Non-Newtonian mathematics instead of non-Newtonian physics: Dark matter and dark energy from a mismatch of arithmetics
Marek Czachor Katedra Fizyki Teoretycznej i Informatyki Kwantowej, Politechnika Gda´nska,80-233 Gda´nsk,Poland
Newtonian physics is based on Newtonian calculus applied to Newtonian dynamics. New paradigms such as ‘modified Newtonian dynamics’ (MOND) change the dynamics, but do not alter the calculus. However, calculus is dependent on arithmetic, that is the ways we add and multiply numbers. For example, in special relativity we add and subtract velocities by −1 −1 means of addition β1 ⊕ β2 = tanh tanh (β1) + tanh (β2) , although multiplication β1 β2 = −1 −1 −1 −1 tanh tanh (β1) · tanh (β2) , and division β1 β2 = tanh tanh (β1)/ tanh (β2) do not seem −1 to appear in the literature. The map fX(β) = tanh (β) defines an isomorphism of the arithmetic in X = (−1, 1) with the standard one in R. The new arithmetic is projective and non-Diophantine in the sense of Burgin (1977), while ultrarelativistic velocities are super-large in the sense of Kol- mogorov (1961). Velocity of light plays a role of non-Diophantine infinity. The new arithmetic allows us to define the corresponding derivative and integral, and thus a new calculus which is non- Newtonian in the sense of Grossman and Katz (1972). Treating the above example as a paradigm,
we ask what can be said about the set X of ‘real numbers’, and the isomorphism fX : X → R, if we assume the standard form of Newtonian mechanics and general relativity (formulated by means of the new calculus) but demand agreement with astrophysical observations. It turns out that the ob- servable accelerated expansion of the Universe can be reconstructed with zero cosmological constant
if fX(t/tH ) ≈ 0.8 sinh(t − t1)/(0.8 tH ). The resulting non-Newtonian model is exactly quivalent to the standard Newtonian one with ΩΛ = 0.7, ΩM = 0.3. Asymptotically flat rotation curves are ob-
tained if ‘zero’, the neutral element 0X of addition, is nonzero from the point of view of the standard arithmetic of . This implies f −1(0) = 0 > 0. The opposition Diophantine vs. non-Diophantine, R X X or Newtonian vs. non-Newtonian, is an arithmetic analogue of Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean in geometry. We do not yet know if the proposed generalization ultimately removes any need of dark matter, but it will certainly change estimates of its parameters. Physics of the dark universe seems to be both geometry and arithmetic.
I. DARK UNIVERSE AND ITS DARK is geometry... and arithmetic. ARITHMETIC To begin with, many would probably agree that if we were to give an example of an absolute and self-evident The difficulty lies more in the notions themselves truth, one would mention 2+2 = 4. Now, is it as obvious than in the construction as the axiom of parallels, or perhaps ‘more obvious’? Is
Bernhard Riemann (1854) 100100 100100 100100 2100 + 2100 = 2100 +1 Two hundred years ago the very idea of aban- equally obvious? Has anybody any practical experience doning Euclidean axioms of geometry seemed so self- with adding numbers that big? Even supercomputers contradictory that even C. F. Gauss, a mathematician cannot process numbers greater than the so-called ma- of highest reputation, found it imprudent to publish his chine infinity, a finite number N∞ which does not in- thoughts on the subject. Euclid’s fifth axiom of parallels crease if we add 1 to it. So, N∞ < ∞ and N∞ +1 = N∞. was a truism for contemporaries of Bolyai, Lobachevski This type of arithmetic is either inconsistent, or non- and Gauss, and we basically understand why: their ev- Diophantine. The later means that some of the rules of eryday experiences were small-scale. Nowadays, not only arithmetic, formalized by Diophantos of Alexandria, may are we all accustomed to non-Euclidean geometries, but have to be dropped. Similarly to the rules of geometry, we even find it difficult to think of gravitational physics formalized by Euclid of Alexandria. arXiv:1911.10903v3 [physics.gen-ph] 26 Dec 2019 in categories different from just a geometry. To put what I write in a wider context let me mention Yet, modern space-time physics is clearly at cross- that A. N. Kolmogorov himself proposed to split nat- roads. The experimental value of the cosmological con- ural numbers into classes of small, medium, large, and stant is some 10120 smaller than its theoretical estimate super-large, and each class might in principle be based [1] — probably the worst disagreement between theory on different rules, dependent on our computing capabil- and experiment in history of science. A radical change ities. Kolmogorov expressed his views in two papers ad- of paradigm should not be a surprise. dressed to high-school pupils [2]. We do not know if The goal of this paper is to draw the attention of the he had any concrete mathematical system in mind. A dark-universe community to an overlooked mathemati- step further was done by P. K. Rashevsky [3] whose let- cal freedom: the axioms of arithmetic. Problems with ter to Uspekhi Matematicheskich Nauk explicitly formu- dark energy and dark matter may indicate that physics lated the program of going beyond the ‘dogma’ of nat- 2 ural numbers. Similarly to Kolmogorov, Rashevsky did century thinkers. We stress that we do perceive non- not propose any concrete non-Diophantine system of ax- Diophantine arithmetic in our everyday life, but typically ioms. The first explicitly non-Diophantine arithmetic of being unaware of it. Finally, in the Appendix we show natural numbers was described in the same journal four how to