Survey for sci.physics.relativity: infinities and infinitesimals in models of physics

[Ross A. Finlayson]

We know of values in physics that besides the
running constants of physics (that work up to
finite bounds 1/oo and 1/0) there yet remain
vanishing or unbounded quantities (eg, Einstein's
cosmological constant and Planck's little c as vanishing/
infinitesimal and Planck's big C as unbounded/infinite).

There is normalization which is in a sense re-un-de-
normalization (normalization is an operation following
de-normalization), rather, unintuitively in the nomenclature.

So I'm wondering what physicists here would make note
and use of a system that provides a mathematical foundation
for "real" or "concrete" (say, for scalar and gauge) infinitesimals
and infinities as values in our formula. This is where, without
changing the formula, augmenting the underlying mathematical
model would automatically equip these equations with features
in effect as would follow, for example, "discretization" of what
is otherwise usually a model of the vector fields that are the
mathematical, physical objects.

I wonder this as I've found some features in effect of discretization
that give a factor of two for a line configuration or 3/4/5 for a planar
configuration, and would be looking for experiments and data as
would correlate more neatly with having these factors to so cancel
otherwise from their cluttered notation.

This is my research direction: for novel mathematical features to
so equip extant physical models, for the resulting features in effect
in mathematical physics to highlight hypothetical corrections in
the interpretation of configuration of experiment.

So, and I'll thank you, it would be of interest that interested
physicists here might note such examples as may otherwise
be explained these days, of configurations demanding integer
factors of what is otherwise about the continuous and discrete, or the
measurement/observer effect(s) as about "numbering" for
"counting".

Also I'd be interested in direct or apocryphal results as of the
path integral of the travel of particles, with regards to usual
terms in the fitting models seeing various integer factors
introduced in various configurations and energies of
experiment.

There are also a variety of central and fundamental simple
features of statistics in probability that may be so founded.

Good day, Ross Finlayson, B.S. Mathematics, USA

[HGW]

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:22:32 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
<ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Also I'd be interested in direct or apocryphal results as of the
>path integral of the travel of particles, with regards to usual
>terms in the fitting models seeing various integer factors
>introduced in various configurations and energies of
>experiment.
>
>There are also a variety of central and fundamental simple
>features of statistics in probability that may be so founded.

Physics needs less mathematics not more. It is people who talk your kind of
unintelligle gibberish that have turned kids right off the subject.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Maybe they should start with a more simple journal
http://thebulletin.org/ .

You should see that this cuts pages out of the
mathematics, and whole chapters out of the
physics.

The builds a direct emplacement for measure
theory that skips over transfinite ordinals,
then automatically equips the physics with
the mathematics, of the primary effective
counting for numbering that helps explain
the measurement / observer effect, as of
numerical principles.

"See Spot count."

[Ross A. Finlayson]

There's much to be understood about effective
infinities and infinities in mathematical
physics, more than we have today in physics,
and more than we have today in mathematics.

In part, this requires infinity and infinitesimals
in mathematics for real infinities and
infinitesimals for mathematical physics.