Mordred

Forgot to add this will help with the latex for this site http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108127-typesetting-equations-with-latex-updated/ Actually I don't see anything wrong the above, It looks like your in essence setting [latex]8\pi G=1[/latex] under wicks rotation which if I recall is the Einstein Hilbert treatment but have to double check that. By the way its nice to finally see a proper speculation post. Thank you for that +1 Under wicks rotation you apply an effective finite cutoff which once again reminds me of the Einstein Hilbert canonical treatment. I have to do some digging but I recall reading about issues with using Wicks rotation on Euclidean space if I recall its the conformal factor problem involved with Wicks and Euclidean space

coincidentally Strange posted a rather interesting paper on this topic a while back with Unruh as one of thee authors. here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105873-interesting-idea-to-explain-dark-energy/ " in essence the paper boils down to the following. By this same kind of mechanism, the violent gravitational effect produced by the vacuum energy density is confined to Planck scales, and its effect at macroscopic scales the accelerating expansion of the Universe, due to the weak parametric resonance is so small that, it is only observable after accumulations on the largest scale the cosmological scale". https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00543.pdf he shows this argument via the parametric resonance behaviors which he describes extensively throughout the paper. On a strictly personal view of the above paper, I think its one of the better solutions to the cosmological constant problem I have read in years (which is a huge quantity of papers lol) I reread the above so editted this post. It was extremely tricky to read on my phone lol very blurry. I'm going to think about your relativistic treatment when I can focus on it ie the portion on the pure relativistic treatment

I'm really not sure I understand your argument here. What is wrong with the possibility of an infinite number of finite "Observable portions". You can have an infinite universe where each observer has its own Observable finite portion. Quite frankly in an infinite universe this statement must be true lol. Seeing as how observable is simply the radius of shared causality

Alrighty excellent question but not a good approach to trying to attempt an answer. The age of universe estimates will depend on certain key equations which I will include shortly. However those equations look specifically at the rate of expansion estimates given by the Hubble constant and the evolution of the scale factor. This depends on 3 main components. 1) radiation 2) matter 3) Cosmological constant so lets take some examples. WMAP 2013 dataset. parameters Hubble constant 69.8 km/s/Mpc. Lambda 0.72, matter density 0.28 with the above universe age will be 13.753 Gy at present age. Planck 2013 parameters ubble constant 67.9 km/s/Mpc, Lambda 0.693, matter density 0.307 age with above parameters 13.787 You can look up the latest Planck dataset for the age and the current Hubble constant etc above for the current age value. The Planck papers has this under its archives. Now here is an easy trick, a quick universe age estimate can be done by a few quick simple steps. Keep in mind This is a rough estimate..... first assume the Hubble constant is constant during the entire expansion history ( we know this isn't true but its an estimate) [latex] Age=1/H_0[/latex] multiply your answer with 3.09*10^19 k/Mpc to get the number of seconds divide the number of seconds in a year by 3.16*10^7 seconds per year. A more accurate estimate is achieved by assuming (correctly) that Hubble constant is only constant in a moment in time everywhere and does in fact change over our expansion history. So now we need a formula that compares the Hubble value today with the Hubble value at other moments in time. In order to do this we need to look at how the density of radiation, matter and Lambda evolve over time. For this it is convenient to associate this to the redshift/distance measures. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] with this formula we can correlate the density evolution of matter, radiation and Lambda as a function of redshift. Anyways I won't take you through all the steps but the formula gets rather complex when your looking for the last formula for age of universe. (if anyone wants the steps then I will just ask) [latex]t(z)=\int^t_0 dt=H_o^{-1}\int^{\frac{1}{1+z}}_0\frac{dx}{\sqrt{(1-\Omega_0)+\Omega_Rx^{-2}+\Omega_mx^{-1}+\Omega_\Lambda x^2}}[/latex] this is the age-redshift relation formula

If you were close enough for your ears to perceive a GW wave you would not be at a safe distance from a BH merger.

Umm no it cannot, to see the difference would require examining the time/dependant and time independancy of the two ds^2 line metrics. The two being commoving coordinates under the FLRW and the Schwartzchild. In the former the coordinates evolve. (expand/contract) however under the Schwartzchild the spatial coordinates are static. Its extremely important not to confuse what changes under a given metric.

excellent analagy highly accurate,

It is negative mass COMPARED to the e(k) of the field strength. Which is a positive field strength. This is what I meant by look at the math itself.

fixed the above bmatrix issue I was having. LOL the \dot was interfering so switched to \bullet equation 4 of the above paper when it refers to a 2x2 matrix of inner products is describing a unitary group U(2). Just an assist. Inner products are linear.

Lol I'm glad you stated that the above doesn't represent your views. Probably enough said about the above.

Good paper, a proper understanding of every line and formula could take a month. Unless your already familiar with every formula and terminology. This is the trick, everytime you see a term or formula you don't recognize. Stop and research that line, formula or terminology. For example you read as per the Euler Langrene. or Hamilton. Stop and study those particular topics. You would be amazed how much detail is in every single sentence.