formulate the issue of dark energy as an eigenvalue years later by Mark S. Burgin [4–7]. problem for a quantum system that ‘lives’ in a set of zero Independently of the efforts of Rashevsky and Burgin, Lebesgue measure, namely in a Cantor-dust fractal. M. Grossman and R. Katz worked out a form of calcu- lus which culminated in their little book Non-Newtonian Calculus [8–10]. It went basically unnoticed by the main- II. NON-DIOPHANTINE ARITHMETIC: AN stream mathematical community, and was completely ig- EXAMPLE nored by physicists. Their main idea was rediscovered two decades later by E. Pap in his g-calculus [11–13]. Let the set X of physical variables have some physical Another two decades later, but in its currently most gen- dimension (length, say) and let ` be a fundamental unit. eral form, it was rediscovered by myself [14–19]. Consider the set X of dimensionless numbers obtained by The term ‘non-Newtonian’ refers here to the level of dividing elements of X by `, that is X = {x = a/`, a ∈ calculus, and not to the laws of physics. It should not X}. We assume that X has the same cardinality as the be confused with Milgrom’s ‘modified Newtonian dynam- continuum R. Just to have a feel of the generality we have ics’ (MOND) [20–22], Moffat’s ‘modified gravity’ (MOG) at our disposal think of the following examples: R itself, [23, 24], or similar theories. A non-Newtonian calculus is the open unit interval (0, 1), the three-dimensional space based on a non-Diophantine arithmetic. The Newtonian R3, the Minkowski space, a Cantor dust, a Sierpi´nski calculus is based on the Diophantine arithmetic. But triangle, a Koch curve... All these sets have the same Newton’s equation relating force and acceleration, the cardinality as reals, and therefore there exist one-to-one three Newton laws of dynamics, or the ‘inverse square’ maps f mapping them onto R. Typically these maps are Newton law of gravity remain unchanged. Theoretical quite bizarre and discontinuous in metric topologies of X freedom is hidden in various possible meanings of ‘plus’, (try to invent a one-to-one f : R3 → R), but this is not ‘times’, ‘minus’, ‘divided by’, ‘squared’... This is the new a problem, even if calculus is concerned. paradigm. Now, consider a bijection f : X → R and the arithmetic Non-Diophantine arithmetic and the non-Newtonian in X induced by f, calculus it implies automatically lead to two types of x ⊕ x0 = f −1 f(x) + f(x0), (1) ‘dark universes’: the ones where super-small and super- large physical quantities behave differently even though x x0 = f −1 f(x) − f(x0), (2) they satisfy the same physical laws, and those identified x x0 = f −1 f(x) · f(x0), (3) with zero-measure sets whose physics is equipped with 0 −1 0 the usual laws, but which are invisible from the point of x x = f f(x)/f(x ) . (4) view of standard quantum measurements. The bijection is a field isomorphism of and , In the present paper we will discuss simple examples il- X R lustrating each of the above concepts. In Sec. II we begin f(x ⊕ x0) = f(x) + f(x0), (5) with a concrete arithmetic of a Burgin type which natu- 0 0 rally splits real numbers into small, large and super-large. f(x x ) = f(x) · f(x ). (6) We note that relativistic velocities are in this sense super- For this reason ⊕ and are associative and commutative, large. Then in Sec. III we briefly explain the idea of non- and is distributive with respect to ⊕ [25]. Any such Newtonian differentiation and integration. In the next 0 0 X is also ordered: x ≤X x if and only if f(x) ≤ f(x ). section we combine the ideas from Sec. II and Sec. III The neutral elements of addition and multiplication read, and show that the standard Friedman equation without −1 −1 respectively, 0X = f (0) and 1X = f (1). Indeed, for dark energy in fact can imply an accelerated expansion any x ∈ of the Universe. In Sec. V and Sec. VI we show how to X derive a ‘dark-matter’ type of asymptotically flat veloc- −1 −1 x ⊕ 0X = f f(x) + f(0X) = f f(x) + 0 = x, (7) ity curve by means of the standard Newton equation of −1 −1 motion for a ‘1/r’ potential. The non-Newtonian general x 1X = f f(x) · f(1X) = f f(x) · 1 = x. (8) prediction is briefly compared with the MOND paradigm 0 and 1 can be generalized to arbitrary natural num- in Sec. VII. In all the above examples the trick lies in a X X bers n ∈ , mismatch between the arithmetic employed in our mod- N eling, and the arithmetic employed by the Universe. The −1 nX = 1X ⊕ · · · ⊕ 1X = f (n), (9) problems with dark energy and dark matter look like an | {z } experimental indication that the arithmetic we all work n times with is not necessarily the one preferred by Nature. This and to any real numbers, since for r, s ∈ R is the main message of the paper.
In Sec. VIII we return to the dilemmas of the 19th rX ⊕ sX = (r + s)X (10) 3
