Juan R. González Álvarez
banner
juanrga.bsky.social
Juan R. González Álvarez
@juanrga.bsky.social
28 followers 19 following 140 posts
Fighting scientific misconceptions # Research on single potential multiscale dynamics # I write technical and popular books # juanrga.com
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
I have finished the research on the geometric foundations of statistics. Now, let us put it to rest so the ideas can mature. My next task will be to prepare a paper on the nonperturbative approach to the strong interaction we conducted a few weeks ago.
Outliers. How to identify outliers geometrically?
For confidence intervals without probabilistic assumptions, I am using two methods: one is empirical and the other is based on the Chebyshev inequality.
The geometric approach naturally leads to s_n, but I found a trivial geometric argument to obtain s_{n-1}. Therefore, both versions of the standard deviation are now derived.
For example, the mean m is easily obtained as the value that minimizes the Euclidean distance between the data vector (x₁, x₂, x₃... xₙ) and the diagonal vector (m, m, m... m).
Finally, I am developing a purely geometric approach to statistics. We can obtain the formulas for mean, standard deviation, variance, standard error, and regression intuitively. I am currently working on obtaining confidence intervals without probabilistic assumptions.
For now, I have selected the median and a measure of dispersion, a procedure for identifying outliers, and I am working on a method for hypothesis testing.
I am currently doing research in statistics. Trying to reinvent it! I am looking for a simple, intuitive, and robust approach, free from assumptions about "normality", probability distributions, and hypothetical populations. Any ideas or references to modern approaches?
I am not worried that I cannot obtain a constant, as the DESI (Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument) survey, when combined with other cosmological observations, shows evidence that dark energy weakens over time, indicating that Λ is not constant.
Research update. I finally obtained a gravitational wave equation with a cosmological term. This term is not a constant; it is larger in the past and smaller in the future. However, its current value is consistent with that of the cosmological constant Λ.
The energy of a classical particle is K+V, with K the kinetic energy and V the potential energy. The energy of the quantum particle is K+V+Q, with Q the quantum potential. The particle does not 'borrow' energy from the barrier, but has more energy than a classical particle.
Finding a nonperturbative gluon propagator that generalizes the refined Grivob-Zwanziger propagator was a trivial task, but solving the dark energy problem is becoming very difficult. Everything I have tried so far has not worked.
The mainstream claim that gluons are physical massless particles is only valid in the k → ∞ approximation.
Once demonstrated that gluons are massive because they interact with themselves, I think we would stop talking about gluons and start talking about glueballs.
(β₁+β₂)=1 and the N=2 propagator reduces to D = [k² + M²] / [k⁴ + k²m² + γ⁴]. For N=3 we obtain a VRGZ propagator.
Using very simple arguments, I have obtained the following spectral representation for the gluon propagator D = ∑ₙ βₙ / (k²+mₙ²). With two terms, we reproduce a Refined Gribov-Zwanzinger propagator D = [k²(β₁+β₂) + β₁m₂² + β₂m₁²] / [k⁴ + k²(m₁²+m₂²) + m₁²m₂²].
Nonstandard idea: gluons are massive.

Massless gluons are deduced by considering only the quadratic part of the Yang-Mills action.
I am testing some ideas about gravitation and nuclear interaction: specifically, dark energy and confinement. Wish me luck!
I have finished the first draft of my review of Waves in an Impossible Sea. Over 320 pages. I am now preparing figures. Contrary to myth, the particles we observe in experiments are not quanta of fields. Also general relativity does not describe gravity as a gravitational field.
2/ He summarizes these secrets in a haiku; because, of course, the ultimate truth of reality must be poetic.

Such a grand conclusion deserves a worthy ending in my own book. It will be difficult to match such a level of excellence, but I will do my best. Hahahaha!
1/ I am reviewing the final chapter of Waves in an Impossible Sea, and Strassler closes it with a post-apocalyptic fantasy in which part of his book survives for over 10,000 years in an ancient library, guiding new generations through the 'secrets' of the universe.
No one should be surprised if my critical review of "Waves in an Impossible Sea" runs to over 300 pages.
Quantum field theorists: our theory is the most complete and accurately tested in history.

Also quantum field theorists: the "vacuum" of the quantum field is filled with an infinite collection of particles.
I have been wrong for 16 chapters. I thought I was reviewing a physics book, but I am actually reviewing a humor book. So I keep adding sarcasm to my review.
I finally found a solution to the excessive repetition and bombast of Strassler's book. Add a touch of irony to my review. For example: "If this were true, perhaps electrons should start a career in ultrafast percussion".