Mathematical Physics - Quantum-Relativity (qr)
The Gaussian-School of Higher-Arithmetic; published in 1831 by JCF Gauss, as updated in 2022 by this author.
Introduction (tutorial #0).
Gaussian scientific unified number theory.
Way back in 1972, my mathematics teachers admitted that the theories that they taught us were not very good, but that those theories were all that we had. They told us to always be on the lookout for better ideas and theories. We used to teach scientific scepticism, but today, mathematical education has suffered from gross hyper-normalization with no room left for any scepticism at all. In my opinion, the hyper-normalisation process in mathematics education probably went beyond the point of no return over the period 1870 - 1930 with the adoption of (the literally insane) Cantor's daft set theory of numbers 1. We will all find this subject difficult, but that is only because ever since the tender age of about seven years old, we have all been sold a rotten "arithmetical lemon". The answer that my teachers asked us to look out for was always just far too easy and far too obvious. This subject is not even difficult; just forget all about the deranged claptrap that they taught us about the complex numerical plane; sit back and relax; learn something useful and completely new; it is elegant, it is real and it is perfect.
The following sketch shows a top down view of the three-dimensional exponential polar manifold.
1: Cantor's and Dedekind's set theory of numbers is a religious belief system, there is nothing scientific about it. This absurd religion was completely debunked by Kurt Gödel in 1931 (a genuine logician and a friend of Albert Einstein). For the last 94 years, young mathematicians have been forcibly indoctrinated into loving an absurd piece of human hubris and calling that "mathematics". It is a joke, there is nothing mathematically valid in it, as proven by Kurt Gödel about a year after our so-called "mathematicians" formally adopted a policy of going stark raving bonkers. In my work, I need to refer to this so-called "mathematical" community. I refer to those people as members of the neo-Pythagorean School; well, "School" is rather too polite of me, far better would be "daft cult-church of flat (bean counting) number-worship".
Author's notes:
Only bother to read my author's notes later when you might return here again for a more detailed reading. For now, please just follow my simple graphical flow by clicking on the above sketch of the general ratios manifold.
The reason that people (including Einstein himself) have found Einstein's General Theory of Relativity hard to visualise is because they do not understand the infinite relative gravitational scalability of everything in the universe. This failing is aggravated by being taught about numbers by "enchanted gnomes" of no philosophical flexibility (our so-called "mathematicians") who insist upon a doctrine that one can take a real number (of things) away from nothing and that nothing (zero) is a finite number. Both those elements of that absurdly religious numerical doctrine, a doctrine that there exists a real number continuum that can pass smoothly through the black hole ratio (zero), are catastrophically deranged.
In other words, in Nature there is no such thing as a one dimensional ratio. All ratios in Nature must have two properties, the property of relative magnitude and the property of relative polarity (or direction) about the circles of constant numerical magnitude. We must express the relative ratio-metric magnitude property in the exponential form as a power of the natural base ratio e. Think of the manifold depth (normal to my sketch) as being stated from plus infinity to minus infinity with zero being an arbitrary base declaration which could be, but does not need to be, nominally in the finite visible chart range. People are not generally very good with double ended infinite ranges, well if you can't handle that, either stay out of this real mathematics kitchen all together or just read on and see how much of this new mathematical understanding it is that you can understand.
The nomenclatures "+1" and "-1" are merely two shorthand forms for just two complimentary anti-phase points upon the infinite extent of possible polarising lines crossing the circle of unity at zero (a ratio or number with zero exponent; i.e. e^0 = 1). One might well ask which of my many circles is the circle of unity? Well, you can arbitrarily fix on any circle of constant exponential ratio-metric magnitude because the above diagram bears the property of infinite relative scalability. One might also ask which of my radial phase lines is the base for +1, well, once again, you can arbitrarily fix that on any radial because the relative numerical polarity (phase) rotation is in fact infinitely endless in both rotational directions.
For example: one could say that one metre is the same as 3.335.. x 10^-9 seconds (i.e. 1/c seconds), but Nature never heard about any such thing as a metre or use deranged mixed log and flat arithmetic (3.335.. flat and -9 log). Given the arbitrary human-defined second in the first place, she counts that as -19.518.. natural log seconds (i.e. -19.518.. exponential seconds), that is her projection of that spatial displacement (or historic offset) in her natural exponential numerical environment of space-time. Just ditch the two identical and absurdly ambiguous terms "exponential" and "logarithmic" and replace them both with the new language; ratio-metric, i.e. proportional. Everything in the universe, including time itself, must be in ratio-metric proportion to everything else in the universe. For any of this to work out properly, we require an understanding of the universal property of reciprocal supersymmetry. Everything must work out equally well in the reciprocal ratio-metric form. Just think of every physical parameter as a ratio which has no particular relativistic perspective. For example; one could say that the apparent phase velocity in vacuum is c metres per second or that is 1/c seconds per metre; it makes no difference to any answers that we are seeking. In just the same way, who cares if my car returns 62 mpg (21.8 km/litre) or consumes 3.8 l/100km? Those two ratios are identical but stated in mutually reciprocal forms.
Hint: e^-19.518.. seconds is the same as -19.518.. natural-log-seconds = ln(3.335.. nanoseconds). Anyway, that was the case when I last thought about the subject in 1964. In 1980, the CIPM changed their formal definition of the metre to
1/c seconds which means the same as 3.335.. nanoseconds. When they did that, I breathed a sigh of relief because it meant that maybe at least some other people understood the General Theory. In other words, I might not be on my own after all. I waited for the next 27 years for the penny to drop, but it never did. But why did the penny never drop because none of this is exactly "rocket science"? That was my only real puzzle; why does the penny never drop? This is clearly a psychological puzzle and not really number theory at all. Hence my brand new topic of meta-cybernetics, but first we should clear up some obvious misconceptions about the rather trivial subject of whether or not there can be any such thing as a negative-rotten-lemon. Can we take away one rotten lemon where no rotten lemons exist? Absolutely not; there could never be fewer rotten lemons than no rotten lemons at all.
Meta-Cybernetics.
Introduction.
If you are more intrigued by psychology than the underlying mathematics of relativity, then first read about the meta-cybernetic model of the generic human mind. If you want to beat the AI robots, then you need to know this neural network based model of all of us humans. Absent the remaining perhaps 100,000 bushmen of the Kalahari, without this powerful model working in our favour, we modern humans are "toast". The discovery of quantum-relativity is not so much just the theoretical nicety of completeness for our mathematical and scientific understanding of the Universe; due to the rapid roll out of AI, it has now become an existential threat to the very survival of our species. So, while we might not like finding out that our so-called "mathematicians" have been making fools of themselves and all of the rest us for the last 300 years, ignoring this thorny issue has become something that we no longer have the luxury of doing. Death is a certainty for everybody. Who cares how much longer I live for? At age 74, I no longer even care for my own account, but while I can still breath, think and publish here, I must do my best to at least try and ensure the survival of my species.
BMJC Bieżanek, 10th July 2024; Shropshire, England.
PS: The meta-cybernetic model explains for instance that if a person confirms his dysfunctional set theory of numbers by taking the action of teaching that silly claptrap (action confirmation bias) then he renders himself clinically blind to any functional Unified Number Theory. We need to turn our backs upon the absurd abstract set theory of numbers and adopt Unified Number Theory, only then will the penny drop and everything in the Universe and Nature make perfect scientific sense.