−1 −1 −1 −1 if one defines rX = f (r), sX = f (s). So, 2X⊕2X = 4X, (−1, 1), f(x) = tanh (x), f (x) = tanh x. The neutral −1 −1 but typically 2X 6= 2 and 4X 6= 4. To put it differently, elements are 0X = f (0) = tanh 0 = 0, 1X = f (1) = 2 2 even if 2X = 2 it does not yet mean that 4X = 4. tanh 1 = (e − 1)/(e + 1) ≈ 0.76. Does v = 0.76c have To focus our attention let us imagine that X is the any special physical meaning? Non-Diophantine infinity −1 open interval (−L/2, L/2), X = − L/(2`), L/(2`) , equals ∞X = f (∞) = 1. Velocity of light is infinite, at least in the non-Diophantine sense. L π`x f(x) = tan (≈ x for small x), (11) π` L L π`r III. NON-NEWTONIAN DIFFERENTIATION f −1(r) = arctan (≈ r for small r). (12) π` L AND INTEGRATION The neutral elements are Consider two sets X, Y, with arithmetics −1 0 = f (0) = 0, (13) {⊕X, X, X, X, ≤X} and {⊕Y, Y, Y, Y, ≤Y}, X respectively. A function A : → defines a new L π` X Y 1 = f −1(1) = arctan (14) function A˜ : R → R such that the diagram X π` L A Taking L at the order of the radius of the visible Universe, X −→ Y L = 8 × 1026 m, and ` at the order of the Planck length, f f (22) −35 Xy y Y ` = 2 × 10 m, we find 1X ≈ 1. For bigger numbers we A˜ find R −→ R L π`n is commutative. The neutral elements of addition read n = f −1(n) = arctan (15) X 0 = f −1(0), 0 = f −1(0), where we assume continuity π` L X X Y Y 61 −1 −1 −1 limr→0 f (r) = limr→0 f (r) and limr→0 f (r) = 4 × 10 πn − X + X − Y = arctan . (16) −1 61 limr→0 f (r) of the inverse bijections, so that 0 and π 4 × 10 + Y X 0Y are unambiguously defined. Notice that the available real numbers are limited by The derivative of A is defined as |r | < 2 × 1061 = L/(2`). (17) DA(x) X = lim A(x ⊕ h ) A(x) h , (23) Dx h→0 X X Y Y Y The upper bound L/(2`) plays the same role as the ma- chine infinity N∞. The arithmetic we have constructed is where the limit is appropriately constructed [18, 19]. No- consistent but non-Diophantine. Numbers such as 1055 tice that this is just the standard undergraduate-course are not small, but still medium-large in the sense of Kol- definition of a derivative, but formulated in terms of a mogorov, since general addition, subtraction, and division. One proves that (23) implies 1055 ⊕ 1055 = f −1 f(1055) + f(1055) ≈ 2. × 1055, (18) ! DA(x) dA˜ f (x) = f −1 X . (24) Dx Y df (x) 1055 ⊕ 1055 ⊕ 1055 = f −1 f(1055) + f(1055) + f(1055) X 55 ≈ 3. × 10 . (19) Here dA˜(r)/dr is the usual Newtonian derivative of A˜ : R → R, and we assume of course that the latter is dif- The symbol of approximate equality ≈ in (18)-(19) is ferentiable. The form (24) is an alternative form of the here practically determined by the computing capabili- 61 definition of the non-Newtonian derivative, which is ex- ties of Wolfram Mathematica. However 10 is already tremely useful in practical calculations. Readers inter- Kolmogorovian super-large: ested in explicit examples involving different choices of 1061 ⊕ 1061 = f −1 f(1061) + f(1061) arithmetics in X or Y should look into [19]. The non-Newtonian derivative is linear with respect to ≈ 1.40967 × 1061, (20) ⊕Y and satisfies the Leibniz rule D A1(x) A2(x) DA (x) 1061 ⊕ 1061 ⊕ 1061 = f −1 f(1061) + f(1061) + f(1061) Y = A (x) 2 ⊕ Dx 1 Y Dx Y 61 ≈ 1.59033 × 10 . (21) DA1(x) A2(x) . (25) An arithmetic defined by a bijection f is, in the termi- Dx Y nology of Burgin, an example of a projective arithmetic One also proves a chain rule for compositions of functions with projection f and coprojection f −1. [19] which, in particular, implies It is evident that relativistic addition of dimension- less velocities β = v/c is also an example of projective- Df (x) Df (x) X = 1 = Y , (26) arithmetic non-Diophantine addition: X = (−c, c), X = Dx Dx 4
−1 −1 Df (x) Df (x) A. Matter dominated universe X = 1 , Y = 1 . (27) Dx X Dx Y Let us illustrate the phenomenon by the Friedman The bijections themselves are therefore always differen- equation tiable with respect to the derivatives they define, while da(t) the resulting derivatives are always equal to appropri- = ω/a(t)1/2, (29) ate unit elements. This is true also in cases where the dt domains and the images A( ) are highly nontrivial X X for a flat, matter dominated FRW model with exactly sets such as fractals. Although typically such bijections vanishing cosmological constant [27]. With the initial are discontinuous in metric topologies of and , it X Y condition a(0) = 0 we get is enough that they are always continuous in topologies they induce in and from the open-interval topology X Y a(t) = (3ωt/2)2/3. (30) of R.iedn Once we have the derivatives we define a non- The non-Newtonian generalization reads for A : X → Y, Newtonian (Riemann, Lebesgue,...) integral of A by
DA(t) (1/2) = ω A(t) Y ,A(0 ) = 0 , (31) b f (b) ! Y Y X Y Z Z X Dt A(x)Dx = f −1 A˜(r)dr , (28) Y (1/2) (1/2) a f (a) Y Y X where A ⊗Y A = A, i.e.
(1/2) −1 p i.e. in terms of the Newtonian (Riemann, Lebesgue,...) A Y = f f (A) . (32) Y Y integral of A˜. The two functions A and A˜ are related by (22). Under standard assumptions about differentia- Employing the diagram (22) we rewrite (31) as bility and continuity of A˜ we obtain both fundamental ! ! theorems of non-Newtonian calculus, relating derivatives dA˜ f (t) f (ω ) f −1 X = f −1 Y Y , (33) and integrals. Y Y 1/2 dfX(t) A˜ f (t) Let us note that (28) reduces an integral over X to a X 1-dimensional integral over [f (a), f (b)] ⊂ . So, for X X R so that example, if X = R3 we reduce a 3-dimensional integral to 2/3 a 1-dimensional one. The clue that such a counterintu- A˜ f (t) = 3f (ω )f (t)/2 , (34) itive possibility exists can be found already in Wiener’s X Y Y X 2/3 lectures on Fourier analysis [26]. A(t) = f −1 3f (ω )f (t)/2 . (35) Y Y Y X Any model which is usually formulated in terms of 26 the Diophantine arithmetic and the Newtonian calcu- Now let X = Y = − L/(2`), L/(2`) , L = 8 × 10 m, −35 −1 lus can be regarded as a special case, with fX(x) = x ` = 2 × 10 m, ω = f (ω). Let the arithmetic be Y Y and fY(y) = y, of a general projective-arithmetic non- given by the example from Sec. II, Diophantine and non-Newtonian one. All physical theo- ries have their non-Newtonian generalizations. L π`x f (x) = f (x) = tan . (36) X Y π` L The resulting A(t) is shown in Fig. 1 (the dashed curve). IV. ARITHMETIC ANALOGUE OF DARK For super-large times A(t) bends up in a characteristic ENERGY way, typical of dark-energy models of