Mordred

I lost track of all the claims of posters being able to debunk a theory, yet never showing they even understand the theory they are claiming to debunk. One of the key requirements is to prove your debunking with mathematics. Not providing mathematics is meaningless drivel in physics. Plain and simple

Yeah It surprised me as well when I decided to double check my original response.

Turns out I may be wrong on that according to this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.5555

No only the same particle type can be entangled to the best of my knowledge.

To add to Swansont's post the Wheeler De-Whit equation is one that tries to use a Universal wavefunction.

There is no simple way into string theory without a strong differential geometry background. You will need this to understand gauge groups including Clifford algebra. This is in order to understand the SO(32) guage group. How strong are you in guage symmetry?

DanB radiation and matter has flow rates, this applies to baryon accoustic oscillations. A starter up on this topic is the Jeans instability equations for hydrodynamic flows. Speed limits of radiation through spacetime and mediums apply here. This directly relates to the Causality relations of the particle horizon, Cosmological event horizon and our Observable universe. And no, thermodynamic data including any produced by radiation do not prove our universe is infinite. Under theory yes, but under observation indeterminant. It can still swing either way

Here I guess you never seen this work done by Theiman back in 1997 https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9705019 which is funny as I was discussing this all along...I had to remember where I had read all this... the last set of equations did relate to the SL(2,C) problem you mentioned. The paper has two solutions for this one being the Wicks rotation on the Wilson loops. Anyways as you can see the use of Wilson loops under the Loop formulation has been proposed to the UV and IR cutofffs I mentioned previously. This is what I have been discussing all along but I couldn't immediately jump the gun to simply posting the math without having some idea of your knowledge set. (It is a forum and you are a new member after all). Also I'm rusty on the loop formalism You can see from this paper that such extensions to the matter fields have indeed been proposed before. Anyways if you do decide to return to the conversation then we can discuss the pros and cons directly related to the methodolies porposed by Thiemann in the above paper. I noticed your update just now, let me get back to you on that one (edit: the last link addresses this) via the Wilson loop treatment under Wicks. I need to review the steps for the SU(3) sub algebra under this treatment.

no you require the 2 particle interaction. Or rather a muliparticle system ie a nucleus

to start with whether the universe or finite is irrelevant to this question, secondly adiabatic literally means no inflow or outflow of energy or temperature. Think about that with regards to your ovenx x posted with Strange

You know the definitions when you compactify a group. ie closed and bound. Yeesh the papers posted literally show how. Quite frankly I really couldn't care if you wish to continue. I didn't propose modifying anything, quite frankly I have no idea how you even got that impression. When I stated SO(10) MSSM I meant under the standard or supersymmetric model not the group SO(10) specifically. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_group

I have been referring to LQG and the phase space relations described by the Ashtekar-Barbero-Immirzi parameter. Which is the GR reductions to SU(2) using the Hamiltonian Yang Mills phase space. Your already familiar with it as you are with SO(10). So quite frankly I'm not sure where were on the wrong page here You already know how to compactify space time via [latex]A^a_j [/latex] and [latex] E^a_j[/latex] where a,b,c are the spatial indices and j,k,l are the SU(2) indices. [latex]{A^j_a(x),A^k_b(y)}={E^a_j(x),E^b_K(y)}=0,,,,,{E^a_j(x),A^k_b(y)}=-G\gamma\delta^a_b\delta^k_j\delta(x.y)[/latex] where [latex]\gamma[/latex] is the Immersi parameter. https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00851 you referred to the right section as it comes up in page 143, just a side note any particle dynamic can be described via Hamiltons of action, just as spacetime can be quantized, under its corresponding Hamiltonians. That is the basis of the SM model groups.

I believe you may be referring to Hartree-Fock energy or often termed correlation energy and its applications in the Kondo effect as well as the corresponding Kondo temperatures Its also applied with DNA

You have to look at how LQG uses the SU(2) Hilbert spaces though they go further into triads etc. In particular the spin matrixes under SU(2) https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/IntroductionLQG.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjim472_O_VAhVY7WMKHb2bDqgQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNF439-LNY6kKP0LG0RCUaK3SELZlQ Of particular note beyond the quantization of space procedures with the cutoffs is also the holonomy relgations which in essence describes your departures from parallel transport ie levi Cevitta connection is holomorphic page 24 gives the SU(2) relations under LQG. Anyways the 224 pages of the last link goes into extensive details on how to apply it to 3d and 4d spacetimes LQC can be a bit tricky as it replaces the Wilson loops with spinfoam so one has to be careful between the two treatments with regards to the unitary groups For spin networks the edges are irreducible to SU(2)

"It is almost 15 years [2] since it became well-established that ordinary Minkowski space- time might have to be replaced with its noncommutative counterpart as one probes shorter distances." https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.2826 You mean like this example though I still have to read the paper on my way to work. You can get the noncommutative SO(10) and how the action is broken down with the IR/UV cutoffs applied. Here is one describing De-Sitter space https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://cds.cern.ch/record/298607/files/9603063.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjjr_mL7e_VAhVR8mMKHSEUD3gQFggkMAE&usg=AFQjCNGA9n07atFa9NbXAnIy6gtJBWszsQ Surely your aware that the Levi Cevita connection is holomorphic. Anyways hers is LQC in regards to noncommutative spacetimes. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269303007615

