained unsolved. More recently, the global effects in quaternionic quantum field theory [16] were applied to analyze the experimental status of quaternionic quantum mechanics [17].
The algebra of complex numbers, quaternions and octonions play also an important role in the physical interpretation of the standard model for electroweak interactions and quantum chromodynamics [18]. It is known that certain nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equations, in one or more space dimensions, possess space-localized solutions ψ = ψ(t, x), e.g., solitons in the one-dimensional case. Bodurov has shown that the same result is valid for a large class of complex nonlinear wave equations and NLS equations [19,20]. Białynicki-Birula and Mycielski have found that NLS equation admits closed-form space localized solutions (gaussons) [21]. They have shown also that “ . . . in every electromagnetic field, sufficiently small gaussons move like classical particles”. Weng adopted the complex quaternion and octonion to formulate the field equations for electromagnetic and gravitational fields. The results reveal that the quaternion space is appropriate to describe the gravitational features [22]. Consistent with QQM are also the Three Wave Hypothesis by Horodecki that is based on de Broglie’s particle-wave duality and the assumption of covariant æther [23,24]. Recently Gantner demonstrated the equivalence of complex and quaternionic quantum mechanics [25].
The Klein–Gordon and Schrödinger equations are important tools for describing quantum mechanics, respectively relativistic and non-relativistic. Their stationary versions allow us to find the values of quantized energy as the eigenvalues of self-adjoint operators on the Hilbert spaces. Adler studied downgraded quaternion-imaginary Lagrangian and showed that a quaternionic quantum field theory can be formulated when the numbers of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom are equal [26]. More recently he studied the quaternionic projective group representations and so-called trace dynamics in Hilbert spaces [27,28]. His idea of the trace dynamics relies on using a variational principle based on a Lagrangian constructed as a trace of noncommuting operator variables, making systematic use of cyclic permutation under the trace operation. In our paper we construct a Lagrangian with the use of the Cauchy–Riemann operator, acting on quaternionic valued functions. Nottale’s contribution was the derivation of the physical and mathematical tools of quantum mechanics by using the bi-quaternion concept. His approach proposes an answer to the question of the origin of complex and bi-quaternionic numbers, and more generally of Clifford algebra in quantum mechanics [29]. Recently, a quaternionic commutator bracket was proposed by Arbab et al. [30].

"

On 6/23/2022 at 1:21 PM, MigL said:

Not sure what you are after with this ?
I know it is impossible to have a global Cauchy surface to describe all of space-time, but local surfaces are allowed.
A Cauchy surface is a submanifold of the Lorentzian manifold defined by GR, and is usually interpreted as a time-slice of the 4Dimensional manifold, and is 'local' because it is defined by causal boundries and structures.

 

I don't know what any of this means, and unless you explain it better, it reads as word salad.
In GR, the geometry is the field.
Each point of he field has associated infnformaion describing the deviation from flat, at that point. These deviations define the local 'curvaure', and geodesics, we call gravity.
So, no, in GR graviy is not a force.

Foundations of the Quaternion Quantum Mechanics https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7766457/

Quote

We show that quaternion quantum mechanics has well-founded mathematical roots and can be derived from the model of the elastic continuum by French mathematician Augustin Cauchy, i.e., it can be regarded as representing the physical reality of elastic continuum. Starting from the Cauchy theory (classical balance equations for isotropic Cauchy-elastic material) and using the Hamilton quaternion algebra, we present a rigorous derivation of the quaternion form of the non- and relativistic wave equations. The family of the wave equations and the Poisson equation are a straightforward consequence of 

the quaternion representation of the Cauchy model of the elastic continuum. This is the most general kind of quantum mechanics possessing the same kind of calculus of assertions as conventional quantum mechanics. The problem of the Schrödinger equation, where imaginary ‘i’ should emerge, is solved. This interpretation is a serious attempt to describe the ontology of quantum mechanics, and demonstrates that, besides Bohmian mechanics, the complete ontological interpretations of quantum theory exists. The model can be generalized and falsified. To ensure this theory to be true, we specified problems, allowing exposing its falsity.

Keywords: relativistic quaternion quantum mechanics, Cauchy-elastic solid, Schrödinger and Poisson equations, quaternions, Klein–Gordon equation

2 hours ago, NTuft said:

Mass charge equivalence, e.g. equating limit momentum to charge of proton, or other nucleon.

Not that I actually know that.

Here is an attached paper as .pdf:

Surprises with Logarithm Potential by Debnarayan Jana Dept. of Physics, University College of Science and Technology 92 A P C Road, Kolkata -700 009 W.B. E-mail:djphy@caluniv.ac.in

12 pages on logarithmic potential energy, independent of mass

Surprises with Logarithm Potential by Debnarayan Jana Dept. of Physics, University College of Science and Technology 92 A P C Road, Kolkata -700 009 W.B. E-mail djphy@caluniv.ac.in.pdf

11 hours ago, swansont said:

I just did a search, and “neutral” only appeared in this post. So how could you have explained it before?

Mass charge equivalence, e.g. equating limit momentum to charge of proton, or other nucleon.

15 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes the title refers to number theory and 'the field'.

Both have very specific definitions and places in Mathematics (they are mathematical terms).

Some of their properties are borrowed for (extensive) use in Physics and other sciences, but, and I have already pointed this out,

The type of field you are referring to is not a field is the mathematical (algebraic) sense of the word.

The Physics definition is not compatible with the formal algebraic definition.

An algebraic field of quadratic irrationals could map to a unit space of the reals via Minkowski's ?(x) function or an alteration thereof? The field in physics as I best understand it wants electric and magnetic lines and geodesics for motions described as geometric spatial translations of algebraic equations, or types of algebraic function equations?

9 hours ago, joigus said:

Just curious: How do you coarse-grain time? What are the smaller grains to coarse over?

You can coarse-grain a fractal landscape, but what are the bumps and dimples to average over in the case of time?

And, as @studiot said, what does it all have to do with number theory? I still don't see it.

Path-over-steps: summations to account for all indeterminate paths leading to the point where the measurement is found to be made. I haven't finished reading it.

On 6/25/2022 at 11:47 AM, Ni Mimi. said:

Hi all.

In response to Merril's question, we were to look at the passage of time as a straight line which in essence espouses a break-down process, analogically, can't curved space-time be describing a differential process?

I read @J.Merrill's "question" to be a declarative statement, and something about the syntax and formulation were so offensive to my thinking I don't think I even registered a question. I may re-read the original question. The "graph", with pictures, of time vs. mass or whatever it was was there, too.

And apparently the presentation of this was a school project. As to your proposition, I'm uncertain about the arrow of time or what breakdown process you're describing. I do think we are able to describe spacetime mathematically and are doing the mathematical operation you mention to interpret measurements of spacetime.

Thanks to all for the discussion here.

On 6/23/2022 at 4:48 AM, swansont said:

"There could be evidence" is not "there is evidence"

Let's discuss credibility of sources for a moment:

The paper is based on someone's thesis from 1984 - not on peer-reviewed articles or experiment that's been done. That should be a red flag.

Citing ArXiv links and preprints, rather than journal articles when the ArXiv/preprint is from several years preceding suggests the papers never made it through peer review. That's a red flag.

Youtube videos as a citation is yet another red flag.

All of that together screams that this is not a serious proposal - it's built on a rather shaky foundation, much of which has not entered mainstream science.

 

Meanwhile, gravity and magnetism have distinct differences. Newtonian gravity (i.e. what GR reduces to when you don't have really strong gravity) not having a repulsive component, and monopoles vs dipoles as the default configuration are two of the main points of difference.

Comments: issues with source credibility of Suchard paper, gravity v. magnetism wrt force directions, monopole v. dipole.