accelerating Uni- verse. It is instructive to discuss also the tanh−1 we mentioned in the abstract. Therefore, let If the arithmetic we employ in mathematical modeling of physical theories is identical to some putative Objec- L 2`x f (x) = f (x) = tanh−1 . (37) tive Arithmetic of the Universe, then there is no possibil- X Y 2` L ity of verifying if the physical arithmetic is Diophantine or not. Simply, we will always find ‘two plus two equals The resulting A(t) is shown in Fig. 1 (the dotted curve). four’ and the like. We will not know that ‘two’, ‘four’ In both cases the ‘dark energy’ effect is of purely arith- metic origin. However, the ‘dark energy’ behavior of a(t) or ‘plus’ implicitly involve some fX, so should be written with some subscript X. However, what if the Universe is here only qualitatively similar to the exact ΩM = 0.3, ‘works’ with some other arithmetic, not necessarily the ΩΛ = 0.7 data [28, 29]. one we are accustomed to? In principle, we can discover a So, is there a kind of arithmetic which is exactly com- mismatch between the two arithmetics, and thus discover patible with the data? The answer is in the next subsec- a nontrivial fX [17]. tion. 5
2. ´ 1041 suggests fY(y) = y, and √ 2 3 ΩΛ 41 1.5 ´ 10 fX(t) = √ sinh (t − t1) (44) 3 ΩΛ 2 t − t1 1. ´ 1041 ≈ 0.8 sinh , (45) 0.8 √ −1 2 −1 3 ΩΛ 40 f (r) = t1 + √ sinh r, (46) 5. ´ 10 X 3 ΩΛ 2 −1 0 = f (0) = t1. (47) X X 5. ´ 1060 1. ´ 1061 1.5 ´ 1061 2. ´ 1061 Notice that there is some freedom in the choice of fY since one can take a linear function f (y) = αy, FIG. 1: Plots of a(t) (Eq. (30), full) and A(t) (Eq. (35)) for Y ω = 1. The dashed and dotted curves correspond to arith- 3 2/3 metics given by (36) and (37), respectively. The models in- A(t) = α−1/2ω f (t) , (48) volve no dark energy. 2 Y X
which just rescales the parameter ωY. Accordingly, (39) solves both (38) and (31). If f (y) = B. Arithmetic behind Ω = 0.3, Ω = 0.7 Y M Λ y, both Friedman equations are equivalent to s The case ΩM = 0.3, ΩΛ = 0.7 involves the Friedman Da(t) Ω = M , t > 0 .. (49) equation, Dt a(t) X s da(t) Ω The cosmological constant has disappeared from the = Ω a(t)2 + M , a(t) > 0, (38) dt Λ a(t) right-hand-side of the Friedman equation, but is hidden in the non-Newtonian form of the derivative. The fact that a is a map → , with the non-Diophantine pro- for a dimensionless scale factor evolving in a dimension- X Y jective arithmetic defined in = by (44), and the usual less time. Eq. (38) is solved by X R Diophantine arithmetic in Y = R, implies that the metric 4 tensor gab should be regarded as a map gab : → . √ !2/3 X R rΩ 3 Ω (t − t ) a(t) = M sinh Λ 1 , t > t . (39) Ω 2 1 Λ V. ARITHMETIC ANALOGUE OF DARK MATTER The dimensionless time is here expressed in units of the 9 Hubble time tH ≈ 13.58 × 10 yr. The present time, Kolmogorov, Rashevsky and Burgin contemplated t = t0, satisfies a(t0) = 1 and thus non-Diophantine arithmetics of natural numbers. In non- Newtonian calculus we deal with non-Diophantine arith- r 2 −1 ΩΛ metics of real numbers. The argument on practical indis- t0 − t1 = √ sinh ≈ 0.96. (40) 3 ΩΛ ΩM tinguishability of super-large numbers can be equally well applied to numbers that are very small. Indeed, one can argue that 2 + 2 = 4 is as obvious as 4/2 = 2. However, For ΩΛ ≈ 0, t1 = 0, we reconstruct (30) with ω = √ is ΩM ,
100100 100100 2−100 /2 = 2−100 −1 p 2/3 a(t) ≈ 3 ΩM t/2 . (41) equally obvious? Similarly to machine infinity N∞ one can speak of machine zero, a nonzero finite number N A comparison of (39), written as 0 satisfying N0/2 = N0 (e.g. N0 = 1/N∞). In non- √ Diophantine projective arithemetic zero is the neutral 2/3 −1 3 2 3 ΩΛ element of addition, 0 = f (0). No matter which bijec- p X X a(t) = ΩM √ sinh (t − t1) ,(42) tion f : → one takes, one always finds x ⊕ 0 = x, 2 3 ΩΛ 2 X X R X X Such a zero can be non-zero in the ordinary Diophantine with (35), sense, so is a natural candidate for N0. Let us consider a simple example. Actually, the exam- " 2/3# ple is so simple that it might seem it cannot produce any- −1 3 −1 A(t) = f f (ω )f (t) , (43) thing interesting: X = R, fX(x) = x − , f (r) = r + . Y Y Y X X 2 Here is an arbitrary real number, for example = N0. 6
The neutral elements of addition and multiplication are 0X = , and not just to 0. The mismatch of the two 0 = f −1(0) = , 1 = f −1(1) = 1 + = 1 + 0 . Analo- arithmetics will have observable consequences analogous X X X X X gously, all real numbers will satisfy r = f −1(r) = r+0 . to those of a dark matter. X X X To simplify notation let us skip the index X in the bijec- In the next Section we solve step by step the problem tion and in the arithmetic operations it generates, of velocity on a circular orbit around mass M. The solu- tion is valid in any projective arithmetic. One can analo- x ⊕ x0 = f −1 f(x) + f(x0) = x + x0 − , (50) gously formulate all of the standard ‘Newtonian physics’ x x0 = f −1 f(x) − f(x0) = x − x0 + , (51) by means of a non-Newtonian calculus. All the formulas will have the usual textbook form. One only will have to x x0 = f −1 f(x) · f(x0) = (x − )(x0 − ) + , (52) replace dx/dt by Dx/Dt, + by ⊕, 0 by 0X, and so on and x x0 = f −1 f(x)/f(x0) = (x − )/(x0 − ) + . (53) so forth. What is even more important, one can analogously re- ‘Minus x’ is given by formulate any theory which is based on some form of a calculus. General relativity will not be an exception −1 x = 0X x = f − f(x) = −x + 2. (54) from the rule. Paradoxically, if needed, one could con- sider mathematically non-Newtonian versions of physi- Let us cross-check: cally non-Newtonian theories such as MOND or MOG.
