NTuft

"I think I can... say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics." Save perhaps for other Quantum Mechanics. Thanks for this discussion. "Formula for black hole entropy How to express the black hole entropy in a concrete formula? It is clear at the outset that black hole entropy should only depend on the observable properties of the black hole: mass, electric charge and angular momentum." I posit that trying to bring into the same occupying space like* charges implies an entropic increase because of the inordinate potential force that they be ejected far away and into any other possible degree of freedom but I do not understand entropy.

Uh Uh Wondering what MD stands for. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you have this person's ear, communicate that the observed correlation of water causing an allergic response is not sufficient to conclude causation or make a diagnosis. It is more likely that the inflammation/allergy is caused by histamine from mast cells, that she's likely primed to histamine release from minor irritations, and that this is an inflammatory condition so yes a lot of things are going o be painful. This is like dermatographia, which again I think is a sign of high tissue histamine. There is no good reason to avoid water, drinking or bathing, dehydration makes just about everything worse. If you really want to help her, source Betaine(TriMethylGlycine) from purebulk.com, or find Source Naturals healthfood store version (750mg chalky pills) or something similar somewhere and grind them up. Or source MethylTetraHydroFolate or MethylCobalamin -- these are 3 methyl donors. I think it's safe to conclude she's undermethylated as in a histadeliac. If you have this person's ear try to disabuse her of this poorly founded notion of aquagenic urticaria.

Presuming there is this histamine, urticaria, reaction she claims, I'd bet on histadelia, a baseline high tissue histamine condition largely unrecognized. The terminal acceptor of electrons in the electron transport chain is oxygen. In effect, two hydrogen atoms are tacked on to an oxygen, so you make metabolic water. That and the other context of it being the main solvent in the body would seem to make this scenario unlikely. I for one would badger her youtube or wherever this is from that she needs methyl donors or benadryl to knock down that urticaria.

@bangstrom, I was mistaken, I'd meant to mention, Extracting the Universe from the Wave Function. In this presentation, S. Carroll makes no bones about making many choices along 'branch points' in developing his physics with the understanding that he may be wrong, but to make the work-up he is going to make certain decisions. What is pertinent here to my recall is that he starts the work-up by discussion of and looking at decomposing Hilbert space. From this it follows that small areas of Hilbert spaces are aggregated to a "bulk" space, and as depicted here at this time-point in the video (you'll have to play the video as the display slide is not the one I'm talking about): he's written out, "in QFT, empty space is a busy place. Modes in a nearby regions are highly entangled, and the closer they are to each other, the more entangled they get. Turn this around! Define "nearby" as "highly entangled." So, a big part of this presentation's work-up is on getting a handle on Hilbert space, using a certain interpretation, and then examining how that plays into local vs. non-local and entanglement. I'd highly recommend the presentation for viewing. It is not much on the MWI part you seem to find objectionable with regards to multi-dimensional dopplegangers, as I recall, but I don't have all the information properly on file.

Oi, good on you. I'll re-visit it and try to see where I was mistaken. Thanks for the challenge!

Of course I am in favor of this surly business. I do not think is so agreeable as to disappear by the conventional squaring of the modulus to obtain Born's probabilistic interpretation. My understanding of a second-hand interpretation is that Schrödinger did not like this either, because it creates a wave with a variable radial component or the interpretation being that squaring has removed the azimuthal part which should be there and describing a more coherent or classical wave. The sun's quantum field, because it is having photons as force carriers? It sounds like the magnetosphere between the two and heliosphere beyond that. I don't uderstand the unbounded vs. bounded energy, perhaps we are dealing in quanta that in large aggregates seems unbounded. So you're talking about radiant energy from the sun, but I do not think it is so simple in this two-body problem that the earth is catching an incident bit of the radiant energy by being in the... vector's path. Since it is an electrically charged and magnetized body there are induced field lines over which charged particles move. Again I do not think a spinning body spins the field... I fear we've lost the thread or at least I have. So, @hoola, what would be the utility here? What information is it that we need to desribe systems with by building structures with greater bandwitdth? i want to quibble with you on this point on behalf of Reg Cahill, having re-done the interferometer experiments as well as results on anisotropy of light through fiber optic cable. If we don't have constant speed of light I would undercut SR by extension and question whether we're discussing faster or slower or variable speed but other than that I am unarmed for this fight.

