notes for proof of qr
The Gauss-Newton Quantum-Relativity, historical footnotes.
I leave these following notes here simply out of my own laziness.
I leave these notes to see if there is any value left in them that is not better explained elsewhere on my website. There is nothing here that I no longer agree with. These notes all still make valid comments.
Footnote 1.
In Gaussian terminology, "lateral" is thought a more helpful term than "imaginary" and for simple positive numbers "direct" a more helpful term than "real", simple negative numbers should be called "inverse" rather than "negative real". Reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society, 1831, Theoria Residuorum Biquadraticorum, pub. #2, para. #24 (last paragraph) JCF Gauß. This work was submitted by Privy Councilor Gauß of the Royal Society to the Royal Society in 1831. Nobody paid any attention at all of course, but there it still is. To save us all from buying fine silk archival library gloves and learning Latin, I will take pity on us here: "From Kant to Hilbert" ISBN 0 19 850535. "A source book in mathematics, Volume 1" William Ewald, page 313. (extract seen below in my footnote 2)
In Gaussian terminology, "lateral" is thought a more helpful term than "imaginary" and for simple positive numbers "direct" a more helpful term than "real", simple negative numbers should be called "inverse" rather than "negative real". Reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society, 1831, Theoria Residuorum Biquadraticorum, pub. #2, para. #24 (last paragraph) JCF Gauß. This work was submitted by Privy Councilor Gauß of the Royal Society to the Royal Society in 1831. Nobody paid any attention at all of course, but there it still is. To save us all from buying fine silk archival library gloves and learning Latin, I will take pity on us here: "From Kant to Hilbert" ISBN 0 19 850535. "A source book in mathematics, Volume 1" William Ewald, page 313. (extract seen below in my footnote 2)
The author took Gauss seriously and started to describe the complex plane as being formed by four discrete numerical directions as follows:
1) Direct
(positive numbers)
2) Inverse
(negative numbers, a mirror pi rotation dimension of the direct numerical dimension)
3) Direct-lateral
(a second direct numerical dimension formed by the +pi/2 rotation from +1)
4) Inverse-lateral
(a second lateral numerical dimension that forms by making a +pi mirror image rotation from the direct-lateral dimension).
The author found that with this alterred way of thinking about the complex numerical plane, a first in electrical engineering in 1973 took him three weeks of work, as opposed to the usual four years of pointless struggle. To put this another way, electrical engineering theory in two numerical dimensions is almost too tough for anybody, while in four dimensions it was found to be a "walk in the park". To get down to three weeks, one also needs to understand that these four discrete numerical directions arise from the very nature of the actual numbers of rotation in the natural numerical domain. Just learn that Gauss said that e^i.pi = -1 must be obvious. So, refuse to be embarassed by Gauss, just find out in what way was Euler's identity obovious to Gauss. Gauss saw the natural numerical domain and understood that i was wrongly named by Euler. Just rename i as the rotational opperator in the natural numerical domain. The opperator i is still the square root of minus one, but with this new thinking, one sees that as being just a trivial consequence of i being the rotational opperator in the first place.
Footnote 2
The needle in the haystack.
In 1831, Gauss wrote this to the Royal Society:
(but he might as well have been writing to a "brick wall" for all the attention that he was given by our so-called mathematicians, thankfully for us all of course, Faraday and Maxwell hung on to his every word.)[24] We
have believed that we
were doing the friends of mathematics
a favour by this account of the principal parts of a new theory of so-called
imaginary quantities. If one formerly contemplated this subject from a false point of view and therefore found a mystery
darkness, this is in large part attributable to clumsy terminology. Had one not called +1,
-1
and the
square-root of -1, positive,
negative
and
imaginary (or even impossible) units but instead, say direct,
inverse and
lateral
units, then there could scarcely have been talk of such darkness. The author has reserved the right to treat this subject, which in the present treatise is only occasionally touched upon, at greater length later. Then too the question will be answered, why the relations between (real)
things that form a manifold of more than two dimensions cannot supply
yet another type of number that is admissible in higher arithmetic.
The emphasis shown, together with minor punctuation adjustment suggestions drawn in red, was added to his personal notes on higher arithmetic by the author over the period 1962 through December 2018.
Footnote 3.