x ⊕ x = (−x + 2) + x − = = 0X (55) VI. NON-NEWTONIAN VELOCITY ON A as required. An arbitrary real power of x reads CIRCULAR ORBIT r −1 r r x X = f f(x) = (x − ) + . (56) Arithmetic works with dimensionless variables, so we It satisfies the usual rules need dimensional ‘fundamental units’ (denoted by the Gothic font). For example: position (x, y, z)l, velocity r s −1 r s x X ⊗ x X = f f(x) f(x) (57) (x, ˙ y,˙ z˙)v, acceleration (¨x, y,¨ z¨)a, time tt, mass mm. We (r+s) r+s do not yet specify which units are truly fundamental. = x X = (x − ) + , (58) Velocity perhaps satisfies v = c, but at this stage we and leave it arbitrary. The arithmetic is projective in the sense of Burgin, i.e. is defined by means of some one- r Dx X = f −1 rf(x)r−1 (59) to-one f : X → R. We assume that arithmetics of do- Dx mains and images of the maps in question are identical (r−1) r−1 X (which is not obvious, so this is an assumption about this = rX ⊗ x = r(x − ) + . (60) concrete model). By this it is meant that, for example Let us apply the above formulas to a general non- X 3 t 7→ x(t) ∈ X, sox ˙(t) = Dx(t)/Dt ∈ X. Employ- Newtonian Newton-Coulomb ‘1/x’ potential −1 ing our previous notation we write rX = f (r) ∈ X for r ∈ R. The same concerns the infinity ∞ = f −1(∞). (−1) 1 −1 X U(x) = x X = x X = f 1/f(x) . (61) 0 0 Elements of X are ordered by x ≤X x iff f(x) ≤ f(x ). Minus means x = 0X x. In particular, minus infin- The non-Newtonian force −1 ity is ∞X = f (−∞). Recalling that an nth power n DU(x) 1 of x ∈ X is denoted by x X one should similarly de- −1 2 n n = f 1/f(x) = + (62) note higher derivatives by D X x(t)/Dt X , but I prefer Dx (x − )2 the less redundant, simpler and yet unambiguous form 1 n n = + 0 (63) D x(t)/Dt . The chain rule for derivatives of composi- (x − 0 )2 X X tions of functions A, B : X → X reads [19] has singularity at x = 0 , and tends to 0 with x → ∞. DA(B(t)) DA B(t) DB(t) X X = ⊗ . (64) In our example both Diophantine and non-Diophantine Dt DB(t) Dt arithmetics, and both Newtonian and non-Newtonian calculi, are defined in the same set R. All the formu- The non-Newtonian Hamilton equations las can be thus read in terms of either of them. But Dpa(t) DH(q(t), p(t)) since the laws of physics are formulated here in a non- = a , (65) Diophantine/non-Newtonian way, attempts of interpret- Dt Dq (t) Dqa(t) DH(q(t), p(t)) ing them in the Diophantine/Newtonian formalism will = , (66) lead to inconsistencies. For example, the attractive gravi- Dt Dpa(t) tational force will asymptotically achieve a constant value imply the non-Newtonian Poisson bracket 0X = and not just 0. An appropriately formulated cen- trifugal force on a circular orbit, as well as the linear DA DB DB DA {A, B} = a ⊗ a ⊗ (67) velocity along the orbit, will also asymptotically tend to Dq Dpa Dq Dpa 7
(with non-Newtonian summation convention for ⊕). An orbit located at x3 = 0X corresponds to the circle 2 2 2 Now, let R =x ˜1(f(t)) +x ˜2(f(t)) and rotation with angular velocity ωR, so 2 2 2 H = (p X ⊕ p X ⊕ p X ) (2 ⊗ m ) 1 2 3 X X 2 2 2 2 v˜1(f(t)) +v ˜2(f(t)) = ωR R = GM/R. (81) GX ⊗ mX ⊗ MX r (68) f(p )2 + f(p )2 + f(p )2 = f −1 1 2 3 Finally, 2m 2 2 2 (1/2) −1 p ! v = (v X ⊕ v X ⊕ v X ) X = f ( GM/R) (82) mM 1 2 3 (1/2) −G , (69) −1 p X p 2 2 2 = f ( GM/f(R )) = (GM) R . f(x1) + f(x2) + f(x3) X X X
2 2 2 With R → ∞ (i.e. R → ∞) the dimensionless velocity X X X (1/2) X X where r = (x1 ⊕x2 ⊕x3 ) X , and all the variables are tends to f −1(0) = 0 . The asymptotic dimensional ve- dimensionless. The non-Newtonian Hamilton equations X locity is 0Xv. This is the general solution, valid for any read explicitly projective non-Diophantine arithmetic. ! Analogous calculations lead to the dimensionless accel- Dp −GmMf(x ) j = f −1 j ,(70) eration Dt 2 2 23/2 f(x1) + f(x2) + f(x3) 2 2 2 (1/2) −1 2 a = (a X ⊕ a X ⊕ a X ) X = f (GM/R ) (83) 1 2 3 Dxj f(pj) −1 2 2 = f −1 = v . (71) = f GM/f(R ) = v X R . (84) Dt m j X X The dimensional one is aa. It tends asymptotically to The analogue of the diagram (22), 0Xa. The non-Newtonian formalism predicts that the limit- xj ,pj X −→ X ing velocity and acceleration are mass independent, un- f f , (72) less mass influences the form of arithmetic, of course. In y y any case, the rate of convergence toward 0 with growing x˜j ,p˜j X R −→ R R is mass dependent. defines the functionsx ˜j,p ˜j such that VII. COMPARISON WITH MOND −1 xj(t) = f x˜j(f(t)) , (73) p (t) = f −1 p˜ (f(t)), (74) Formula (83) can be compared with Milgrom’s MOND. j j −1 −1 √ ! Assume f (x) ≈ x for x xf , f (x) ≈ a0x for Dx (t) d˜x f(t) j = f −1 j , (75) 0 < < x < xf , and anything else otherwise. It is Dt df(t) not difficult to invent a bijection f : R → R with such ! properties. Then Dpj(t) −1 d˜pj f(t) = f . (76) 2 2 Dt df(t) GM/R√ for GM/R xf , 2 a(R) ≈ GMa0/R for < GM/R < xf , (85) −1 The non-Newtonian Hamilton equations can be therefore f (0) for R → ∞. rewritten as For velocity we get d˜pj f(t) −GmMx˜j(f(t)) p p = , (77) GM/R for GM/R xf , df(t) 2 23/2 x˜1(f(t)) + ··· +x ˜3(f(t)) q p p v(R) ≈ a0 GM/R for < GM/R < xf , (86) d˜x f(t) p˜ (f(t)) j = j = f v (t) =v ˜ (f(t)), (78) f −1(0) for R → ∞. df(t) m j j q p which is the standard Newtonian problem for the inter- Denoting a0 GM/R = vM(M,R) we obtain a mediate quantitiesx ˜j andp ˜j. However, once we have MOND-type prediction found them, we still have to compute the observable 4 0 4 vM(M,R) vM(M ,R) quantities xj(t) and pj(t). = (87) −1 M M 0 The circular orbit r = RX = f (R) is equivalent to 0 2 2 2 2 for any M, M , R. R =x ˜1(f(t)) +x ˜2(f(t)) +x ˜3(f(t)) , (79) A fundamental principle behind MOND is now reduced 2 −1 d x˜j f(t) GM to the one that governs the form of f . For the moment = − x˜ (f(t)) = −ω 2x˜ (f(t)). (80) df(t)2 R3 j R j the principle is unknown. 8
VIII. ARITHMETIC UNIVERSE
Out of nothing I have created a strange new universe J´anosBolyai, from a letter to his father (1823)
Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781) concluded that the concept of space is unique and given a priori. At the moment of publishing the book Gauss was four years old, while Bolyai, Lobachevski, Riemann, and Einstein were not yet born. One cannot blame Kant for his unawareness of different geometries. After Rie- mann but before Einstein mathematicians already knew that non-Euclidean geometries were possible. Accord- Ξp x x ing to some accounts, Gauss even made measurements 4 testing if angles in sufficiently large triangles indeed sum H L to π. Curvilinear systems of coordinates were applied to differential equations in Euclidean space much earlier, 3 but the principle of general covariance, implicit in the works of Lam´e[30], had the status of a mathematical trick used to simplify calculations. Neither did one know 2 that non-Euclidean character of space is experienced un- der the name of gravity, nor that different geometries are implied by different distributions of matter. 1 Identical questions can be posed in the context of arith- metic. Are we still in the arithmetic Kantian era, with x arithmetic given a priori? Certainly not. After the works 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 of Burgin, Grossman and Katz we are already in a Rie- mannian era, with formalism at hand but with no true FIG. 2: Indication of non-Diophantine arithmetic of human applications in mind. sensory system. Typical Weber-law data versus sensation Moreover, most of us is unaware that we in fact do level of the stimulus (adapted from [32]). ∆x/x is essen- experience non-Diophantine arithmetic in our everyday tially ξp(x)/x − 1 for some p (division and subtraction are here Diophantine). The traditional Weber law corresponds life. In this respect we behave like those 19th century to the flat parts of the curves. Below, the plots of ξ (x)/x for physicists and mathematicians who experienced gravity p different f(x). Full curves: f(x) = x, f(δp) = 0.1 (leftmost), 2 10 but searched in vain for some observable manifestations f(x) = x , f(δp) = 0.5 (middle), f(x) = x , f(δp) = 10 of non-Euclidean geometry of the Universe. A physical (rightmost). The even powers are restrictions to x ≥ 0 of the q non-Diophantine arithmetic is literally hiding just before general bijection f(x) = |x| sgn(x), q ∈ R. Dashed curves: our noses: human and animal sensory systems perform a f(x) = tanh x with f(δp) = 0.01 (lowest), f(δp) = 0.15 (mid- non-Diophantine subtraction, dle), f(δp) = 0.29 (upper). The bending-up occurring for the dashed lines is a consequence of bounding f(x) from above. −1 ξp(x) x = f f ξp(x) − f(x) = δp. (88) The exact form of the ‘sensory scale’ f is unknown, but experiment shows that a generalized subtraction is at than its theoretical estimate. In the non-Newtonian for- work, making δp independent of x (the Weber law) [31]. malism one does not have to change a single scientific law The so-called sensitivity function ξp(x) is, roughly speak- to obtain this type of behavior. Putting it more modestly, ing, a perceived value of the input signal x, obtained in even if the arithmetic perspective will not entirely elimi- p percent of measurements. If we know δp and f then nate the need for dark matter or energy, it should at least −1 change theoretical estimates for their parameters. ‘Out ξp(x) = f f(x) + f(δp) = x ⊕ δp. (89) of nothing’ we open new theoretical possibilities. The upper part of Fig. 2 shows typical Weber-law data for The big question remains if there exists a natural several sensory systems. The lower part illustrates quali- law determining the form of arithmetic. The problem tative predictions for various types of non-Diophantine was partially addressed by P. Benioff [34–36] and, in an arithmetics [33]. The plateaus are well modeled by explicitly non-Diophantine manner, by J.-C. Falmagne f(x) = a ln x + b, a fact explaining why decibels cor- [37, 38]. One should also mention the bit-string formal- respond to a logarithmic scale. Non-Diophantine arith- ism of H. Pierre Noyes [39], and the universal computa- metic is employed by Nature. tional rewrite paradigm of P. Rowlands [40]. All these Returning to the Universe, it is not easy to accept a results, unfortunately, do not seem to bring us any closer scientific paradigm that fills it with huge amounts of un- to a universal form of fX, a putative driving force behind observable matter, or with pressure 10120 times smaller our dark Universe. 9
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to Mark Burgin, Mike Grossman, and Peter Carr for encouragement and valuable advice at various stages of this project. I am grateful to Igor Kanatchikov for suggestions how to clarify the presen- tation.