If the c.o.b. I made is valid Wolfram Alpha does not agree with answer. Please demonstrate in maths or words you are boss over Wolfram Alpha, I believe it. Still potential problem with y/x term's appearance but I do not conclude you are wrong. I want to boss Wolfram Alpha around, but I need @Sensei or grasshopper to write computer code for it. Thanks

Is that entanglement, or is it non-locality? I read the thread to come to that non-locality implies faster than light information exchange. My question is, if one of two entangled electrons undergoes an interaction/evolution to flip , is this change conducted to the other electron to induce a change in ,or , supraluminally? Or is the "strict" entanglement broken, and now needing consideration as part of the density matrix alluded to since it is not a closed or unperturbed system and has "evolved"? No telling if it's the suggestion at play, but yes I found it peculiar; isn't that pointing at the entanglement having a non-local character? I need to re-read, I can figure, I did not understand the whole discussion. Having recently viewed Sean (MWI) Carroll's, The Big Picture: From the Big Bang to the Meaning of Life, I know that Nature is "knowing" macroscopic objects easily, coherently, but I do not know if Nature is "knowing" quantum objects implicitly, rather, perhaps we have to make the measurements of quantum Nature to determine these uknown knowns. I do not think I understood indeterminancy, as I conceive of the observables as having a value capable of being described but that it is in superposition until actually observed; that the state(CSCO n,l,ms,ml?) was in existence before observation but was indeterminate only insofar as it was unknown. I can't get the math in here properly, in fact my formatting is now screwed up, too, which I'm sure is symbolic or an omen of some sort, but I want to attach -> the 1-4 propositions to the 1-4 equations, if I can think of a supporting reason. 4.->1.,2.,3.,4. since you have an arbitrary function they all have non-specified conditions 1.->1. equating time derivative to a function acting on spatial derivative -> non-local on the rt. side since you've d/dx spatial dimension to be acted upon by f before equality Are 2.&3. the same equation? Equating time derivative to and ? Equating time derivative to function acting on psi, wouldn't the function be d/dt? 2.,3.->2 finite speed of propagation, time derivative of x,t = speed 4. equating time derivative to spatial derivative plus function acting on psi. function needs to effectuate to - on (x,t). here I'll say no propagtion as I think it's just a time point you're getting with dpsi/dx? Let me know what you have to say, I presume there is some trick or illogicality you've made to make a point after trying the workup. Then afterwards you must come help with my math homework, you crank.

LaTeX from last post: if or or or or or for , the signs coming from exponentiation flip accordingly given that we're using a positive prime: +i, -1, -i, +1 +, -, -, + or so +, +, -, -, when using the established imaginary unit so to -, -, +, +, to equate a positive prime number as imaginary if or or or exponentiation cycle, signing similar to so +, +, -, - : Please critique or make input. Question whether one quaternion could be of form: with , , and and if this is useful. No speculation on octonions as I don't understand quaternions. ***PLEASE IGNORE BELOW I NEED TO FIGURE OUT PROPER SITE LATEX***

This is speaking about proper vectors, also known as quaternions, whose combinations as I understand are what translate into rotations as in you don't really select an axis, and they are not so basic to work with and so simple complex number "vectors" were used later instead.

e lnsin(x)lnsin(x)=cosx divide both sides by lnx to recover y elnsin(x)y=cos(x)/ln(x) (since elnsin(x)=sin(x)) (sin(x)/ln(x))y=cos(x)/ln(x), times both sides by ln(x)/sin(x) and y=cot(x) which is wrong. back to prior try, I think chain rule gets towards it but I don't quite have it and I'll spare any spoilers.

from a search, the present participle of intricate. I do not think it is confusing or intricating, but a semi-professional sophistry exercise, pinned to the board here for entymology study.