Within the GNQR interpretation of space-time, absent the 1831 Gaussian rotational interpretation of i in the natural numerical domain, we describe all other higher arithmetic as lying in “Alice in Wonderland Numerical Nonsense”. Why did nothing in theoretical physics ever quite make sense? Easy, we were taught mathematics which was largely a load of contra-Gaussian, "Alice in Wonderland" style, numerical nonsense.
There are two valid numerical domains and one nonsense domain or invalid fantassy :
1) The Natural Numerical Domain, (purely exponential or perfectly ratio-metric).
2) The Flat-Rotational-Plane (formed from the natural antilogarithm of The Natural Numerical Domain.
3) The "Alice in Wonderland" Numerical Nonsense (the so-called "complex numerical plane").
Within the GNQR interpretation of space-time, absent the 1831 Gaussian rotational interpretation of i in the natural numerical domain, we describe all other higher arithmetic as lying in “Alice in Wonderland Numerical Nonsense”. Why did nothing in theoretical physics ever quite make sense? Easy, we were taught mathematics which was largely a load of contra-Gaussian, "Alice in Wonderland" style, numerical nonsense.
There are two valid numerical domains and one nonsense domain or invalid fantassy :
1) The Natural Numerical Domain, (purely exponential or perfectly ratio-metric).
2) The Flat-Rotational-Plane (formed from the natural antilogarithm of The Natural Numerical Domain.
3) The "Alice in Wonderland" Numerical Nonsense (the so-called "complex numerical plane").
Footnote 4.
The inverse exponential deep-space red-shift profile is a macro-gravitational effect. All systemic deep-space red-shifting is a real macro-gravitational consequence of what our Universe actually is; that profile is definitely not a Doppler effect. As we observe light quanta from a very distant galaxy, those quanta are still entangled with our Universe at the scale of universal exponential scale inflation (see footnote 5) that the entire Universe had inflated to, at the time of the historic emission lying deeply in our imaginary past or as Gauss might have phrased it; "a lateral dimension into past-space" (see footnote 1).
The inverse exponential deep-space red-shift profile is a macro-gravitational effect. All systemic deep-space red-shifting is a real macro-gravitational consequence of what our Universe actually is; that profile is definitely not a Doppler effect. As we observe light quanta from a very distant galaxy, those quanta are still entangled with our Universe at the scale of universal exponential scale inflation (see footnote 5) that the entire Universe had inflated to, at the time of the historic emission lying deeply in our imaginary past or as Gauss might have phrased it; "a lateral dimension into past-space" (see footnote 1).
GNQR-cosmology.
The apparent historic scale of the universe depreciates exponentially in linear apparent relative scale with an apparent exponential halving rate of 304 peta-seconds. (9.56 billion years.) The 13.8-billion-year age figure previously quoted is utter nonsense, that is merely the exponential time constant of the Universe. The actual age is indeterminate but must stretch back to at least 10^50 years deeper than the CMB image. The CMB image reaches us from an ongoing galactic cross firing wave that was passing at range 295 billion light years off, 295 billion years ago. The size of the total Universal image must be infinite. The galactic cross fire wave is now passing up through approximately 1.2 trillion light years in diameter.
Compared to the entire universe this 1.2 trillion light year diameter ball of cross-fire is nothing but a tiny bright bubble in the infinite dark-field. How many such bright bubbles? At least one of course, possibly more with no guarantee of a finite bright-bubble population. From this macro persepective the bright bubble field could itself be a fractal repeat of all that we can see inside our little bit of bubble. As each bright bubble has only about 2% of the mass of the dark-space that it has hollowed out, then gravity works the other way round in the outer field, two bright bubbles would be repeled from each other by the mutual anti-gravitational effect.
Gauss-Newton Quantum-Relativity finds its origins in GNQR-cosmology, not the other way round. GNQR-cosmology flows from a dark-matter-based model that explains generic stellar mass compaction mechanics. The old cosmology is complete nonsense, it utterly fails to explain how a single massive body in the entire observable cosmos ever mass compacted into any star formation at all. The old cosmology (pre GNQR-cosmology) is about as daft as the geocentric model of the Universe was, before Galileo first put us to rights.
Footnote 5.
There is no real inflation of course, the appearance of positive forward going inflation is simply a gravitational optical illusion, the value of remnant historic quanta energy drops off in an inverse exponential as the historic emission energy source appears to be drawn backwards into the bottomless gravitational voids of history. What was there before the “big bang”? Further back in time than infinitely in the past? Not an issue surely? All the quantum energy and associated charged particles lie close above our static event-horizon at time-now, the total energy and charge actually touching upon the static event-horizon of time-now (or observation-horizon of time-now, if one prefers that) is quite naturally zero.