Appendix: Fractals as dark universes of zero Lebesgue measure
This section is somewhat orthogonal to the preceding ones, so I decided to shift it to the Appendix. It shows that dark energy may be indeed a real energy that ap- pears ‘out of nowhere’. The common element of all these approaches is provided by the non-Newtonian calculus. We will illustrate the idea on one of the simplest fractals: FIG. 3: Two ways of constructing ternary middle-third a Cantor dust. Cantor-type fractals. (A) One starts with a closed interval The usual triadic middle-third Cantor set is con- C0. In each step one divides intervals into three segments of structed by the algorithm from Fig. 3A. In the first step equal lengths, and removes interiors of the middle ones. Cn one removes the interior of the middle one-third of the is the set obtained in the n-th step. After n steps the number n+1 ∞ segment C0 = [0, 1]. The result is C1 = [0, 1/3] ∪ [2/3, 1]. of endpoints equals 2 . The Cantor set is C = ∩n=0Cn. In the second step one performs the same operation on (B) One starts with a right-open interval C0+. Each interval [0, 1/3] and [2/3, 1], arriving at C2 = [0, 1/9]∪[2/9, 3/9]∪ is cut in the middle and split, forming two right-open inter- [6/9, 7/9]∪[8/9, 1]. And so on, ad infinitum. The sets are vals, three times shorter than the split one. Cn+ is the set obtained in the n-th step. After n steps the number of end- embeded in one another: C0 ⊃ C1 ⊃ C2 ⊃ ... . The Can- n ∞ ∞ points equals 2 .The Cantor set is C+ = ∩n=0Cn+. Both tor set is the limit C = ∩n=0Cn. The Lebesgue measure n+1 Cantor sets are self-similar, with the same similarity dimen- µ of C satisfies µ(C ) = 2 µ(C ) = 2 µ(C ), n n+1 3 n 3 0 sion log3 2. Clearly, the second procedure is one-to-one so it 2 n defines a bijection f+ : C+ → C0+. which implies µ(C) = limn→∞ 3 µ(C0) = 0. One can perform an analogous construction for C0+ = [0, 1) (Fig. 3B), but in each step removing a left-closed Assume the modification is such that ψ(x) and all its interval, so that C = [0, 1/3) ∪ [2/3, 1), etc. The re- 1+ derivatives are set to 0 for x ∈ C . Now we can take an sulting set C = ∩∞ C is self-similar with similarity R + n=0 n+ arbitrary φ(x) which is defined only on C . We will treat dimension d = log 2. ‘Cantor dusts’ C and C have the R 3 + φ as a completely independent entity, unrelated to ψ. For same similarity dimensions. The sets are uncountable. simplicity assume that φ(x) ∈ , while is equipped Fig. 3B shows why C and [0, 1) are in a one-to-one re- R R + with the ordinary Diophanthine arithmetic. The diagram lation. Repeating the procedure in any interval [k, k +1), (22) then reads k = 0, ±1, ±2 ... , we obtain a subset CR ⊂ R, which is a φ periodic repetition of C+ ⊂ [0, 1). CR and R are related CR −→ R by a one-to-one map fC : C → . The Lebesgue mea- R R R fC id (90) sure of a countable union of zero-measure sets is zero, so R y y R µ(C ) = 0. Readers interested in more explicit details φ˜ R −→ should consult [14–16] R R
The next step is to consider a Schr¨odingerequation Here idR(x) = x is the identity map. CR is equipped with for a wave function ψ(x), R |ψ(x)|2dx < ∞. ψ(x) is a its intrinsic arithmetic, R representative of the equivalence class |ψi [41]. It can be 0 −1 0 x ⊕C x = fC fC (x) + fC (x ) , (91) modified on any zero-Lebesgue-measure set, for example R R R R
CR, and yet quantum mechanical measurements will not etc. The derivative is just notice the difference. The fact that the resulting modified ˜ Dφ(x) dφ fC (x) wave function may not be differentiable is not a problem. R 0 = . (92) Simply, one defines a derivative |ψ i of the state |ψi as the Dx dfC (x) derivative dψ(x)/dx of this representative of the equiva- R lence class which is differentiable, and then treats it as a An energy eigenvalue for a quantum system defined on C is given by the Schr¨odingerequation for φ : C → , representative of the entire equivalence class |ψ0i. Once R R R dψ(x)/dx is computed one can arbitrarily modify it at D2φ(x) x ∈ C . − + U(x)φ(x) = Eφ(x), (93) R Dx2 10 or equivalently Diophantine arithmetic in R defined by f(x) = x3,
2 ˜ p3 d φ fC (x) 0 −1 0 3 03 R ˜ ˜ x ⊕ x = f f(x) + f(x ) = x + x , (97) − + U˜ fC (x) φ fC (x) = Eφ fC (x) . 2 R R R dfC (x) p3 R x x0 = f −1 f(x) − f(x0) = x3 − x03, (98) (94) x x0 = f −1 f(x) · f(x0) = x · x0, (99) The potential U˜ is defined by the diagram x x0 = f −1 f(x)/f(x0) = x/x0. (100)
U CR −→ R Multiplication, division,√ and the neutral elements√ are un- changed: f −1(0) = 3 0 = 0, f −1(1) = 3 1 = 1. The fC id (95) R y y R equation to solve is U˜ R −→ R d2ψ˜(r) − + r2ψ˜(r) = Eψ˜(r). (101) As we can see, we have to solve the ordinary Schr¨odinger dr2 equation with the potential U˜. If spectrum is discrete the solution is normalized by If E is the minimal energy then ψ˜(r) is the Gaussian R ∞ ˜ 2 Z Z ∞ normalized by −∞ |ψ(r)| dr = 1. However, even if we hφ|φi = |φ(x)|2Dx = |φ˜(r)|2dr = 1. (96) assume that ψ(x) is Diophantine-arithmetic-valued, the C −∞ R probability of finding the particle in [a, b] is given by the non-Newtonian integral The eigenvalue E comes from the zero-measure set CR. The presence of φ(x) cannot be discovered by standard Z b Z f(b) Z b3 quantum measurements performed for ψ(x). Still, the |ψ(x)|2Dx = |ψ˜(r)|2dr = |ψ˜(r)|2dr,(102) energy E contributes to the overall energy of the sys- a f(a) a3 tem. We can say that (93) plays a role of a dark energy eigenvalue problem. since the domain of ψ is equipped with the non- The fact that (94) is effectively the standard Diophantine arithmetic. Probability of finding a parti- Schr¨odinger equation raises the question if a non- cle in [a, b] is thus given by the integral of the Gaussian Newtonian modification of quantum mechanics can have over [a3, b3], and not over [a, b]. Such differences in prin- less trivial observable consequences. The answer is yes, ciple can be measured. Of course, the argument is valid in principle. In order to understand why, let us consider in all non-Newtonian probabilistic theories, not only in the harmonic oscillator potential U˜(r) = r2, and the non- quantum mechanics.