Supersymmetric groups are incredibly complex for any computer regardless of how it is programmed. So yes you do have your work cut out for you

Could not get the bmatrix working above but have theta 1 above theta 2 for some reason I could not use theta under bmatrix. Anyways you need the above function for deep thinking. That will be up to you not I lol. As far as symmetry groups are concerned the references you mentioned simply will not cut it unless you also understand lie algebra. Not for what your looking for ie symmetric vs supersymmetric under physics. (these are different particle groups) example SO(10)MSSM vs SO(10)MSM you need the subgroups etc which the Clifford algebra is the preliminary. Well here you can see for yourself https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-r-865.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi4_cPTr5LWAhUHx2MKHc8CBHMQFggfMAE&usg=AFQjCNF0FSS9Q153eGVkavToRJuwaUfxTA Directly no, but the mathematics behind that paper is QFT treatments. Which I do understand you may want to study Hamiltons which is "action"

At this stage were not worried about the actual groups but you do need to recognize the mathematical structures and symbology. lets demonstrate. First Deep thinking is a subset of machine learning. We use the function [latex] h(\mathbf{x},\theta)[/latex] where [latex] \mathbf{x}[/latex] is a vector whose vector components is a greyscale that intensifies at each pixel. Lets predict the number of apples grown with the number of days of rain. Let x_1 be the number of apples, x_2 the number of days of rain. So at each datapoint [latex]\mathbf{x}=[x_1,x_2]^T[/latex] our goal is to have a learning model [latex]h(\mathbf{x},\theta)[/latex] where parameter vector [latex]\theta=[\theta_0,\theta_1,\theta_2]^2[/latex] such that [latex]h(\mathbf{x},\theta)=+1[/latex] if [latex] x^T\bullet[/latex][latex]\begin{bmatrix}\theta_1\\\theta_2\end{bmatrix}[/latex][latex]+\theta_0< 0[/latex] [latex]h(\mathbf{x},\theta)=-1[/latex] if [latex] x^T\bullet[/latex][latex]\begin{bmatrix}\theta_1\\\theta_2\end{bmatrix}[/latex][latex]+\theta_0\ge 0[/latex]

Ok well to start with your going to need to understand what those symmetry groups represent before you can even think about using them in any program let alone deep thinking algorithms/(programs etc). I would start with vector symmetry of linear then angular momentum systems. This is extremely important to understand any symmetry let alone a supersymmetric group. How much differential geometry have you got? Assuming decent math skills I recommend Clifford algebra. It will stage you on Unitary and Orthogonal groups. Here (this is preliminary for Lie algebra) https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.reed.edu/physics/faculty/wheeler/documents/Miscellaneous%20Math/Clifford%20Algebra.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwif8MDgkJLWAhURx2MKHfJoAB0QFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNE-YhE0fl70gPHZhkmGsc5H1NhXiA While I can help on group theory I can't directly on "Deep thinking" a brief reading up on it indicates it can use the group functions in its programming so the link above is still useful. As far as programming is concerned my experience is in Ladder/Relay logic as per plant automation systems and Robotics. Which isn't going to help much here as the programs I've seen appear to be object oriented C++ programs. (though Fortran may also be useful ) if I recall one can include Fortran commands via Fortran.H The good news is you don't need the physics to understand lie algebra (at least not for the group structures,rules,axioms etc) Thats part of the beauty behind symmetry groups...Lol truth be told understanding the groups allows a huge step to understanding any physics subject.

You definetely need some serious work to actually demonstrate what your driving at. Anyways lets start with your actual goal. What are you specifically wanting to program as a Deep learning format? Your paper doesn't particularly clarify how you plan on deep learning Euclidean symmetry groups. What is your focus? as quite frankly you are posting numerous related topics without any focus on any particular goal

I'm sorry but I really cannot see how you plan on connecting the dots/references etc. Yes babies learn, yes everyone uses physics in some form or another. What does that have to do with lie algebra?

Under GR you have 3 classes of solutions. 1)vacuum 2) weak field limit 3) strong field limit The weak field limit includes gravity of all stars short of a BH. (provided no relativistic effects) The strong field as you noted typically uses the Schwartzchild metric. This paper has the deflection angle formulas for the strong field limit, note that the strong field limit is based on the Schwartzchild metric. This class of solutions works whenever you have relativistic effects regardless if there is a singularity or not. https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208075 Think of it this way, the deflection angle formula for the strong field needs an effective cutoff ( under the Schwartzchild) that cutoff is provided by the event horizon. Hence why the Schwartzchild metric is appropriate for the above application. Anyways this paper shows the technique for what your looking for

Don't be fooled by what is verbally described, study the math and you will see that the quote by Migl is still correct

