Dear Edgar Edgar Paternina ,

I am not a mathematician or a theoretical physicist. My ideas are born from an empiricist approach, from the observation of nature. The answer to your question is yes, but not based on a mathematical approach. My method is metaphysical, as it was necessary to create an image of a substance that forms the basis of all perceptible and non-perceptible expressions of existence found in nature. It is about the a priori entity, which could be connected to traditional Chinese philosophy (Taoism), which represents a dualistic perspective. bound to atomic, subatomic particles:

Raw Data Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítani lehet a graviton létezésesét

If I have free time I'll make a video about it on my Geo-Intuition channel

I managed to conduct some simple, banal experiments in China that confirmed my prediction. Subscribe to my channel and recommend it to others, because I will only show these if there is a sufficient number of subscribers (for example, at least 500). If you happen to do something like that, let me know, because I'll subscribe.

I have a Russian friend ( Marina Klykova

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear László, Thanks for you reply! As electrical engineer, I learned mathematics, and specially complex numbers, based on the most beautiful equation of mathematics, as it contains all numbers, and was found by Euler when working with infinite series in 1745. My concept of Basic Systemic Unit, based on that relation permitted me to define a minimum system, that included two totalities(not dimensions) such as Time and Space, that cannot be reduced the one to the other, the great drawback of Einstein's GR, in which he used, Tensor Analysis, based just on real numbers, that had the great inconvenience , that there is no way to differentiate one "dimension" from the other, reducing in this way Time to Space dimension, creating in this way a concept of time, totally symmetric as space, and so the possibility of time travel, and a universe of ten dimension, something that cannot be proven, and as so physics entered in his great Crisis. My Best Regards Edgar

This article presents an intriguing and creative idea regarding the use of complex numbers and Euler's relation to deduce the fundamental equations of physics. The concept of the Basic Systemic Unit (BSU) appears to offer a new framework for integrating the dimensions of time and space, with the imaginary unit i=−1i = \sqrt{-1}i=−1

Brief Comments:

Overall, this concept has the potential to spark discussions among physicists and warrants further investigation in an appropriate academic context.

Dear Edgar Paternina ,

No, it won't work. Until we know the following things:

1. Why the motion of a small (quantum) particle is periodic precisely by the quantum of action h and always constitutes an integer number of them;

2. What causes gravity at the microscopic level, what is the "quantum of gravity";

As well as:

3. Why is it necessary to consider the momentum in GTR and quantum mechanics, but not the velocity of a particle?

Dulin Mikhail.

Dear Mikhail N Dulin ,

'2. What causes gravity at the microscopic level, what is the "quantum of gravity";'?

Why didn't you read my article: Raw Data Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítani lehet a graviton létezésesét

?

Gravity can be attributed to similar causes as macroscopically.

The "quantum of gravity" is graviton but only at an elementary level only related to atomic subatomic particles:

Chapter 230902-En-H-Gr-t

(Translated part of previous mentioned article)

Regards, Laszlo

Dear Mikhail N Dulin,

Well my main point is to obtain those fundamental equations of physics with a concept of unit which is a minimum system, constituted by two totalities, such as Time and Space, that must not be reduced the one to the other, as was done in GR... the state of that minimum system can be determined when we have relation laws between its two state variables such as:

- the pendulum case, in which we have that equality of the inertial mass and weighting mass

- SR, where the constancy of the velocity of light is the main issue that permits to obtain its state, defined by the Lorentz transformation group that permit the invariance of the Maxwell equations

- in case of gravitational field the laws of Kepler are the ones that permit to determine the state of the system, with those equation of Newton for normal planets, but also that of the perihelion of Mercury

- and the case of the Schrödinger's wave equation in which we don't have those relation laws between time and space, and as so the Uncertainty Principle

I hope this make more clear the way in which the BSU, is used to deduce those fundamental equations, of those four physical systems.

The concept of particle is not the main issue anymore, but the concept of System, whose state can be determined, as I said if we have relation laws that permit to determine its state.

