60 views

Skip to first unread message

Nov 4, 2015, 12:40:03β―PM11/4/15

to

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

Nov 5, 2015, 12:50:06β―PM11/5/15

to

Op woensdag 4 november 2015 18:40:03 UTC+1 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:

Dear Ross,

May be you can find some interesting views in the paper "On the Origins of Physical Fields",http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0007 ,which goes deep into the foundations of how reality might use number systems and differential calculus.

May be you can find some interesting views in the paper "On the Origins of Physical Fields",http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0007 ,which goes deep into the foundations of how reality might use number systems and differential calculus.

Nov 6, 2015, 2:40:02β―AM11/6/15

to

Quotes follow from your paper.

Looking to follow "The type of the point- like object

corresponds to the type of the controlling mechanism. "

Most of this development is initially familiar as Cartesian

and Cartanian (Cartanian as super-Cartesian).

"The difference originates from the artifacts that cause the

discontinuities of the fields. " ... "Since the elementary point-

like objects reside inside their individual symmetry center, the

embedding continuum will also be affected by what happens to

the symmetry centers."

These seem significant touchstones of the development.

"Apart from the way that they are affected by point-like artifacts

that disrupt the continuity of the field, both fields obey, under not

too violent conditions and over not too large ranges, the same

differential calculus. However, especially field π is known to show

wave behavior that cannot properly be described by quaternionic

differential calculus. For that reason we will also investigate what

a change of parameter space brings for the defining functions of

the basic fields π and β ."

Section 10 "Regeneration and detection" seems particularly relevant

to effects of discretization, eg as of measurement/observer effects

and as so correlating otherwise with systematic effect.

"A virtual map images the completely regeneration set {πππ₯} onto

parameter space ββͺ. This involves the reordering from the stochastic

generation order to the ordering of this new parameter space. This first

map turns the location swarm into the eigenspace of a virtual operator π·.

A continuous location density distribution π(π) describes the virtual map

of the swarm into parameter space ββͺ. Actually each element of the

original swarm is embedded into the deformable embedding continuum

β where that element is blurred with the Greenβs function of this embedding

continuum. This indirectly converts the operator β΄, which describes the

regeneration in the symmetry center πΎπ₯ into a differently ordered operator

π that resides in the Gelfand triple β. The defining function π(π) of operator

π describes the triggers in the non- homogeneous quaternionic second order

partial differential equation, which describes the embedding behavior of β. "

Section 11 "Photons" describes some features of _configuration of experiment_,

vis-a-vis usual running constants as of _energy of experiment_.

"In his paper βOn the Origin of Inertiaβ, Denis Sciama used the idea of Mach in

order to construct the rather flat field that results from uniformly distributed

charges [10]. He then uses the constructed field in order to generate the vector

potential, which is experienced by the uniformly moving observer. Here we use

the embedding field as the rather flat background field. "

>From S.13 "Conclusion": "This indicates that elementary particles inherit these

properties from the space in which they reside" in "distinguish[ing] between

Cartesian ordering and spherical ordering [and] reveal[ing] that these ordered

versions of the number systems exist in several distinct symmetry flavors."

Thank you, thank you very much, I think that's relevant and have some foundational

support from mathematics to directly declare some of these features as then may be

useful for you.

You might indicate some examples of where your design is better than others, or

where it is particular in the modelling of otherwise noisy data.

Apr 5, 2016, 1:20:02β―PM4/5/16

to

Op woensdag 4 november 2015 18:40:03 UTC+1 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:

I mostly write these papers in order to order my ideas and in order to support discussions.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu