Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

[Mordred]

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

[Vmedvil]

Found one.

Many Entangled QE

Here, now we can do the others parts.

 

Well, I got alot of fusing to do and yes it is kinda like a molecular bond, this is actually it for many particles.

Then 

I forget if I pulled this through Klein or Dirac.

20 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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

Okay, I will need your help on this, if i pulled this through Schrodinger do I use Klein or Dirac?

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

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

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Klien

This equation is about to get really big again.

[Mordred]

yeppers lol I'll let you work on it my advice study materials specific to those three groups it will have all the Langevians and symmetries you will need for the SM model

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

yeppers lol I'll let you work on it my advice study materials specific to those three groups it will have all the Langevians and symmetries you will need for the SM model

Secondly what does Re mean? never seen that variable before.

[Mordred]

Good question that one isn't common to normal QFT treatments can you pin that arxiv so I can study it before I answer

[Vmedvil]

I did above the pictures but i will do it again.https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1509/1509.02442.pdf

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

this the right paper title?

Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintronics: a review of current progress

 

ooops no wrong paper typed in wrong

found it let me look through it

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1509/1509.02442.pdf

As per our PM convo its specific to this papers application as electron radius

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

 

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

this the right paper title?

Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintronics: a review of current progress

 

ooops no wrong paper typed in wrong

found it let me look through it

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1509/1509.02442.pdf

As per our PM convo its specific to this papers application as electron radius

I found out what Re means Reynolds number we were both wrong found it on a equation picture.

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

D'oh ok forgot all about that number roflmao that makes far more sense lmao

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

D'oh ok forgot all about that number roflmao

Still better than me, I have never seen it before and why is it in a QE equation if for fluids.

Wow, this is going to take me a minute to merge all this into this equation.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

the paper is a multi particle treatment not a single particle treatment in entangled states which in turn will generate internal turbulent flows and and be self interfering. Hence they are using hydrodynamics to describe the internal multi particle state its an approximation of the internal state forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

either way its not the paper you want for the Langevian treatment

What Langeevian are you specifically looking for (entangled states)?

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

Alright we will start here

 

 

Transform into Ghost Field, δ_μ =((L_{ghost QE}  - gf^abc(δ^μ (c-bar)^a)A_μ^bc^c) / (c-bar)^aδ^μc^a)

∇'(x,y,z,t,ω_s,ω_p,M,I,k,φ,S,X,Z,μ,Y) = (Ĥ_s((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}(((2ħGC²))R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μ(((L_{ghost QE}  - gf^abc(δ^μ (c-bar)^a)A_μ^bc^c) / (c-bar)^aδ^μc^a) _{+ ig(1/2)}τW_μ + ig'(1/2)YB_μ)ψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - (μ²((φ-sword)φ) + λ((φ-sword)φ)²)/-(((L_ghost QE   - gf^abc(δ^μ (c-bar)^a)A_μ^bc^c) / (c-bar)^aδ^μc^a) _{+ ig(1/2)}τW_μ + ig'(1/2)YB_μ)²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)) - ((E_rest/C²)ω_s(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^1/2 + (S/ (((3G(E_rest/C²))/2C²R_s³)(R_pV_p) + (GI_s/C²R_s³)((3R_p/R_s²)(ω_p R_p) -ω_p ))))R_s²/2))) / (ħ²/2(E_rest/C²))))^1/2(((1-(((2(E_rest/C²)G / R_s) - (I_sω_s(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^1/2 + (S/(((3G(E_rest/C²))/2C²R_s³)(R_pV_p) + (GI_s/C²R_s³)((3R_p/R_s²)(ω_p R_p) -ω_p )))))/2(E_rest/C²))+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)³)∫(((E_relativistic² - E_rest² / C²) + ((A_r(X) + (E_{Nucleon binding SNF} ε₀ μ₀ /m_u) - A_r(X^Z±)/Z) / m_u)²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((ERelativistic  - μchemical)/TMatter)}±1)(ħω_s  + ħω_s) - ((k_sC²)/ R_s²) + (G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(C²)))^1/2)

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

the paper is a multi particle treatment not a single particle treatment in entangled states which in turn will generate internal turbulent flows and and be self interfering. Hence they are using hydrodynamics to describe the internal multi particle state its an approximation of the internal state forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

either way its not the paper you want for the Langevian treatment

What Langeevian are you specifically looking for (entangled states)?

entangled states yes, for L_{ghost QE}  I am explaining entanglement as a ghost particle. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Then that's the one I would use for the Ghosts and entanglement

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Faddeev-Popov_ghosts

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3500680/727432508244297.pdf

OK BRST quantification that changes things lol the last two links helps now I'm following you better. In particular thee Lorentz gauge on the last paper. Interesting idea be interesting to see

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

20 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Then that's the one I would use for the Ghosts and entanglement

Doesn't it make sense that QE is a virtual particle, I was thinking it did.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

11 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Doesn't it make sense that QE is a virtual particle, I was thinking it did.