Same goes for me here:

change of base, appreciated your initial manipulation once I saw it.

squaredbases-scalingexponents-QuatExtension-idk.pdf I'll try to summarize what comes out to me with LaTeX pasted into here. I think the multiplication of the basis elements is going to change from being unital because I'm going to change the definition of the imaginary unit, so and squares come out here and in the periodic/cyclic exponentiations: if or or so or ; or To try to maintain the aspect of periodicity or cyclic exponentiation from the established basis, {1, i, j, k), I look to cycle the signs for exponentiation here as: +i, -1, -i, +1 +, -, -, + ; or so, +, +, -, - HOWEVER,, so trying to flip the signs accordingly given that we're using a positive prime: so +, +, -, -, when using the established imaginary unit -, -, +, +, since the attempt is now to equate a positive prime number as imaginary but, this is problematic, as it looks like my algebra is falling apart. I'm not too surprised given that I'm trying to equate , which is unconventional; but, there is the aspect that could be showing here. I don't know about how exponentiation of i can hold; this may well break the idea's viability. What do you think about how this would affect geometry? To me, this is now scaling what was formerly a unit circle, and it is now perhaps an exponentiated shape? A scaled hyperbolic complex graph? Please try to think about it and write back your thoughts or ideas. ? What I am equating here is the equivalency of roots I'd mentioned. ++, -- = +-, -+ ? I think this may be related to +i, -i convention, but, again, this is problematic. See attachment for how I try to use this idea negative prime, so +, +, -, -; exponentiation cycle: These are examples for a positive and a negative prime. Please write back and let me know what you think. I think there are problems. I have gone too far -- I will claim +1s and -1s are primes, I will say then put in garbage like and pull a switch-er-oo to have follow it. This must offend you so deeply that you will be compelled to respond, having fashioned a dunce cap and able to explain the Lies in my algebra. Or you must lament my wanton signifying.

If 0 is instead a limit, and our numbers on a line are code for oscillators or vibrational states, is that a Brownian-type motion there? Or are they just a distance from 0? If the former, I'd say their motion is self-contained but I don't know about undefined. Could the something else be spatial expanse? Not sure that's a useful or practical theory. If you don't mind, what was Feynman's complaint about--those ideas, or are you listing his complaints? So then .

Is not its constancy or periodicity, unless perturbed, its defining characteristic? @Sensei I have some maths for that?.. Probably not. Can you explain what that would look like? What is it propagating relative to? An observer outside time?

As I understand it, if each bit of a complex number had a different root prime, operations would be under certain rules. So, as an example, if and , then . I am unsure if within a quaternion the root primes should be the same, but I think there's an irreducibility about it that could explain the way translations (i.e. changes in direction) are described. The identity element 1 may be necessary, so NO, I do not understand what this is all about.

To pick a bone, fwiw, "[Octonions] are noncommutative and nonassociative, but satisfy a weaker form of associativity; namely, they are alternative. They are also power associative." Octonion handwiki.org "In abstract algebra, an alternative algebra is an algebra in which multiplication need not be associative, only alternative. That is, one must have for all x and y in the algebra. Every associative algebra is obviously alternative, but so too are some strictly non-associative algebras such as the octonions." Alternative algebra handwiki.org "An algebra (or more generally a magma) is said to be power-associative if the subalgebra generated by any element is associative. Concretely, this means that if an element is performed an operation * by itself several times, it doesn't matter in which order the operations are carried out, so for instance "

The only aspect I had a grasp of for that was quantum number interdependences, but no, I'm not sure that's applicable or how quaternions and octonions are used in describing physical systems. From rereading the Quanta Magazine piece about Furey ("The Strange Math..."), I was thinking of the quaternions to describe the four quantum numbers (i.e. an electron at my QM level), but that would imply that the math operations (are they just changing directions?) correspond to the physical relations and I think that is incorrect. However, being that quaternions are used in computer graphic modeling of 3-D rotations an ad hoc description system could have each atom or quantum object as a sphere that is then acted upon by other bodies in the system, say for modeling collisions or bond formation. I need to read it, but there is the precedent of bi-quaternions being formulated into physics as previously mentioned and again from the QM article there is the octonion numbers being used for physical systems. Last and not least, if instead of being underpinned by the real numbers, the real foundation is the square roots of primes, the 4 normed division algebras and possibly the continued dyadics sedenions[16] trigintaduonions[32]... are the real foundation and are more easily operable than real numbers, if I understood anything about p-adics. I doubt there even needs to be a real number appended to the front of the quaternion or octonion group, which could remove some of the difficulty of real numbers compared to p-adics. It looks as though the real number is the resultant of an i'2 or additives thereof that have removed the root operation, whereas the i,j,k or e1-e7 have a different prime under operation that creates an incompatibility under multiplication or division and hence the noncommutativity and/or nonassociativity, but, this is just more speculation; I don't know if there is anything here falsifiable or testable for you. More complex physical system descriptors I think you'd know better about, although I mentioned compression... but allow me to move to a presentation on some information on the, "...quirks of the quaternions being noncommutative and octonions even nonassociative, they continue to find uses in fields such as algebra, geometry, topology and number theory" Quaternions and Octonions by James McCusker, supervised by Dr. Thomas Leistner University of Adelaide . When I'm off vacation.. Thanks