Best regards

Edgar Paternina

Dear László Attila Horváth ,

The hypothetical particle, which is now called a graviton, has the properties of a boson, with which I cannot agree categorically.

In my opinion, the curvature of space caused by the particle with mass has the same character as the static curvature of space caused by an elementary electric charge. After all, the formula is known that the quantum of action h = e·μ, where e is the electron charge (in absolute value), and μ is the quantum of magnetic flux. That is, the charge and magnetic flux are an inseparable whole, when one cannot exist without the other. In this regard, we can recall the school physics program, where a direct electric current causes a ring magnetic field around a conductor with an interesting spatial dependence 1/R.

If the elementary charge (in absolute value) is only one, then there are several elementary masses. The main ones among them are the mass of an electron, proton and neutron. It is with these masses that the "gravity quanta" will be connected, which for massive bodies give in total that macroscopic curvature of space that we call gravity. In contrast to the zero in the sum of the electrostatic contribution for neutral bodies with zero charge.

However, I do not insist on my opinion as the only correct one. It takes time for people to get used to the discrete representation of space and particles in it through the quantum of action h. And first, try to find your way in solving existing problems.

Sincerely yours, Dulin Mikhail.

Dear Edgar Paternina ,

The quantum of action h can also be considered as a unit in a certain sense. It is through it I consider the space and the particles in it as discrete. Through this quantum of action h, it is possible to independently express (obtain) both the discrete scales of space λ=h/p and the discrete time intervals τ=h/ε, if we consider the motion of single particle with momentum p and energy ε.

At this stage, you and I have no contradictions, and there is a hope that with a deeper consideration of the problem, consensus can also be reached.

Sincerely yours, Dulin Mikhael.

Dear Dulin Mikhail,

Certainly h is fundamental unit as without the plank constant, see figure, the Schrödinger's wave equation could not be deduced

My Best Regards

Edgar

Dear Laszló,

Certainly there two independent fields of physics at this moment as Schrödinger put it in

"JULY 1952 COLLOQUIUM

I • Introduction

Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today, I am opposing as it were the whole of it, l am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. It has been worked out in great detail to form a scheme of admirable logical consistency that has been inculcated ever since to every young student of theoretical physics."

- the one of Quantum Mechanic that has to do basically with the behavior of the electron, and

- and that one of the Standard Model, that has to do with fundamental particles called Quarks, that as a matter of fact, cannot be seen, and this field has nothing to do with QM, as Schrödinger put it. This is a field not accessible for normal human beings, as they need THE LARGEST MACHINE EVER BUILT: the Large Hadron Collider, as SEAN CARROLL put it in his book THE PARTICLE AND THE END OF THE UNIVERSE.

So particle physics is a new field, that is working with a quite different framework as that one initiated by Schrödinger in 1926, when presented his equation that solved the duality of wave-particle.

My best regards

Edgar

Dear Mikhail N Dulin ,

I am not a believer in the current standard theory. My vision does not require it.

your second paragraph is excellent, in my case it is presented in a slightly different way.

In relation to the third paragraph. There is no need for mass or charge. Simply the elementary electromagnetic material particle is needed, this vision similarly imagines the Solar System and its main components, the planets. This is not about Bohr's atomic model. Bohr did not have a sound understanding of the solar system when he created his model. I am not a physicist, please accept my following modification with strong criticism! :

' It is with these masses that the "gravity quanta" will be connected, which for massive bodies which give in total that microscopic 'curvature of space' that we can call graviton' In contrast to the zero in the sum of the electrostatic contribution for neutral bodies with zero charge. [with this, we have seen a possible contradiction in the case of gold. based on the opinions of others, I didn't have the opportunity to check this personally!]

I don't have the opportunity or time to conduct experiments and look for a resolution of an existing seeming problem. If this problem cannot be eliminated, then the concept is flawed. In this case, Einstein's concept of gravity will also seem to be impossible to save!

Regards, Laszlo