Careful there you might want to look at what the definition of Operator and Propogator entails

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_(mathematics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagator#Non-relativistic_propagators

for Feyman path integrals the propagators are your S-matrix internal lines with the operators being the real particle states

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Careful there you might want to look at what the definition of Operator and Propogator entails

ya, it will be fine because they are (1/2) with antiparticle (-1/2) spin for the virtual exchange of this, so it is fine with last EQ in this picture, we will just use the Feynmann propagator equation.

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

The reason for the caution is its not always correct to associate VP as a propogator. We have to watch that when using field treatments as opposed to QM. It depends on how the two are defined in the treatments applied

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

The reason for the caution is its not always correct to associate VP as a propogator. We have to watch that when using field treatments as opposed to QM

Well, it checks out in feymann lets see the Operator.

[Mordred]

Not saying it doesn't but its safer to use the propogator/ operator terminology particularly when you deal with Strings as one example. It was just a word of caution to be careful when using different treatments.

Lets put it this way VP is associated with the propagator but the propagator is not VP

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Not saying it doesn't but its safer to use the propogator/ operator terminology particularly when you deal with Strings as one example

Ya, the Operator checks too, its fine, they will just be out of phase, or phaseshifted virtual particles.

BRST quantization

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

k good enough always have to check that you don't run into that conflict there is procedures to downgrade or upgrade propagators and operators

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Mordred]

Vmedvil if your planning on introducing the BRST action treatments to Yang Mill and Dirac actions which does have validity. Your going to have to literally start from scratch to properly build your model. I've been reading up on the BRST treatments out there and can see the viability but I can also see numerous potential conflicts if you don't step back.

It is a literally a separate quantization methodology and as such should be taken from its rudimentary groups forward. It is quite possible to fully develop a model using this methodology but must be done properly to get it to work. Its never a valid policy to mix treatments. I'm seriously hoping you already realize that critical detail as it redefines how bosonic and fermionic action is handled.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Vmedvil if your planning on introducing the BRST action treatments to Yang Mill and Dirac actions which does have validity. Your going to have to literally start from scratch to properly build your model. I've been reading up on the BRST treatments out there and can see the viability but I can also see numerous potential conflicts if you don't step back.

It is a literally a separate quantization methodology and as such should be taken from its rudimentary groups forward. It is quite possible to fully develop a model using this methodology but must be done properly to get it to work. Its never a valid policy to mix treatments. I'm seriously hoping you already realize that critical detail as it redefines how bosonic and fermionic action is handled.

Well, ya but there was a δ_{μ in that neutrino EQ, which says this compatible with the Standard Model, or why would} δ_{μ be there to define?}

_{That screams ghost operator.}

           

It went Schrodinger,Schrodinger,Standard Model Particles , Standard model Neutrino, Yang Mills Ghost.

 _{(SU(3) , SU(3), SU(3) ,}U(1) × SU(2) , SU(x))

It is still Schrodinger solved at Laplace operator, that why I asked why version to use to be compatible with Schrodinger.

So, it was solved at a SU(3).

It says here it is fine.

Yang–Mills theory is a gauge theory based on the SU(N) group, or more generally any compact, reductive Lie algebra. Yang–Mills theory seeks to describe the behavior of elementary particles using these non-Abelian Lie groups and is at the core of the unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces (i.e. U(1) × SU(2)) as well as quantum chromodynamics, the theory of the strong force (based on SU(3)). Thus it forms the basis of our understanding of the Standard Model of particle physics.

You already used a Klein solution down in your part, if I cannot put the Klein version on this in that we have greater problems than that, though my Quaternion Four Current SR is starting to get full, we have stuck it full of so many variables and dimensions I have never got it this full before.

At this point we will just have to be careful, the Quaternion will break if we go above its max of SU(3) in this part, we cannot go SU(N) like Yang-mills, but we can do a SU(3) yang mills max.

 

So, the Ghost field C^a(x) cannot go above x = 3 or it will fracture at the couple to the Quaternion of Schrodinger EQ. 

Which may be even lower depending on if that is SU(1) or SU(2) that variable for that Neutrino if it is 1 then x = 1 is max and if SU(2) then x=2 is max for the ghost field, which I think that is the SU(1) part so, it cannot got above x = 1, so 1 dimension that is not already included.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil