Mordred

I am curious if you've ever considered Wilson loops coefficients ? I honestly believe it would be a useful addition. Particularly as it also involves Landau coefficients as well as Rheimann zeta functions. Here is an example paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.06787 The primary advantage is that the LHC and Atlas datasets also employ them for their channels with regards to relevant Breit Wigner cross sections ie the cross sections above for Higgs I gave are in Breit Wigner form.

Thought that might interest you. As an avid reader of numerous models over the years If I have learned anything it's that any applicable mathematical method can be used. One can often find literature showing its already been attempted or applied. The methodology I typically use for second order phase transition of Higgs I typically approach it utilizing QFT as it is a second order model. Quantum effects in first order one can use QM. With Higgs the research aspects I'm waiting directly involve the Higgs cross sections. Higgs cross sections \[\Gamma(H\rightarrow f\bar{f})=\frac{G_Fm_f^2m_HN_c}{4\pi \sqrt{2}}(1-4m^2_f/m^2_H)^{3/2}\] \[\Gamma(H\rightarrow W^+ W^-)=\frac{GF M^3_H\beta_W}{32\pi\sqrt{2}}(4-4a_w+3a_W^2)\] \[\Gamma(H\rightarrow ZZ)=\frac{GF M^3_H\beta_z}{64\pi\sqrt{2}}(4-4a_Z+3a_Z^2)\] with the CKMS matrix and the relevant Weinberg angles. Which will directly relate to mass term precision.

If your applying Landeau coefficients with regards to Higgs metastability with phase transitions involving electroweak symmetry breaking this brief article might interest you. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.08893 If so his references will likely lead to other related studies in this methodology

There is nothing wrong with different approaches to any physics model. Every approach can and often does reveal details previous approaches do not. You might note I never once stated your theory crazy or wildly imaginative.. I simply wanted to see if you had the ability to accurately model your ideas. This is the primary reason I come to forums. To help others learn. I'm knowledgeable enough in physics to research any questions on a specific model on my own without any help or aid. Just as I can accurately generate my own models of any physics related process. Though 95 percent of the time I can prove new models I generate in error or insufficient to to add to the physics community. I have a few models on Higgs in cosmology applications I'm still working on and awaiting for better research in the metastability regime. Though I would recommend only claim what you can mathematically show via a mathematical proof when requested. Far too often posters and even professional physicist state their model can solve such and such, but then papers don't include the relevant solutions with the mathematics. DE and DM claims are very common yet most times they can only provide mainstream related formulas to those two entities and simply show compatibility to model what is already known about them

Well I'm glad your not attempting that claim. Considering back when I was an undergrad my primary interest was processes that could lead to particle production both virtual and real. I literally lost count of the number of variations I've read over the years. Lol for that matter the creation/annihilation operators of QFT are well designed to predict the probable number density of states given any field energy level for any particle via the relevant wave equations included in the formula for either bosons or fermions. There is nothing new about the idea. It's literally part and parcel with mainstream physics. Edit most ppl nowadays don't even remember that Parker radiation involved particle production from the curvature terms of spacetime. Nowadays it's used in MRIs and x Ray machines.

I sincerely hope your not trying to claim the process mentioned in that paper as your own idea and claim they stole it from you. The idea that gravity waves can affect the EM field to generate photons as a result has literally been around for decades. Nearly as long as gravity waves were initially proposed. I've read numerous papers a couple of decades ago that described the very same process. Copeland however had an inflationary model built describing a very similar process published in the late 60's

The truth is no matter how good a mathematical proof may be Observational evidence can easily Trump it. A math proof shows feasibility. Without seeing your entire model it's impossible to tell whether it can perform everything you claim. Including DE and DM. I'm also unclear how your handling vectors and Spinor relations which are particularly important with regards to numerous aspects of a particle. I do know the Rheimann zeta function can be used but I have only read a few articles applying it to spin statistics where the majority of the articles didn't cover the Dirac field for fermionic spins. Don't be offended if I stick with the mainstream physics after 35 years studying and applying it. It's never failed me for any of the work I do.

Furthe question to clarify your application involving the Rheimann zeta function I assume you include the Mandelstrom variables?

Thank you for clarifying how you are deploying your dimensions and subsequently your indices. A large part of all the edits is getting my equations into latex format. You have to save often. Working with pmatrix structures can get annoying. Had you included this at the beginning it would have greatly helped avoid much of the previous posts. This was the kind of detail I was looking for. I noticed you didn't include the Dirac field for spin half particles. So how are you handling particle spin for the fermionic fields ?

Well if it helps The various probabilities for number density of a particle will rely on phase space which can be understood as the particle in a box images and videos. The mathematical methodology of both employ the particle states wavefunctions. this also will better help with regards to spin statistics.

your obviously not using Einstein index notation. You really need to properly define your dimensions. What does each dimension specifically represent ? That likely is the confusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_notation especially if your referring to it as an 11 dimensional METRIC Tensor. see range of values for ij by convention in the link provided. This is an issue if one wishes to perform vector calculus from your tensors. explain as standard spacetime coordinates is (t,x,y,z) which is only 4 dimensions what are the additional dimensions and why would you require them when applying the action principle which describes particle paths via the principle of least action of the Euler_Langrangian. Look at the specifics with regards to the 4 momentum of GR. What you seem to be implying is some personal 11 vector I have no idea what you would call that but I cannot see how you can state it describes potential and or kinetic energy relations via the action principle. lets try an example apply Newtonian force provided by the following equation \[F^i=dp^i/d\tau\] where in standard usage and lets use spherical coordinates \[g_{ij}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\\0&r^2&0\\0&1&r^2sin^2\theta\end{pmatrix}\] \[g^{ij}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\\0&r^{-2}&0\\0&1&r^{-2}sin^{-2}\theta\end{pmatrix}\] in Euclidean coordinates which is the standard usage for \[g_{ij}\] explain your coordinate system if does not follow this as this is the standardized usage in any calculus textbookn which further correlates to the Cauchy stress tensor. This is also what the Kronecker Delta applies to. curved spacetime has additional transformations and as such requires the Levi Civita connections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_stress_tensor Note none of this post involves spacetime but simply kinematics in Euclidean space which preserves Pythagoras theorem for any relevent trigonometric operations obviously spacetime requires additional transformation laws to do the same. How do you preserve those same laws in your 11 dimensional space ? How do you apply vector notation with the applicable covector/contravector terms ? How do you preserve Lorentz invariant which requires a vector and covector (google one forms for further detail) note for the above the i/j=set of {1,2,3} your models seems to require the set of 1 to 11 for i/j. Provided by you with D^11 as you describe as your metric tensor If you claim your model works with this as being the correct then how can you possibly claim the inverse of an 11 dimensional tensor is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional tensor given by standardized Calculus ? Particularly since you have not provided any transformation laws regarding your geometry to allow a transformation to the Euclidean metric. An example of such transformation laws being the Lorentz transforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation note the inverse of a 4 by 4 matrix is another 4 by 4 matrix so its inverse is also not g_{ij] this is given by notation\[AA^{-1}=1\] any square matrix is invertible provided the resultant is not singular \[AA^{-1}=0\] for a singular matrix definition, I will assume you know one of its uses of inverting a matrix is that one cannot divide a matrix so one must multiply by its inverse. So this is a divide by zero error hence the namesake.

That's a fairly accurate description it would act very similar to merging galaxies albeit on a smaller scale. Other difference would also involve a difference in percentages in charged ion behavior in regards to the relevant Poynting vectors and Compton scattering . Relevant luminosity of course involving the peak wavelengths.

In essence what you have described thus far is feasibly sound. The article will provide much of the critical details. There are plenty of references on how a graviton would relate to gravitational potential of a field so having a higher number density as a result of gravitational waves is easily formulated with the above. As a vector gauge boson those gravitons would be off shell in essence the internal lines on a Feymann diagram. The article above also covers this. I should add Maxwell Boltmann uses phase space this article isn't bad on it https://ps.uci.edu/~cyu/p115A/LectureNotes/Lecture13/lecture13.pdf

Ok so the critical aspects to examine are as follows. First you require the geometry of the metric. No need to create one as there is plenty of available examples for a minimally coupled scalar field involving gravity. The graviton would be required to be a spin 2 boson. ( this is a direct consequence of GR spacetime metric ) any good GR textbook also covers this.. You will require a canonical perturbation method using integrals for decay rates. Which is compatible with QFT, as this is also a Lorentz invariant metric using the Klien Gordon equations of QFT. So far so good there is previous work for the majority of the above. The decay rates for a for a graviton however will be tricky to find good examples. Any examples will also be speculative as we only have theoretical possible rates including any other properties such as mass etc. For particle number density one can use the Bose-Einstein statistics for a spin 2 particle or alternately the creation/annihilation operators of QFT. So although numerous steps much of the work has existing formulas that can be employed to develop a proper model. As your toy modelling and not claiming to have a working model lets add some mathematics behind your theory. I will save you some time and post some of the relevant formulas to get you started. Also helps a majority of the ones I feel will work for you I already have latexed on this site so I can copy/paste the ones I feel will be useful to you. GR section GR line element in weak field limit \[ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}\] FLRW metric \[d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2]\] Minimal gravitational couplings \[S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{L}(\Phi^i\nabla_\mu \Phi^i)\] g is determinant Einstein Hilbert action in the absence of matter. \[S_H=\frac{M_{pl}^2}{2}\int d^4 x\sqrt{-g\mathbb{R}}\] Maxwell Boltmann and Bose Einstein statistics the method is compatible with the QFT equivalent using creation/annihilation operators for particle number density to blackbody temperature relations. Although in QFT its more specifically related to the Fourier transformations via the wave equations involved in the creation/annihilation operators. \[\frac{N_i}{N} = \frac {g_i} {e^{(\epsilon_i-\mu)/kT}} = \frac{g_i e^{-\epsilon_i/kT}}{Z}\] \[n_i = \frac {g_i} {e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT} - 1}\] \[\rho_R=\frac{\pi^2}{30}{g_{*S}=\sum_{i=bosons}gi(\frac{T_i}{T})^3+\frac{7}{8}\sum_{i=fermions}gi(\frac{T_i}{T})}^3\] decay rates related mathematics This part applies to a generalized quick guide to what is involved in decay rate calculations Fermi's Golden Rule \[\Gamma=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|V_{fi}|^2\frac{dN}{DE_f}\] density of states \[\langle x|\psi\rangle\propto exp(ik\cdot x)\] with periodic boundary condition as "a"\[k_x=2\pi n/a\] number of momentum states \[dN=\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^2}V\] decay rate \[\Gamma\] Hamilton coupling matrix element between initial and final state \[V_{fi}\] density of final state \[\frac{dN}{dE_f}\] number of particles remaining at time t (decay law) \[\frac{dN}{dt}=-\Gamma N\] average proper lifetime probability \[p(t)\delta t=-\frac{1}{N}\frac{dN}{dt}\delta t=\Gamma\exp-(\Gamma t)\delta t\] mean lifetime \[\tau=<t>=\frac{\int_0^\infty tp (t) dt}{\int_0^\infty p (t) dt}=\frac{1}{\Gamma}\] relativistic decay rate set \[L_o=\beta\gamma c\tau\] average number after some distance x \[N=N_0\exp(-x/l_0)\] spin statistics spin 2 graviton. you can look through this as a vast majority of the formulas are mentioned here in modelling the graviton couplings to the spacetime field https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.07571.pdf Hope that helps

You wish to prove me wrong then post how you performed the mathematical operations to invert your 11 dimensional tensor to the Kronecker delta tensor by posting the actual mathematical steps here. Do not verbally claim you have done so without being able to directly show your mathematical work here. Your the one that has 11 dimsions you describe as a metric not I. Or you can invert the following Ie the Minkowskii tensor [latex]dx^2=(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx^3)^2[/latex] [latex]G_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}g_{0,0}&g_{0,1}&g_{0,2}&g_{0,3}\\g_{1,0}&g_{1,1}&g_{1,2}&g_{1,3}\\g_{2,0}&g_{2,1}&g_{2,2}&g_{2,3}\\g_{3,0}&g_{3,1}&g_{3,2}&g_{3,3}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex] Which corresponds to [latex]\frac{dx^\alpha}{dy^{\mu}}=\frac{dx^\beta}{dy^{\nu}}=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{dx^0}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^0}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^1}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^2}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^3}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

Really ? If the first equation you start with is incorrect then any derivative from that equation would subsequently be incorrect. This is one of the reasons I asked the questions I did concerning gravity itself. Specifying you examine your understanding of gravity via Newtons laws under Newtons Shell theorem. You cannot invert a tensor with 11 dimensions and end up with a rank 2 tensor. That's not how the inverse of a tensor works. A tensor is simply a representation of an equation. In essence an organizational tool. It is a means of keeping track of vectors or one forms which involve vectors.

Just an FYI Schrodingers equation doesn't work well in field theories. Hence QFT uses the Klein Gordon equation where the operators of QM position and momentum have been replaced with field and momentum by using the potential energy of the field and the kinetic energy of the particles momentum. In essence it works well for Lorentz invariance of SR.

No the difference is they are professional peer reviewed theories developed by other physicist and are not personal models or theories. You can find professionally written literature as a reference supporting those theories that have been reviewed by other professionals as being mathematically viable possibilities. If research prove them to no longer be viable. Those theories will either adapt or be dropped all together.

