9/2/2022 at 4:36 PM, Ilya Geller said:
On 9/2/2022 at 4:08 PM, studiot said:
You can tell a red photon from a green one.
If this is true I recommend reading and study over guesswork.
There have been several great Russian Physicists, you could then be one
There is a difference between photon as such and a photon that has become part of а set (of elements, other photons). Until the photon has become a part of the set it does not exist, it is not observable in any way. For example, photon from a supernova 1 billion light-years from Earth is not observable, it has not become a part of the many elements of the observer (human). That is, such photon is a part of the "dark matter". A not distinguishable from others becomes unique, that is it acquires qualities (such as color) only by becoming a part. Sorry for the tautology, I am inspired by the String Theory.
On 9/2/2022 at 6:21 PM, Ilya Geller said:
There is an integral from the equation on the page 5, with all what follows. However I don’t have skills to get it
This is the long story: I use the concept of "orisphere" which I borrowed from Lobachevsky. This is a sphere that has no borders, figuratively speaking. That is, its radius is infinitely large, which fits in with the concept of Cantor's "accumulation point" (Set Theory). But in such an orbisphere there are layers that I have called "density layers": electrons orbits in an atom, or planets into a star system are layers. Then predictions are made based on the fact that in each layer there is only such a possible — strictly limited — number of elements (for example, photons). Which is proved by Einstein and laser, as well as periodic table and Astronomy.
I don't know who (or what) you are but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt since you are obviously not the usual crank with a particular agenda.
All these responses are almost what I might expect from an AI that had been told to read a Science library in order to to learn Maths and Science.
Not random but not yet making appropriate connections.
I hope you are really human!
So I will tell you a true story of my own experience.
When I was about 13 I learned about forces in structural frameworks (roof trusses etc).
I was also learning about other Sciences as well, in particular about molecules when the ball and stick or framework models were popular.
Anyway I conceived the idea that I wanted to apply structural framework theory to molecules, as no one seemed to have thought of it or tried it.
I did not then know enough to know how inappropriate that was or why.
Many years later I know know why this was inappropriate, but I also now know how a variation called structural dynamics can be applied to molecules.
This is very important in Spectroscopy and some other aspects of Chemistry.
I understand your description of accumulation points, also called limit points, cluster points or interior points, in set theory.
I can now tell you that these are mathematical (topological) conveniences but that they do not need the 'orbisphere' to have infinite, or indeed any measurable, radius.
We use the shorter term 'open ball'. This conforms to the topological idea of open and closed sets, which is closely tied to accumulation points and leads to the study of continuity and measure theory in Mathematics. But Mathematics requires no connection to anything in the physical world. Sometimes (often) it can be a useful mathematical model, but it is not the same thing.
So press on, but try to reduce the number of your ideas to one or two at a time.
You just have too many at once.
