Mordred

Klein the Dirac is the U(1) gauge without relativistic pull through

So you need the Langevian for SU(2) easily done while I'm getting that here is the ghost for entanglement application https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.08351.pdf

There is an easy way to keep track of all this. the SM groups are [math](SU(3)\otimes SU(2)\ otimes U(1)[/math] the SU(2) uses the Paui matrixes while the SU(3) uses the Gell-Mann matrixes like this one? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5943v2

Well the SU(3) group also details the Higgs and neutrino mixings so it can also apply

Here is the Ghost operator application for SU(3) which applies for the Gell-Mann matrixes https://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-th/papers/0701/0701194.pdf You will find a lot of this is already done if you dig deep enough

The Ghost operator is more so for the atom but it does relate to the symmetries involved in the Beaz link (last link above) http://www-thphys.physics.ox.ac.uk/people/JamesBinney/qb.pdf

yes The last link By Beaz is informative to the group symmetry involvement

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 the first two is particle physics (basics lol, the second link is detailing under Relativity this is a good overview of how it applies to GUT theory http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf Personally though I recommend getting Griffith's textbook "Introductory to Particle physics"

Not quite, the entanglement process involves the conservation laws of the Eightfold Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) see the conserved quantities on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_(physics)#Conservation_laws_and_symmetry These will involve the Gell Mann matrix'es. Key words the Baryon Octet, Baryon Decouplet the Meson Nonet.

The first case for DM, the indirect means, it is with its effects via gravity.

No we have to rely on indirect methods to detect DM.

I often attempt to model inside a BH. Relativity can allow for it with the right observer. I still get nonsense answers for the singularity conditions. Its been years since my last attempt. There is definetely boundaries where no metric can cross and still make sense.

Ah gotcha, yeah that does present its challengs. I knew a few people that had that problem. It explains quite a bit so I will keep that in mind in the future.

Correct this is the related to the double cover of the SO(n) orthogonal groups. Which includes the Poicare group. Here is the algebra of the Poincare group. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~s0948358/mysite/Poincare%20Chapters%201%262.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjy64ruoPLXAhWh4IMKHX4xBTYQFggdMAA&usg=AOvVaw10So-VAuHjnj3N1E9JZQSW

Yeah the Pati-Salam will teach you the right hand rule to your symmetry groups left/right chirality and helicity relations under your SM gauge groups

It takes a lot of effort to understand particle physics. Its not an easy topic. So don't feel bad about that. Its one of primary reasons why I stress the importance of understanding correctly terms such as mass, energy, work, potential and kinetic energy.. The list goes on but any musunderstanding of the definitions will always prevent correct understanding of particle physics. (or physics in general)

lol good to hear on the other thread earlier today you encountered an issue with neutrino mixing and Higgs. So I dug up a lecture on how Higgs and neutrinos apply to the Langevian and the gauge corrections https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nikhef.nl/~ivov/HiggsLectureNote.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjBhNmMlvLXAhVL2oMKHfS3ATAQFggdMAA&usg=AOvVaw26NjS53quxIisxyXHNFjAi I might also suggest looking through Pati-Salam subgroups of the SM model under SO(10) you will find the detail handy to this modelling. edit forgot to add you will note the relationships to an earlier Langevian equation I posted on this thread much earlier lol.

Well handled Strange my hats off to you.

Lol yeah working with equations that complex gets incredibly annoying on reductions. Glad to see your sheer diligence. Very few are willing to go the mile.

Mass isn't due to just one force. All forces and energy density contribute to mass. DM has mass its simply due to the weak force which it does interact with much like neutrinos has mass via the same mechanism. Hence the sterile neutrinos Vmedvil and I were discussing earlier I know this article will be too technical however as it is on topic it would be good to add here "The next decade of Stetile neutrino studies" https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.495 "We review the status of sterile neutrino dark matter and discuss astrophysical and cosmological bounds on its properties as well as future prospects for its experimental searches. We argue that if sterile neutrinos are the dominant fraction of dark matter, detecting an astrophysical signal from their decay (the so-called 'indirect detection') may be the only way to identify these particles experimentally. However, it may be possible to check the dark matter origin of the observed signal unambiguously using its characteristic properties and/or using synergy with accelerator experiments, searching for other sterile neutrinos, responsible for neutrino flavor oscillations. We argue that to fully explore this possibility a dedicated cosmic mission - an X-ray spectrometer - is needed." now one of the key details in that article is that in order to account for the quantity of DM you would need at least 3 sterile neutrino flavors. I will note this comes back to the conjecture Vmedvil posted earlier that I wanted clarity on. Once he described what he was thinking in better detail. I knew this was what he was referring to.