Yes well I've not figured how to route the obstructionism about number theory's definition and modern developments you're providing succinctly. How about finite fields have a prime for the modulus? The p-adics systems as equally workable as the reals? How about the derived equation I posited is a function acting on a set of integers? Since ancient times we've gone on to complex analysis, unless you're some math luddite or reductionist in your rigor. Versors as I understand are quaternions describing vectors. Using a prime number system that is restricted under operation I think can describe physical properties, ad hoc, but would that interfere with what are supposed to be translations in the vector field? A prime number based system should be able to assign values to variables as well as the real numbers, and I think quantization, irreducibility, or rules for interactions could be indicated by a prime root.

Here is the complex graph of y=+(1/x): Graphing Q1 (+/+) and Q3 (-/-) Cartesian quadrants. Not graphed Q2(+/-) and Q4 (-/+): y=-(1/x). So this complex plane contains a spherical discontinuity at the origin. If we take all square roots of prime numbers to be variables for complex math I think the discontinuity becomes an ellipsoid and the hyperbolas upon rotation are providing conics. I think extensions of complex numbers start running into problems, and what can be done with quaternions, octonions, or sedenions as setting up iterations with more and more "imaginary" components points towards imaginary numbers having a natural extensibility. I think real variables are appended to the i value to create any multiples needed, but it is better math to have each i with a possible set of values. This may create limitations, or the real number multiplier may still be valid, but something would have to change with the exponentiation rules for equating or simplifying in. Perhaps the i,j,k, or , or are like polynomials, and since if there were different primes assigned to different values there'd be constraint on how the complexity could be reduced, which could be used to assign quantum states to influence other aspects of states as versors: electron spin state influences magnetic spin state, and azimuthal number and principal number are related; so measuring one collapses some possibilities and the measurement has some inherent uncertainty which I think we need to use to account for the discrepancy in the virial theorem for multi-atom systems. From number theory proposition, we will use versors to describe quantum objects. There's the primary quantum number, electron spin quantum number, induced magnetic quantum number, and azimuthal quantum number. I think primary and aziumuthal quantum number are tied together but I need to review. Electron spin state induces magnetic spin state, but magnetic spin state can have complexity that may be playing into uncertainty. An aside on the, uh... dipole... we have a brick of metal. If in this brick of metal the electron spin states align pointing the same way, given a... gradient... to measure against, it is magnetized. The magnetic dipole: it is induced by current at the quantum level from electrons, and is consisted of a condensed brick of iron, and, nowadays, neodymium dysprosium or something else and boron-doped bricks. If it's in motion, there may be Magnetohydrodynamics involved and I don't get it yet. With a complex number describing 1 real time dimension and three complex spatial dimensions we describe the transformations that are possible. Measurement of spin number tells of magnetic quantum number. Measurement of primary quantum number tells of azimuthal number. Compression/torsion as described in higher-dimensional algebraic geometry structures encodes potential energy discrepancy and I think needs to be written into as describing a physical field; I think physics here is of course dependent on number theory directly through complex numbers as objects for creating these spaces. Another aside, I'd say the solutions to Riemann's zeta function and his hypothesis being correct follows from it being literally a geometric series exponentiating (limited) complex numbers in the denominators, and this creates a logarithmically spiraling sinusoid if graphed vertically, and this is tied to Fourier transformation and harmonic oscillators. I think if complex numbers were expanded to include all square roots of primes the trivial zeros at negative even integers and the pole at +1 would change in the zeta function, but I don't know that, and this is perhaps the primary number theory speculation here. The Riemann Zeta function is able to bound prime number distribution with a low error rate because it is creating an algebraic geometric construction to graph them as bounded by a logarithmically distending, vertical sinusoid wave: graphed vertically the +(1/2) real part, "non-trivial" zeros form a vertical pole of point hits just under the bound of the real pole at +1. This is the most accurate point for the "hits" to occur, hence the low error rate. When the sinusoidal wave is traveling in the harmonic oscillator models we are using the complex unit circle trigonometric relations, and so Fourier transformations translate vibrational data by extending the complex unit trigonometric functions but I think they're inaccurate because they need to based on hyperbolic geometry and a wider set of imaginary numbers, which are related by right-angle trigonometry. A concept in number theory can be obtained from taking a specific number set under an operation, conceptualized as being derived from 5-D where, perhaps charge seperation effects are equivalent to motion, as in Kaluza-Klein theory which I just read about. However, I think time is simple and limited to one-dimension, and space is complex and needs the more representative part of complex numbers, like with quaternions there could be 3 complex spatial dimensions and one real time dimension. Then, literally reducing dimensionality of the field through the differentiation operation of to 4-D where the simple time dimension is incorporated, to where making any measurements have an uncertainty to account for the virial deviation for even simple molecules: it should be set at +/- 40% given that the virial theorem cannot