On 6/23/2022 at 3:20 PM, swansont said:

What is this supposed to mean?

You can’t just link to material because it has a few buzzwords that show up in a search.

Peer reviewed journal that appears to report conference papers, which are generally not peer reviewed.

“conference organisers act as editors managing the peer review process”

https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/questions/iop-conference-series-publication-procedure/

So the peer review is only as rigorous as the conference wants it to be, and if it’s not backed up by experimental confirmation, you can’t present it as valid support for anything.

From Appendix B:

Quote

"Our modest test will be to divide the Higgs energy by 2 and then either by 192.005150...,or by 62.6395393... . That is by Beta = 384.010301743200560 or by Alpha =125.279078679349110. For example: 125 GeV / 125.279078679349110 ~= 0.9977 GeV which should be a Baryonic energy state. Another energy is 125 GeV / 384.01030174320056 ~= 325.5 MeV This energy is the model dependent vacuum constituent Quark energy according to Zhao Zhanget. al."

The paper is pointing at a need for experimentation, and it isn't a few buzzwords: it is a geometric derivation of the geodesics we take as the gravity field, and it is positing that a further development of the Standard Model may be elementary particles splitting into positive and negative halves generating self-interactions. These are things that I was positing and so why I posted the paper.

The paper was produced with some specific interests tied to industry, and so other than credibility you did not have anything to address to it other than magnetic monopoles vs. magnetic dipoles? I am not positing anything about magnetic monopoles, but yes of course more explanation on magnetism is obviously warranted. 

On 6/24/2022 at 3:36 AM, swansont said:

Science is more than credible math. That's one necessary condition. But you have to compare the theory with experiment.

IOW, y = x^2 is credible math. But if the phenomenon you are modeling doesn't follow a quadratic, the theory is incorrect. If these chronons (on which the paper is based) don't exist or behave as advertised, then the paper is built on a poor foundation.

The paper is based on a thesis from almost 30 years ago. Not on a peer-reviewed paper that was published based on the idea. No other references. One is compelled to ask why that is.

 

 

Just because there are key words in common with another paper does not mean they are related in any meaningful way.

Science is also more than "take this idea and run with it" and also more than "post a whole bunch of references without making the connection to the question before us" (reminiscent of the Gish gallop)

It's up to YOU to explain why you think a monopole and a dipole behave the same way, when clearly they don't. And why an only attractive force is the same as one that is both attractive and repulsive.

Chronons are not Vaknin's theory of 30 years ago. I don't think the paper is really based on Vaknin's theory. They are quantizing time, and I haven't finished the Royal Society paper and I shouldn't have posted it as a distraction. But, the author there is developing a Hamiltonian while treating time through coarse graining. Off on a tangent, of course.

On 6/25/2022 at 4:24 AM, swansont said:

And how is that related to your claim that gravity and magnetism are “synonymous”?

Your posts contain far too many tangents. They need to be much more concise, coherent and relevant.

I did explain I thought that, "why an only attractive force is the same as one that is both attractive and repulsive", was covered by the unequal actions of positive charges acting on neutral charges and negative charges acting on neutral charges as well as on each other was the reason for apparent normal gravity observations of small masses at a distance. And how massive charges could be accounted for as storage in a moving field.  

On 6/27/2022 at 1:48 AM, swansont said:

Neither of these address my comment. Just another distraction.

I sense the pressing issue of the monopole, but I'm not there yet. I think I repeatedly addressed your issue with source credibility on the Suchard paper. All I intended to address wrt magnetism was field lines and then equating those with the current description of long-distance gravitational action.

On 6/25/2022 at 6:13 AM, studiot said:

Especially relevant.  +1

I stopped bothering with this thread since it left the title subject of number theory far behind.

I have gathered that you are a constructivist in mathematics?

For number theory I thought we'd established that:

set of numbers from infinity (we take it that prime numbers exist; excuse platonism)

numbers can be multiplied by themselves

4x multiplication gives number squared

adding squared numbers can define integers

The number theory is touching on imaginary numbers, looking to make them a set. This then results in addressing other things. The name of the thread has two parts.