Everyday objects like tables, chairs are held together by the the EM force. DM cannot bind the same way. More importantly atoms themselves are held together by the EM force. So DM cannot form atoms

Excellent explanation Janus, very accurate No he is describing one of the distinctive differences between baryonic (normal matter) and weakly interactive matter. Both have mass but the key is the lack of the electromagnetic interaction with the WIMP family.

Thanks Studiot, if you think about it. This confusion in the first quote often crops up in Bells experiment.

Not quite, Physics is never about defining reality. We leave that task to philosophers lol. One thing I always stress is a field is an abstract device. A field is precisely a treatment under geometric basis, where every coordinate is assigned a function. That function will provide either a scalar or vector/spinor quantity. Now that is clarified onto particle themselves. Its no mystery that everyday objects are comprised of particles. The coupling strength of the EM force provides us our sense of solid. Everyone pretty much understands this. However most people run into difficulty letting this "solid thinking" go when it comes to the quantum realm. They look for that solidity in particles. The wave particle duality teaches us that a particle has both wavelike and pointlike characteristics. However they tend to confuse two key aspects. The wavelike characteristic in this instance is not the probability waves. The probability waves simply provide the probability of locating said particle in point of detail the probability wave can have any number of particles. The particle excitation defined by the Compton wavelength for force particles and the Debroglie wavelength for the matter particles. For the matter particles when the pointlike characteristic becomes meaningful, the region of said particle is DeBroglie wavelength. Now each of these two waveforms have distinctive cutoff points except the HUP makes it tricky to pin down as it will always be inherently fuzzy due to the HUP. These two wave are akin to physical waves not probability So lets ask some questions. 1) the electron is a fundamental particle, it is not made of smaller particles. Yet has no internal structure. So lets think about that for a minute. How can a solid electron not be made up of smaller particles if it is solid ? 2) How does a solid particle pop in and out of existence, from where and how ? the novice tends to think quantum tunneling but that is wrong. 3) if you supercool an electron to a Bose Einstein state, why does it no longer appear spherical but becomes squiggly lines ? 4) How can a neutrino pass through a 1000 lightyears of lead without being deflected. It should hit another solid particle at some point. Simple statistics tells is that. Now lets borrow a passage from a condensate state article. "When this happens, the sample undergoes a phase transition: a Bose Einstein condensate forms. Because the particles in the BEC are all in a single quantum state (i.e. the ground state), they can be described by a single wavefunction. The constituent particles in a BEC can thus be likened to a ‘superatom,’ a system in which thousands or even millions of atoms behave like a single particle. The phase transition can be understood in terms of the particles’ thermal de Broglie wavelength." Now this indicates that particles can and do alter their waveforms and become indistinguishable from one another. This condition is thermal equilibrium. How would that be possible if different particle types are solid? When you start examining the body of evidence it becomes more and more clear that particles are precisely that "Excitations" and not solid. With excitations particle production answers all the above questions. The pointlike characteristic is indeed the DeBroglie wavelength. This is what any QM related field teaches us and experiments reflect. Nor are they made of Strings, that is not what String theory teaches. Here is the random grab BEC paper I borrowed that quote from. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://massey.dur.ac.uk/resources/mlharris/Chapter2.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiVt4vUw_HXAhUQyWMKHQ91DtMQFggkMAE&usg=AOvVaw1DHUh-BTAMS7yr-2lNfTFf A little sidenote you will be amazed how much easier physics becomes to understand when you can discard looking for "solid" or a fundamental cause where everything starts. Though by understanding potential differences between regions (anistropy is an immense help). As well as thinking of charge (attraction/repulsion) of any type as vectors.

here De-Broglie waves of matter waves. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave Note the reference to wave particle duality Then note the cutoff reference between the Compton and De-Brogle here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength In other words I should have more careful to make the distiction in the first place. However I was thinking of other questions Dubbelosix was asking on spin. So a little distracted, by his other questions