Number theory derivation from infinity; speculations on equations that are derived in terms of the Field

[NTuft]

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.

 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, NTuft said:

From the prior cited article on Octonions from QuantaMagazine:

From the introduction to the paper by Suchard:

 

Neither of these address my comment. Just another distraction.

[NTuft]

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.

[studiot]

33 minutes ago, NTuft said:

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.

 

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

[NTuft]

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.

Edited June 27, 2022 by NTuft

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, NTuft said:

I did not think that was the speculative part. I'm getting to the speculative part now?

if only that were true...

[studiot]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

if only that were true...

+1

[NTuft]

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.

 

[studiot]

9 hours ago, NTuft said:

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.

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.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, NTuft said:

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.  

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

[joigus]

14 hours ago, NTuft said:

But, the author there is developing a Hamiltonian while treating time through coarse graining.

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.

[studiot]

I like the connection between coarse/fine graining and fractals, I had not though of it that way. +1

But connections to number theory ?

[NTuft]

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.

Edited June 29, 2022 by NTuft
canceling out azimuthal measure and time component appended as +i or -i; normalization to +1, lame space vector Quantum numbers

[NTuft]

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

[NTuft]

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].

"

[joigus]

On 6/29/2022 at 9:32 AM, studiot said:

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

I think you put your finger on a fundamental confusion here. A field in physics is a mapping between a space (topological space, metric space) and a set of so-called field variables (vector, tensor, spinor, scalar...) while a field in algebra is a closed system of numbers.  

Edited June 30, 2022 by joigus
minor stylistic correction

[studiot]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I think you put your finger on a fundamental confusion here. A field in physics is a mapping between a space (topological space, metric space) and a set of so-called field variables (vector, tensor, spinor, scalar...) while a field in algebra is a closed system of numbers.  

Paradoxically, it's very difficult to define a field in Physics without some mathematics!  +1

 

I would say that in Physics if, in a simply connected region of space(either abstract or physical), some quantity (again either abstract or physical) has a defined value at every point in that space then a Field is said to exist in that space. thjis means that a Physics field may be either abstract in the sense of a direction field or have some physical presence as in a stress field.

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.

This makes some sets of numbers to be fields and other sets of numbers such as the integers not fields.
The smallest mathematical field has two members 0 and 1. But they don't have to be numbers, they could be other symbols such as T and F or H and C or 'square' and 'circle' or 'facing forwards' and 'facing backwards'.
However it is conceivable that an (infinite) Physics field variable has values running through all the integers, but is still not a field in the Mathematics sense.

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by studiot

[swansont]

11 hours ago, NTuft said:

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

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

9 hours ago, NTuft said:

12 pages on logarithmic potential energy, independent of mass

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

 

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

[NTuft]

 

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?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

I do not see any need for magnetic point charges here

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

[studiot]

11 hours ago, NTuft said:

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

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.

 

[NTuft]

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.

Edited July 3, 2022 by NTuft
**Edit**

[swansont]

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

I am spit-balling.

We want science. This being a science discussion board.

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

whereas G.R. gravitation needs magnetic point charges as I rephrase your postulate, the theory of quantum gravity would use gravitons

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.

[NTuft]

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.

[studiot]

15 hours ago, NTuft said:

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.

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.