account for a simple molecule by a 20% discrepancy (2.0 vs. ~1.61). I conjecture that the complex hyperbolic graph is cutting cones, akin to light cones of radiant light events in spacetime, and that the ellipsoid discountinuity is equatable to an uncertainty in the time-measurement of the system: the displacement out along the x or y-axes (with the x-axis discontinuity narrower and y-axis discontinuity containing the focii of the ellipse once on an exponentiated hyperbolic plane) covers a length which is tied to the uncertainty in the measurement. Also this radiance outwards should be differentiated from emanations, which I envision akin to stored torsion or compression that'd have helical or differently spiraled propagation: and again I think cutting conics from the hyperbolas can be descriptive. Fourier transformations which seem inaccurate by being unable to account for uncertainty in vibrational spectra, but, that is just my opinion. I don't know yet how to do the actual math required to check if this works, or to improve the accuracy in spherical/elliptical/hyperbolic harmonic functions which should function as descriptors of molecular orbitals and perhaps also pair or groups of nucleons. But, the juiced up compression/torsion forces encoded by quaternions or further complexifications of specific algebras can perhaps better describe complex quantum systems by having exponentiations in the quantum numbers. Even the primary quantum number for simple absorbance spectra should be scaled, as normal integers do not describe the change in vibrational rate; groups of square roots of primes could be made to be degenerate energy states if necessary for principal quantum number and can better describe the other 3 quantum numbers and their implications upon measurement: a potential energy shift encoded by switching spin states, thereby magnetic spin states, or azimuthal position as encoded by measurement uncertainty with regards to time as to whether the quantum object was at an actual discrete position or undergoes a quantum tunneling wave probabilistic transition to another allowed state (e.g. +1/2 vs. -1/2 spin state, it's implications on magnetic spin state; or principal number 1-6+ excitation, and it's implication on azimuthal number occupancy) which could be like going back in time, or more like the measurement gives a result from a prior part of the interval, akin to antimatter generation speculations. To account for the -20% incorrect measure in virial (2.0 vs. 1.61) we increase the bound to +/-40% potential energy under a rubric utilizing complex hyperbolic or conic harmonic oscillators, and I think this has implications for the physics of accounting for charge/mass/energy. This speaks to charge potential that is not accounted for properly in the current paradigm. Current accounting alludes to dark matter, dark energy, and also the existence of magnetic monopoles (as yet unseen) as a proof of the quantization of charge. Therefore I think there is insufficient reason to conclude that charge is quantized, but I do not understand that quantization, or what the implications are for total charge density. However, as an explanation, I will try to learn what @joigus is talking about by -1, -2, and -3 decrases in force vis visa gravity and electromagnetism, and to understand the equating of inertial masses with gravitational masses--the equivalence principle! I want to equate mass and charge, and claim that charge is not properly being measured, perhaps as a result of being unable to account for electric field lines actually having no closure and entering singularities like White or blackholes (Q1 and Q3 and Q2 and Q4 for complete quadratics?). So this is also about the issue of monopoles, and if they were supposedly plentiful earlier in the evolution of the universe, or where they've gone, too. I did not equate monopoles to dipoles, I've only just now tried to define a dipole and that probably needs correction. On physics and math here broadly, speaks to some precedent in relevance between physics and number theory, which number theory I think includes complex math as mathematical objects for creating things like Lie algebras, or groups of algebraic expressions that are being used to describe physical fields. If anyone can talk me out of my mathematical misadventure regarding imaginary numbers, I'd appreciate it. Can the rules of exponentiation that are used to simplify be re-written? As even exponents given multiples (+1 or -1) and odds give multiplies times roots (+1+i or -1-i)? Or does this create inoperability of quaternions or octonions as their division, multiplication, addition or subtraction is complexified? Doubt it makes sense. Do please speak to this vis viva number theory: can we take the set of square roots of primes as the object in complex numbers ()? Might this put legitimacy to complex math as based on the harder to define but equally consistent two products of quadratics +/- and -/+ as opposed to +/+ and -/- which we have short-hand for in normal polynomial roots? Wouldn't expanding the definition of complex numbers in this way effect Fourier transformations in particular, which touches the gradients of fields, expansion of harmonic functions, etc.? I know there are problems with the Exponentiation: Failure of power and logarithm identities. I want to re-iterate that the prime number distribution π(X) ∼ X log X ⇐⇒ ψ(X) ∼ X and the Zeta function creating as seen here Prime numbers and the Riemann zeta function, Undergraduate Mathematics Seminar, University of Pittsburgh, November 12, 2019. 36 slide presentation, by Carl Wang-Erickson may be due to the availability of all prime numbers to be objects for complex math, and that this is is about number theory, and if it is to change imaginary numbers that has direct implications for physics regarding harmonic oscillators, Fourier transformations, and other aspects of what I'd formerly described as quantum chemistry. I think this works towards two other Millennium prizes, but, I can't actually do the math. "Plus charge is a relativistic invariant, while mass is not." Ought verify understanding of that, EP, -1,-2,-3, more basic math, EM and mono-/di-pole magnets, actual details of quantum numbers, other speculations. Thanks