Fiber or other artifact. Microfilaria in urine at magnifcations, but it doesn't have a macro helminth head afaik like 100x10. Stain it?

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

What on earth does this have to do with number theory ?

To use a number theory incorporating a set of values for i that can assign spatial dimension or vector quantities to z = a + bi, 3 part quaternion: a + bi + cj + dk, 7 part octonion, 15-16 part sedenion. Perhaps the real number component could now be related to time instead?
To get from number theory to uft.

On 6/23/2022 at 4:48 AM, swansont said:

Let's discuss credibility of sources for a moment:

The paper is based on someone's thesis from 1984 - not on peer-reviewed articles or experiment that's been done. That should be a red flag.

Citing ArXiv links and preprints, rather than journal articles when the ArXiv/preprint is from several years preceding suggests the papers never made it through peer review. That's a red flag.

Youtube videos as a citation is yet another red flag.

All of that together screams that this is not a serious proposal - it's built on a rather shaky foundation, much of which has not entered mainstream science.

 

From what I understand the paper is a formal derivation of a tensor that would match the force of gravity as a weak potential energy stored in a constantly accelerating frame. It treats time differently than in the spacetime conjunction of G.R. This can be an alternate explanation of general relativity, as Einstein formulated the idea of the gravity field as being indistinguishable to an observer under a uniform acceleration. There is an argument developed that electric and magnetic fields and forces arising from charge seperation creates self-interactions that can explain the four fundamentals forces, and I conjecture that the magnetic field lines are a background curvature along lines of net gravitational potential energy (but also potentially massively repulsive) that is equatable to the gravity field of general relativity as currently formulated.

On 6/23/2022 at 3:20 PM, swansont said:

So the peer review is only as rigorous as the conference wants it to be, and if it’s not backed up by experimental confirmation, you can’t present it as valid support for anything.

From the prior cited article on Octonions from QuantaMagazine:

Quote

In the Standard Model, elementary particles are manifestations of three “symmetry groups” — essentially, ways of interchanging subsets of the particles that leave the equations unchanged. These three symmetry groups, SU(3), SU(2) and U(1), correspond to the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces, respectively, and they “act” on six types of quarks, two types of leptons, plus their anti-particles, with each type of particle coming in three copies, or “generations,” that are identical except for their masses. (The fourth fundamental force, gravity, is described separately, and incompatibly, by Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which casts it as curves in the geometry of space-time.)

Sets of particles manifest the symmetries of the Standard Model in the same way that four corners of a square must exist in order to realize a symmetry of 90-degree rotations. The question is, why this symmetry group — SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)? And why this particular particle representation, with the observed particles’ funny assortment of charges, curious handedness and three-generation redundancy? The conventional attitude toward such questions has been to treat the Standard Model as a broken piece of some more complete theoretical structure. But a competing tendency is to try to use the octonions and “get the weirdness from the laws of logic somehow,” Baez said.

From the introduction to the paper by Suchard:

On 6/22/2022 at 5:05 PM, NTuft said:

In De Sitter / Anti De Sitter space-time and in other geometries, reference submanifolds from which proper time is measured along integral curves, are described as events. We introduce here a foliation with the help of a scalar field. The scalar field need not be unique but from the gradient of the scalar field, an intrinsic Reeb vector of the foliations perpendicular to the gradient vector is calculated. The Reeb vector describes the acceleration of a physical particle that moves along the integral curves that are formed by the gradient of the scalar field. The Reeb vector appears as a component of an anti-symmetric matrix which is a part of a rank2, 2-Form. The 2-form is extended into a non-degenerate 4-form and into rank-4 matrix of a 2- form, which when multiplied by a velocity of a particle, becomes the acceleration of the particle. The matrix has one U(1) degree of freedom and an additional SU(2) degrees of freedom in two vectors that span the plane perpendicular to the gradient of the scalar field and to the Reeb vector. In total, there are U(1) x SU(2) degrees of freedom. SU(3) degrees of freedom arise from three dimensional foliations but require an additional symmetry to exist in order to have a valid covariant meaning.