The first link shows the double cover did you think I made this up? There is quite frankly 100's of papers showing the double cover. Though I should have typed SO(3) and not SO(1,3). read the first link. Its expicitly shown there. What do you think LQC is doing with its SO(3) modifications its literally in every paper on the topic? In particular the tetrahedron example used here? https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/IntroductionLQG.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjegdaV6e_VAhVLx2MKHezFCEEQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNF439-LNY6kKP0LG0RCUaK3SELZlQ Surely you are aware that under clifford algebra a plane can be described by a bivector?

Interesting discussipn so far. I would like to note in regards to thermodynamics and the oven mentioned above. Under the classical ideal gas laws treat all thermodynamics as a homogeneous and isotropic fluid with adiabatic ( no inflow or outflow of energy) expansion. Now think about the observable universe and lets assume the above isn't true but instead we have a surrounding universe that isn't of the same temperature as the observable portion state. As you approach the further regions of our observable universe the temperature will have a gradiant, depending on the temp variation. So no longer homogeneous and isotropic... Our observations agree strongly that this isn't the case and the immediate regions (regions of shared causality overlap) outside our observable portion will be roughly the same thermodynamic state. Beyond regions of possible shared causality overlaps we simply will never know.

No it doesn't matter if you use Rovelli or Theiman we are only affecting the SO(3) group Look specifically at how LQC handles the SU(2) homomorphic mappings unto SO(3). Here is an article showing the mappings I just referred to https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://indico.cern.ch/event/243629/material/slides/0.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiOmu-KqO3VAhXj1IMKHboCA9cQFggrMAU&usg=AFQjCNFE6xIi4bnwku7sfLNQkcXBBfwpWw if you follow then you should see that SO(3) can be represented by the double cover SU(2) [latex] SO(1.3) =SU(2)\times SU(2) [/latex] Here this shows the Poincare and Lorentz group with the SU(2) correlations https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.physics.uci.edu/~tanedo/files/notes/FlipSUSY.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiTgs2zq-3VAhVD6mMKHVO8AsMQFgglMAM&usg=AFQjCNG5dHCxvtyhAM5wLW3R0yUCYF7vIA in essence the SO(3) isomorphism is [latex] SO(3)\simeq SU(2)/\mathbb{Z}_2[/latex] Think of it this way, SO(3) is the non relativistic vector representations. SU(2) is the spinor representations SO(1.3) is the relativistic vector representations. [latex] SL(2,\mathbb{C})[/latex] is the double covering of SO(1,3) SO(3) is compact all orthogonal groups are. [latex]SO(n\mathbb{R})[/latex] is a closed group as is [latex]\mathbb{R}[/latex]

Simply replace the SO(1.3) Lorentz group under SO(10) with the Loop quantum gravity SU(2) groups. The remaining groups under SO(10) remain unchanged. LQG deals primarily with the SO(1.3) subgroup for its modifications. SU(2) and U(1) still remain unchanged for charged fields, as well as the SU(3) group for the color charges and flavor charges.

caught 20 minutes of it on lunch break not in totality but roughly 75%

Ted there is an easy way to think of how QM treats spacetime. The very minute you have a measurable volume, you have a field. A field is any collection of objects, events, coordinates etc. Under QM all fields have quantum fluctuations due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, so all fields will always have some energy potential. In other words any measurable volume isn't nothing but contains the potential to perform work. The word void doesn't exist in physics. One cannot have any volume that doesn't have some potential to perform work.

That is an older definition for flat universe, prior to discovery of the cosmological constant. A flat universe can still be finite or infinite. Wiki mentions this the details is in its reference 2 " For example, a universe with positive curvature is necessarily finite.[2] Although it is usually assumed in the literature that a flat or negatively curved universe is infinite, this need not be the case if the topology is not the trivial one.[2]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

The only viable method to address that question remaining to us is to solve how our universe began. The two major alternative methods we tried, (Universe curvature and signals in the CMB) have failed to provide conclusive data. It was once the belief in Cosmology that we could use curvature to determine if our universe is finite or infinite. However this turned out to be wrong. Lets play assume for a moment and assume expansion stopped. With our current ever so slight curvature , if we were to send a signal, that signal will theoretically take 880 billion years arrive back on Earth. ( as curvature affects light paths, this remains true in both the finite and infinite case).

I wouldn't accept the bet, I recall one line by Migl that is appropriate. Our observable universe is finite, and we will never receive signals beyond the cosmic event horizon. So for all practical purposes it only matters what we can understand about our finite observable portion of the universe.

lol This is under the assumption of an infinite universe, you are quite right that the universe may be finite. We simply don't know which is the case