You were counting down??? Are you familiar with Miles Mathis' work? Sure, lots of irrelevent material... "Next is my Unified Field Theory, just added to this list. I haven't put it above the correction to the point, since the correction to the point determined a part of my UFT. At the heart of my UFT is the discovery that Newton's gravitational equation is a compound equation, one that already includes the foundational E/M field or charge field. This pulling apart of Newton's equation by showing that G is a scaling constant between gravity and charge has become the new centerpiece of my website in the past few years, supplanting the number one spot held by my relativity papers. Since a NASA astrophysicist read my theory on this, recommended it, and wrote the introduction to my new book, this theory has generated a lot of interest worldwide. In it I also show that the current "messenger photon" cannot be virtual and that the field must be both real and mechanical. This means that Einstein's field equations are also compound equations. Einstein already had a UFT and didn't know it. But my theory goes far beyond this, since I don't just pull the lid off Newton and Einstein and then stand back. I segregate and simplify their equations, showing many many new things, including a correction to the perihelion of Mercury, a mechanical solution to the Metonic Cycle, and a new theory of tides. I also show that the universal gravitational constant G is a transform between the two constituent fields of Newton's equation. This allowed me to solve the dark matter problem, including the galactic rotation problem and the bullet cluster problem, by showing that the charge field outweighs normal matter by 19 to 1. Dark matter is not non-baryonic, it is photonic. As the second part of this Unified Field Theory, I have also deconstructed Coulomb's equation. I show that Coulomb's constant k is tied to the Bohr diameter, and that when applied to quanta we can drop this constant from the equation. Like G, k is a scaling constant, and at the quantum level we have no need to scale. Among other things, this changes the force between electron and proton by a factor of 10-19. The charge part of this unified field has also allowed me to easily solve Bode's Law, resolving all the error, and to show the physical cause of axial tilt. Neither Bode's Law nor axial tilt are coincidences, as we have been told. More recently I have found a third unified field equation: the Lagrangian. This was my most important discovery of 2010, and it must now rank very high in this list. I have shown that the kinetic energy variable in the Lagrangian is misassigned. Once the variable is properly understood in a fully mechanical two-part field, the Lagrangian becomes mathematically equivalent to my new Unified Field Equation, and I show in that paper how to go from one to the other in a couple of simple steps. Most recently I discovered a fourth set of unified field equations, that being the equations of Maxwell. Specifically, I discovered that Maxwell's displacement field was hiding the charge field. This allowed me to tie many more things into my unified field, including Gauss' Law." ... This is also regarding your mention of, "it reduces to Newtonian gravity", which I asked for clarification about because I don't understand. I have not heard any new reports from MoEDAL experiment which I think is also up and running.