On 6/21/2022 at 11:20 PM, Jasper10 said:

Hey they are just my opinions.That is why I posted them on the philosophy forum.

Science has run out of ideas in my opinion.

When presently accepted science can definitively explain to me why the 4 magnetic force interactions of NN….NS….SN…..SS are not the same, then I will take it seriously.

It amazes me that something as simple as science not being able to answer this fundamental question puts into question presently accepted scientific theories.

 

So what presently accepted science is claiming then is that push is the same as pull and pull is the same as push.They are identical.

Ummm..sorry I don’t  agree with that.

¹

²

³

⁴

7 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

No. Minkowski spacetime is (3+1)D, and it is perfectly flat.

As a graph.

Any masses, extension, self re-inforcing electromagnetics?

@swansont,

I drink 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Science is also more than "take this idea and run with it" and also more than "post a whole bunch of references without making the connection to the question before us" (reminiscent of the Gish gallop)

I'm not going to look it up.

Comments on the math here? How can we make half roots equal cosh(x) for hyperbolic Pythagorean theorem 

sinh(x)

cosh(x) 

We take

cosh^2 (x) − sinh^2 (x) = 1

and extend the complex plane to 4 quadrants by negative real access and "negative imaginary" 3rd and 4th quadrant access as positive square roots of primes. More legitimate complex plane by tetrapartite roots. 
++ --

+- -+

1 drop SSKI sterilizes 1ltr. water in 3 minutes.

Up to 40 drops q.i.d. for fungal infections in 16-24 oz. water. 6 mo. max take ascorbate or whole C to counter hypermetabolic sx.

On 6/23/2022 at 8:12 PM, Markus Hanke said:

That’s not true - a Euclidean spacetime would have the same sign for the space and time parts of the metric; for Minkowski spacetime these are opposite. In Euclidean spacetime there wouldn’t be any relativistic effects, since the speed of light can’t be invariant. You need the hyperbolic geometry of Minkowski for that.

Au contraire, what is juxtaposed is an imaginary component for the time-dimension, which throws that sign before the multiplication (which should be quantized), thus making it opposite sign from the spatial dimensions. Minkowski space is 1-D: taken as a Pseudo-Euclidian (slightly bent) map of spacetime, no? It is not quite yet hyperbolic, but more like elliptic -- you're not presuming it's a flat rectangle, are you??

Elliptic I'd call positive cosmological constant, equatable to Gaussian curvature >0. Towards spherical or de Sitter at 1. Reflecting through the origin to generate a hyperbolic -1 Gaussian curvature with an elliptic asymptote we have hyperbolic geometry, a la Lobachevsky-Bolyai.

21 hours ago, studiot said:

To the best of my knowledge Minkowski didn't write any books, only papers and died prematurely.

Dieing early, sounds like W.K. Clifford and N.H. Abel, etc. We on Fire¹.

¹Pascal

20 hours ago, Sensei said:

especially solar wind

3,4,5 ray spallation. Tear the roof off this mo**erf**ker².

²Banks

Beware polyamine mRNA structural component mis-labeled as part of "Lipid Nano-Particle" vaccine.

Polyamine: N\/\N : N/\/N/\/N : N/\/N\/\/N 

Carbon - Nitrogen chains that can carry from +2 to +4 charge

Ubiquitious charge carrier intracellularly for nuclear material and helical structure needed for reading of mRNA for translation to Spike protein.

Spike protein a weak analogue of PERFORIN : human short-cut to pore forming component of the compliment cascade's pore former C₅-C₉ or whatever the fuck: put a hole in it and lyse it for the macrophage.