Assuming the existence of a graviton, which isn't a new idea. You can find examples including string theory and SO(10) MSSM. In both cases you would have a unified field oft termed supergravity. That part of your post is viable. However even with the unified force the spacetime curvature will globally be zero with the stress energy momentum term being zero. Under QM and QFT you will still have the quantum harmonic oscillator. Now curvature actually refers to the geodesic paths that particles will follow so in this case all particle paths are not undergoing any form of acceleration.in essence a freefall state where there is no force acting upon their paths. Once you get anistropy due to the previous harmonic oscillations then things get interesting in so far as that unified force could potentially act upon particle paths. However I should note the other do exist at all times but are in a condition called thermal equilibrium which is a symmetric state. Electroweak symmetry breaking occurs a little later once the universe due to inflation/expansion allows the other forces as well as Higgs to drop out of thermal equilibrium. ! Moderator Note Any member can remind another member of a site forum rule. Personal pet theories is a rules violation when replying to other forum members posts. Any member may also also report a rules violation to the moderator staff as a corrective action

You will never be able to get funding unless you can prove mathematical feasibility. You can trust me on that. They are not something handed out without extensive mathematical proofs. Not on any physics related topic or application.

No I cannot because your not applying correctly known physics. Nor could you provide a mathematical proof to show your compatible with known physics. This included statements from you that you are not applying the term dimensions in accordance with how a physicist would apply that term. Your descriptive involving gravity isn't accurate to the model of GR. I can only guess your description of open and closed systems are a thermodynamic definition as opposed to an open and closed group. Your descriptive of primes in an 11 dimension application makes zero practical sense. Even one of the images has the fine structure constant which is only one of the primary constants used in physics. The majority of which has nothing to do with prime numbers. The Rheiman zeta function itself is a complex variable that is extremely useful by physicists we employ it often in various theories but you were never clear on how you apply it on say an actual graph. However according to you all of physics is simply old school so I cannot trust your correctly applying any mentioned theory without personal modification and claims.

so you claim but have not supplied the required details. I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklynn enough said this statement alone counters any claims that you model is compatible with GR it also counters your claim of General Covariance. Einstein also provided a mathematical proof of every one of his theories no one took his word of honor that his mathematics works. He had to mathematically prove they would work with known physics at the time.

Every single inflationary related theory will have its own variations on the equations of state. The w=-1 is an approximation that essentially states its constant. However it also doesn't require to start out prior to electroweak symmetry breaking as precisely w=-1. The primary goal however is to include the Mexican hat potential of the metastability conditions. Predict the correct number of e=folds and have the correct slow roll to match observational data. The minimum required e-folds needed is 55 anything lower will not match however higher values still have the potential to match depending on slow roll rates. Anyways the real reason I posted those equations was to give an example of what steps are required to develop a proper theory. Yet they never ever take the time to provide the details on how they precisely derived their equations. EVER> If you cannot provide the mathematical steps to derive a given formula then the formula is absolutely useless to anyone else. Every formula has a mathematical Proof, that mathematical proof gives all the required steps on how that formula was mathematically derived. No formula is ever randomly created by intuitive imagination....It simply doesn't work that way. spacetime itself is not gravity. Spacetime is the geometric field, You can have spacetime without gravity. That is the point I was making. Gravity results form spacetime curvature itself not from a uniform distribution. Or more accurately spacetime curvature aka what we consider gravity is a result of a non zero stress energy momentum tensor. If every particle is non accelerating ie in the freefall equivalent state you can motion without gravity. Google Einstein's equivalence principle for further details on that That is not the Limblad master equation. here is the mathematical proofs related to the Limblad master equation. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.04478.pdf see the required steps to arrive at equation 92 of said article. If you wish to counter me on that last statment feel free to provide a peer reviewed article showing the equation you provided as the Limblad master equation.

I agree, I too feel that's likely the most possible method at least as far as I have come across.

accretion disks can have numerous variations its not nearly straightforward as one might think. One of the better references regarding accretion disks I hve come across is this lengthy article http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk' the merging of two blackholes would likely diffuse the accretion disks over a wider area thus reducing its overall density and subsequently reducing the gamma rays emitting from them over a wider area. Anyways hope you enjoy the article it is rather lengthy but highly informative on many of the BH related processes. Anyways as you can see due to numerous factors many involving hydrodynamics, disk types BH spin, available material etc. The answers to your questions above can range in answers due to those various factors.