Speaking to the OP, 1. Here is a false dichotomy, in either science or philosophy I think you're describing forming a hypothesis. Of course observations will follow once you've identified what to observe, just as a philosophical proposition is brought about for the sake of debate. 2. Excessive philosophizing can be characterized as useless, as when there is no test for the hypothesis the philosophical exposition is simply impractical. 3. I think they both get towards accuracy through refinement. 4. I don't know, but I doubt it. Oh, great. How did this get to here? I'll have to read this thread... Yeah, a particle in a box is like the quantum harmonic oscillator. It's a 1-D string. The classical Ideal Hooke spring or Hooke atom is a 2-D harmonic oscillator, related by the spring constant. A spring like that could store potential energy. In a 3-D electron with spin we have torsion, maybe compression. I for one doubt it needs a photon, and would bet on resonance as a bigger player in a system of harmonic oscillators. Debye's method that is accurate for specific heat of solids models harmonic oscillators in a box as a lattice network. I think a more accurate model than the EM-photon field would be the connected system of oscillators vs. the isolated electron needing a discrete photon, which is similar to Debye's method vs. Einstein's crystal solid conception of specific heat. So the electron could change energy or change rate of vibration through absorbing or emitting a quanta of vibration? I think similar to how the Hooke spring is characterized by the spring constant a 3-D harmonic oscillator network is under the energy storage / mechanical compression force interchangability known as piezoelectricity in electromechanical terms. DAMMIT, COHAGEN, ZE AIR! I'M A CESIUM REACTOR, AYEOWHYEAH!

On the issue of distant electric potential energy: Universite' de Geneve`: De'partement de Physique Nucle'aire et Corpusculaire website: unige.ch LHAASO Discovers a Dozen PeVatrons and Photons Exceeding 1 PeV and Launches Ultra-High-Energy Gamma Astronomy Era Ultrahigh-energy photons up to 1.4 petaelectronvolts from 12 γ-ray Galactic sources 12 PeVatron energy level stars emitting from the region of Cygnus web.archive link to English translation of Chinese Academy of Sciences article (May 24th, 2021): LHAASO Discovers a Dozen PeVatrons and Photons Exceeding 1 PeV and Launches Ultra-high-energy Gamma Astronomy Era by Liu, Jia. May 17th, 2021 Zhen C., et al. Cao, Z., Aharonian, F.A., An, Q. et al. Ultrahigh-energy photons up to 1.4 petaelectronvolts from 12 γ-ray Galactic sources. Nature 594, 33–36 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03498-z Nature abstract/info.: Ultrahigh-energy photons up to 1.4 petaelectronvolts from 12 γ-ray Galactic sources Highest ever energy light captured by Chinese mountain observatory Science.org article by Ling Xin Geneva University - Extended Materials - LHAASO and its core scientific goals Off 1 order of magnitude: 0.1PeV estimate < 1.4PeV observed. I also conjecture that the conclusion that the universe is nearly flat is preposterous if based on observations made from near here -- that until and unless we can position an observation position midway between ourselves and the purported edge the best we can say is that from our vantage it is "locally" flat, to get non-local we would have to measure from half way between or a sufficient vantage point.