Lysing polyamine analgoues mis-labeled as LNP should be easy: destroy amide-acyl or whatever you call a fatty acid bond that they get away with calling it a lipid nano-particle when it's bound to an polyamide structural component: spermine, spermidine, whatever the fuck punch a charge hole in it and degrade that so you stop making Spike protein.

Borax 

Potassium Iodide

Check mixture for explosion beforehand.

Borax: possible oxidant

SSKI: possible oxidant

Mixture should be ... effective against fungus. Mix borax into warm/hot water, add SSKI. 
SSKI: 1g Potassium Iodide + 1 mL distilled water 
 +  = 1g/dry wt. + 1g/mL = 100g + 100mL : salt + solvent = saturated solution

Borax ... Sodium Borate Heptahydride. Anti-Fungal. 4tsp. + 4tsp. boiling water for mirror injection treatment, assuming you can succuss (shake) meter after injection.

Cold read: Psyilocybin.

Amantia Muscaria.

Heavy Compound Lifts: see Rippetoe.

¹Vagal Nerve Breathing (like your cat):
6 second inhale while you apply Mulabandha root-lock: lower abs, anus, and kegel

3 second Breath hold

9 second Breath exhale while constricting the throat as two cylinders - say HA! - vibrating through constriction to stimulate Vagus.
3 second Breath hold

Repeat 20x. Repeat 2x.

"Pipe Breathing"

¹--Mme Whoop Yo' Ass on Research^TM

^--GAotU

17 hours ago, swansont said:

But if the phenomenon you are modeling doesn't follow a quadratic

What I am proposing is electric field lines that do not form a barrier of an asymptote between charges, but rather extend to infinity as they pass into another dimension. Upon extension of 1-D mass charge to 2-D we have curvature to space having moved into time. The paper from the Royal Society publication I cited has "coarse granulation" of time co-ordinate to account for Time Reversal symmetry violation in making the quantum Hamiltonian. 

From the prior paper on geometrization accounting for a tensor of stress-energy-momentum given acceleration, we are equating general relativity as it is formulated as either a pervasive gravity field upon inertial masses = gravitational masses to a uniformly accelerated frame, from which it is indistinguishable. The paper's author produces the tensor that would emerge from charge seperation, accounting possibly for weak, stong, and electro -+ "gravitic|magnetic" -- 4 charge!~seperation force phenomena -- in the context of a constant positive cosmological constant (de Sitter space, which is equatable or equally explainable in Anti-de Sitter space of constant negative curvature for the cosmological constant). 

The Royal Society paper demonstrates a problem with the quantum treatment of time. The chronon paper treats time as theoretical quantiziation issue wherein frame of measurement when made and frame of measurement being assumed cannot necessarily be correlated, as far as I get it, and so we must quantize time to have differential physics equations for description given conditions; the explanation is a uniformly accelerated universe with self-interactions from charge seperation accounting for gravitic forces: both a stronger gravitic force and a weaker anti-gravitic force if I understand it (net gravity on geodesic lines of least energetic falling). The Royal Society paper proposes a different mechanism for Hamiltonian (time evolution Energy description) formulation due to violation or accord with Time reversal symmetry (I think it is saying that the normal quantum interpretation implies time evolution, an Arrow of Time, but what they find necessitates a Symmetric Arrow of Time). 

Please read the Chronon paper through, and account for what the geometer is deriving as an equivalency to the stress-energy-tensor, and how this could have implications for an alternate basis for G.R..

17 hours ago, swansont said:

It's up to YOU to explain why you think a monopole and a dipole behave the same way, when clearly they don't. And why an only attractive force is the same as one that is both attractive and repulsive.

Examine the electric field lines collapsing. Instead, let them run off to a point off the graph (or into an asymptote on a 2-D hyperbolic map); electric charge seperation and resulting 3-D spin and 4-D momentum generation induces self-referential forces of inductance, and magnetic field inductance, which magnetic field lines are malleable as lines of force, as demonstrated in the plasma furnace. See Alfven waves.