There is no real inflation of course, the appearance of positive forward going inflation is simply a gravitational optical illusion, the value of remnant historic quanta energy drops off in an inverse exponential as the historic emission energy source appears to be drawn backwards into the bottomless gravitational voids of history. What was there before the “big bang”? Further back in time than infinitely in the past? Not an issue surely? All the quantum energy and associated charged particles lie close above our static event-horizon at time-now, the total energy and charge actually touching upon the static event-horizon of time-now (or observation-horizon of time-now, if one prefers that) is quite naturally zero.
An easier approach to this new subject is to start off with simply reading "The Last Tango of the Finite Graviton". This "non-finite graviton" approach was first conceived by me in 1968, it was only by 2015 that I finally got around to writing it up in book form. Why the great delay? Theoretical physics is of very little interest to me, describing this concept was never a high priority. In any case, describing the Universe properly for cosmologists is a complete mug's game. It is a bit like trying to explain "Galileo" to the Inquisition in 1610. My dear Newton found exactly the same effect, he gave lectures at Cambridge, but had to place his servant on the balcony to provide a witness that he had even given the lecture at all. Actually interested? Not a soul, all off chasing young women in the many bars.
See, what we call "theoretical physics" has become our "religion", I even heard a leading speaker on this subject describing the idea of challenging Einstein's concepts as "heresy", say no more. In 2015, I was feeling a trifle bored, so I wrote it up and published it anyway (eventually that became; British Library code ISBN-13 978-0-9927314-1-0, "Completing Einstein", 2018, BMJC Biezanek), rather pointless as that exercise was. Absent the six statutory library deposits, no copies have ever been sent out. Would one pay merely £420 to be teleported back into one of Newton's empty lecture halls? I think, certainly, but of course that is not actually available and, in the meantime, even I never actually read that book. I gave the "lecture" this time, but I never even bothered to reread my own "lecture notes". Ideas and language move on you know.
Why did nobody ever go to hear Newton's lectures? I think that this is actually quite easy to explain. Newton lectured in Latin and was under the mistaken impression that his poor students would be able to follow his lectures and knew the new (made up by Newton) Latin names for the basic concepts of calculus and classical mechanics. Suppose that I could easily attend a brilliant mathematics lecture for no additional charge, but that the lecture would be given in Navajo code-talk? Look, it might be a lot of fun, but quite honestly, I think that I would pass on that one. So, would one really like to be teleported back there? How good is your Newtonian Latin? All of my Latin sucks, let alone for any of Newton's new Latin names and words.
Of course, the language of the Universe and of nature is actually mathematical. The problem with that is that our mathematical language of numbers is hopelessly bad, hence my Gauss reference mentioned in note one shown above. I never just decided that the language of numbers was wrong, but for relativity one needs to absorb every word that ever flowed out from the brilliant mind of Carl Friedrich Gauss. Thank heavens for all our real mathematical-Latin scholars, in this case of course, William Ewald, our Gauss-speak translator. Gauss (not Ewald) made deliberate punctuation errors (Gauss does not make mistakes), he was writing to Faraday only, who being working class just like Gauss, would not mind any grammatical clumsiness. In other words, Gauss codes his grammar to avoid incurring the wrath of his imbecilic so-called "colleagues", who would read his words as simply Gauss-gibberish.
In my opinion, this was possibly a deliberate trap that Gauss set for the rest of mathematics. The community had insulted a lady friend of his, Sophie Germain, who passed away of cancer at age 55, also in 1831. Gauss was used to being ignored and insulted by the community of mathematicians, but with Sophie Germain it became intolerable perhaps? They never even bothered to reply to his request for his doctoral student Germain to be granted an honorary doctorate for her mind-blowing work on the strong primes. Gauss probably hoped they would "go to Hell" for all eternity for that. Well not quite all eternity Gauss, but seven generations of mathematicians will have to do. Joke over! Bygones be bygones and all that. I don't think that they ever met in person, it was all letter correspondence, but Germain was single and as lovely as any man could desire, so it might even have been a non-contact "love affair".
de-mystifying quantum entanglement