They set the baseline at [latex]e=\frac{1}{2}\hbar v^2[/latex] this is the zero point energy baseline which is a non zero value. The above is due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. They set this non zero baseline as a zero baseline then for the negative [latex] \hbar v [/latex] state this is a negative energy density. Which is compared to the non zero, zero point energy baseline (average of HUP). In essence it is still a positive energy density if you use a true zero baseline and not the zero point energy baseline. This also applies to baseline treatments ie "effective mass" in solid state physics. That is the mislead. When you look at field equations were interested in the vectors. All your groups and tensors use vectors and spinors. So you set the baseline as the average between two charge polarities for your symmetry relations such as the Lorentzian group SO(1.3) which details the Euclidean vectors under charge/vector symmetry. Your vectors for charge will be related to the field. You have different fields involved in the series of articles you posted with different fields involved. So apply this to each paper, however apply Dirac to the electromagnetic fields as well as the HUP. Think of it this way any average field value can be set as a zero point. We do this all the time. Your charge dynamics under vector charge symmetry ( ie a 180 degree change in direction or attraction/repulsion) will be applied to that effective baseline. Effective mass is "find the (e,k) relationships/compared to the electron mass." Here https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://folk.uio.no/ravi/cutn/semiphy/6.l7_intrinsic-extrinsic.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwishIawo4fWAhUn_4MKHdLyAPkQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNFqQ-eItHJWlELje1g4PGLv-8Flfw k is the dimensionless curvature constant

Neither violates GR is the only commonality. Though there is truly nothing faster than c in either case in terms of kinematic motion or action. Quite frankly in my opinion one of the least properly understood aspects of QM by the public is entanglement and what is truly meant by correlations and superpositions of correlation functions. The public isn't interested in statistical math terms and their proper usages in entanglement. For example one can derive a correlation function between any two graphs or datatables. Regardless if one relates to the other or not...He can then place them under a superposition .... Lol give me any two data tables label one "x "the other " Y" and I will give you the correlation value...easily done one of the first chapters in a statistical mechanics book

Danking shouldn't you focus on your model, rather than insults? You have a tool being offered when you post a model on a forum. That tool is that it is being examined by others... Why post otherwise unless it is to get the opinions of others? A smart person would look specifically at the comments and criticisms and look at strengthening their model to address those comments. Not get insulted to learn that more work will be needed... PS Reputation points are a rather useless measurement of quality of posts. Its more of a poll of opinions of what random readers feel about a post. A side note question. Why is there no attempt to show the different orbitals under the mathematical ??? All I see is pictures and words... where is your probability functions for each orbital? Little hint no mathematics means your model goes absolutely nowhere in the professional scientific community. You might want to address that trueism. Instead of using pictures describe your model under the spherical harmonic and radial functions under QM... Every pretty little picture you have posted has a mathematical model used to describe it, of particular importance to orbitals being the constructive and destructive interferences. Show those interferences under math specific to your primes and show how the primes affect the functions involved in the principle quantum numbers. Via math not pictures.... Studiot mentioned grabbing attention of readers, I only truly appreciate models that show under math never pictures... No professional physicist rely on pictures, they are literally meaningless except as approximate visual representations. Lmao if you wish to associate my callsign to evil. I will save you the trouble. Evil son of King Arthur

I'd like to touch further upon Migl's excellent post. +1 None of the models mentioned above supersede one another. They are all equally valid under the range of validity described by each. In some cases the differences simply amount to degree of freedom reductions. Under symmetry/assymetry groups This includes the holographic principle, Here is a thought experiment " How many ways can one describe a box under mathematics ? " Everyone knows you can describe it as a 3d object. However that same object can also be described as 2 two dimensional objects under group theory. Now replace the box with vectors and apply the vector mathematics under the two above treatments... GR isn't better than Newtonian physics they are both equally valid within the bounds of their applicability. Neither is QM, QFT, Ads/CFT etc etc better than one another. They are different treatments, with different properties being examined under different metrics (conformal, commoving, canonical). Under different groups to reduce effective multi particle systems degrees of freedom.

As mentioned the acceleration portion occurs roughly when the universe is approx 7 Gyrs old. This is the start of the Lambda dominant era. Prior to Lambda dominant, the universe started in the radiation dominant ( BB to surface of last scattering (CMB)) followed by the matter dominant era. Leading to our current Lambda dominant era. When this was discovered the age estimates were recalculated. This includes the distance measures beyond the Hubble horizon. Coincidentally the calculator on my signature is capable of showing the inflection crossover point for the matter dominant to the Lambda dominant. However it takes several calcs to fine tune the min max Stretch values (1/a) inverse scale factor "a". One can also modify the datasets and see how the ratios of matter, radiation and Lambda affects expansion, Cosmological horizons, universe age, and distance measures. If interested let me know and I will try to explain how to use the calc to show the inflection crossover point.

That last paper is extremely misleading in its first paragraph. The negative energy density is negative compared to a higher ground state density. specifically zero point energy Which does not oppose GR....