[1] S. Weinberg, “The cosmological constant problem”, Rev. Mat. 23, 145-156 (1993). Mod. Phys. 61, 1-23 (1989). [12] E. Pap, “Generalized real analysis and its applications”, [2] A. N. Kolmogorov, “Automata and life”, Technika Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 47, 368-386 (2008). Molodezhi 10, 16-19; 11, 30-33 (1961), in Russian. [13] M. Grabisch, J.-L. Marichal, R. Mesiar, E. Pap, Aggrega- [3] P. K. Rashevsky, “On the dogma of the natural num- tion Functions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge bers”, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 28, 243-246 (1973), in Rus- (2009). sian. [14] M. Czachor, “Relativity of arithmetic as a fundamental [4] M. S. Burgin, “Nonclassical models of the natural num- symmetry of physics”, Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 3, bers, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 32, 209-210 (1977), in Russian. 123-133 (2016). [5] M. Burgin, Non-Diophantine Arithmetics, or is it Possi- [15] D. Aerts, M. Czachor, M. Kuna, “Crystallization of ble that 2 + 2 is not Equal to 4?, Ukrainian Academy of space: Space-time fractals from fractal arithmetic”, Information Sciences, Kiev 1997 (in Russian). Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 83, 201-211 (2016) [6] M. Burgin, Introduction to projective arithmetics, [16] D. Aerts, M. Czachor, M. Kuna, “Fourier transforms arXiv:1010.3287 [math.GM] (2010). on Cantor sets: A study in non-Diophantine arithmetic [7] M. Burgin and G. Meissner, 1 + 1 = 3: Synergy arith- and calculus”, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 91, 461-468 metics in economics, Appl. Math. 8, 133-134 (2017). (2016) [8] M. Grossman and R. Katz, Non-Newtonian Calculus, Lee [17] M. Czachor, “If gravity is geometry, is dark energy just Press, Pigeon Cove (1972). arithmetic?”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 56, 1364-1381 (2017). [9] M. Grossman, The First Nonlinear System of Differential [18] D. Aerts, M. Czachor, M. Kuna, “Simple fractal calculus and Integral Calculus, Mathco, Rockport (1979). from fractal arithmetic”, Rep. Math. Phys. 81, 357-370 [10] M. Grossman, Bigeometric Calculus: A System with (2018). Scale-Free Derivative, Archimedes Foundation, Rockport [19] M. Czachor, “Waves along fractal coastlines: From frac- (1983). tal arithmetic to wave equations”, Acta Phys. Polon. B [11] E. Pap, “g-calculus”, Zb. Rad. Prirod.–Mat. Fak. Ser. 50, 813-831 (2019). 11
[20] M. Milgrom, “A modification of the Newtonian dynamics Mathematics, Physics, and Psychology, a monograph in as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis”, preparation, World Scientific, Singapore. Astrophys. Journ. 270, 365-370 (1983). [34] P. Benioff, “Towards a coherent theory of physics and [21] M. Milgrom, “MOND vs. dark matter in light of histori- mathematics”, Found. Phys. 32, 989-1029 (2002). cal parallels”, arXiv:1910.04368 (2019). [35] P. Benioff, “Towards a coherent theory of physics [22] J. D. Bekenstein, “Relativistic gravitation theory for the and mathematics. The theory-experiment connection ”, modified Newtonian dynamics paradigm”, Phys. Rev. D Found. Phys. 35, 1825-1856 (2005) . 70, 083509 (2004); Erratum Phys. Rev. D 71, 069901 [36] P. Benioff, “The Theory Experiment Connection: Rn (2005). Space and Inflationary Cosmology”, Proc. SPIE 5833, [23] J. W. Moffat, V. T. Toth, “Fundamental parameter-free 1-14 (2005). solutions in Modified Gravity”, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, [37] J.-C. Falmagne, “Meaningfulness and order invariance: 085002 (2009). Two fundamental principles for scientific laws”. Found. [24] M. A. Green, J. W. Moffat, “Modified Gravity (MOG) Phys. 34, 1341-1384 (2004). fits to observed radial acceleration of SPARC”, Phys. [38] J.-C. Falmagne, C. Doble, On Meaningful Scientific Dark Universe 25, 100323 (2019). Laws, Springer, Berlin (2015). [25] Exercise: check it explicitly by means of (1)-(4). [39] H. Pierre Noyes, J. C. van der Berg (Eds.), Bit-String [26] N. Wiener, The Fourier Integral and Certain of its Appli- Physics. A Finite and Discrete Approach to Natural Phi- cations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1933). losophy, World Scientific, Singapore (2001). [27] J. B. Hartle, Gravity. An Introduction to Einstein’s [40] P. Rowlands, Zero to Infinity. The Foundations of General Relativity, Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco Physics, World Scientific, Singapore (2007). (2003). [41] hf|gi is a scalar product if hf|fi = 0 implies that |fi [28] A. G. Reiss et al., “Observational evidence from super- is a zero vector. However, if hf|fi = R |f(x)|2dx then it novae for an accelerating Universe and a cosmological is easy to give examples of nonzero functions f which constant”, Astron. J. 116, 1009-1039 (1998). nevertheless imply R |f(x)|2dx = 0 if dx is the Lebesgue [29] S. Perlmutter et al., “Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 measure on R. So, although f(x) 6= 0 for some x ∈ R, the high-redshift supernovae”, constant”, Ap. J. 517, 565- corresponding state-vector |fi must be regarded as the 586 (1999). zero vector. In order to make it formal, we introduce the [30] G. Lam´e, Examen des Diff´erentes M´ethodes Employ´ees equivalence relation: f ∼ g if and only if f(x) − g(x) is pour R´esoudre les Probl´emesde G´eom´etrie, Courcier, nonzero on at most a set of Lebesgue measure zero. The Paris (1818). ket |fi is the equivalence class of functions defined by the [31] J. C. Falmagne, Elements of Psychophysical Theory, Ox- relation. In consequence, if we modify the values f(x) on ford University Press, Oxford (1985). a set of zero Lebesgue measure, the state |fi remains un- [32] R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook changed, and thus no quantum measurement can detect of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 1 , Wiley, New York the modification. Sets of zero Lebesgue measure can have (1963). the same cardinality as the continuum R. [33] M. Burgin, M. Czachor, Non-Diophantine Arithmetics in