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

[Mordred]

Yes the ghost operator can definetely be used for Yang mills but it also modifies Schrodinger and Klein equations in how to handle the spinors.  Google specifically SO(10) and BRST. Look through the arxiv papers that have BRST treatments

One paper I encountered suggested using a double ghost operator on Schrodinger for quaternions.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yes the ghost operator can definetely be used for Yang mills but it also modifies Schrodinger and Klein equations in how to handle the spinors.  Google specifically SO(10) and BRST. Look through the arxiv papers that have BRST treatments

One paper I encountered suggested using a double ghost operator on Schrodinger for quaternions.

I know it does it is supposed to modify them to accept virtual entanglement states.

10 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

I know it does it is supposed to modify them to accept virtual entanglement states.

Remember how I said they were spin locked.

DCQE

Quantum Superposition

"Since the sum of the absolute squares of the amplitudes must be constant, U must be unitary"

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

here start here with the BRST quantization

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

note any group G is replaced by little group [math]\mathcal{g}[/math] mentioned on that page.

[Vmedvil]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

here start here with the BRST quantization

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

note any group G is replaced by little group [math]\mathcal{g}[/math] mentioned on that page.

well, it only has 1 dimension, so I think it will be fine being U, the Sword or Dagger variable was added already.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

That is precisely my point once you modify U(1) you must follow the modifications throughout all SU(n) groups as the lie algebra of those groups are all G homeomorphisms not little g. However there is treatments available and work already done for each group once you dig deep enough into the avail literature.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That is precisely my point once you modify U(1) you must follow the modifications throughout all SU(n) groups as the lie algebra of those groups are all G homeomorphisms not little g.

Which I already did do you see any δ_{μ 's left in the equation?}

∇'(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)

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Is it completely integrated throughout all portions of your equation ? any quantized element must follow the BRST quantization including the GR portions

[Vmedvil]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Is it completely integrated throughout all portions of your equation ? any quantized element must follow the BRST quantization including the GR portions

Ya, I dunno about that can't that just be explained as Einstein's Wormholes in Einstein rosen.

There is a δ_μ² There.  so does R_s need to equal  u² + 2m

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

No your missing my point. OK lets try this angle. Lets say I want to use the Loop quantum gravity quantization rules to build a complete GUT treatment to arrive at the equivalent of SO(10).

LQG uses Wicks rotation for quantization. Each group is then modelled using these same wick rotations which alters each group. This is also very possible and forms the basis of loop quantum cosmology.

You apply a different quantization methodology then by the precise same rules you must apply those quantization rules to each group. This is where I have you at an advantage in that I have followed big G treatments from beginning to end on all SO(10) including the SU(N).

So I learned just how extensive quantization rules apply throughout groups. Once you modify the basis groups you must follow those treatments to the higher dimension groups as well

[Vmedvil]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No your missing my point. OK lets try this angle. Lets say I want to use the Loop quantum gravity quantization rules to build a complete GUT treatment to arrive at the equivalent of SO(10).

LQG uses Wicks rotation for quantization. Each group is then modelled using these same wick rotations which alters each group. This is also very possible and forms the basis of loop quantum cosmology.

You apply a different quantization methodology then by the precise same rules you must apply those quantization rules to each group. This is where I have you at an advantage in that I have followed big G treatments from beginning to end on all SO(10) including the SU(N).

So I learned just how extensive quantization rules apply throughout groups. Once you modify the basis groups you must follow those treatments to the higher dimension groups as well

Yes, but they are both locked irreducible how can they change due to this, if not having that variable, there is a way to find out., It needs to be tossed into wolfram again.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Or another method is to gather the necessary research already done by others in every group your applying. Then tossing that into Wolfram

[Vmedvil]

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Or another method is to gather the necessary research already done by others in every group your applying. Then tossing that into Wolfram

Which wolfram is taking forever for it solved in that way, but hasn't errored.

There it goes, ya it is exactly the same as the others.

(1/a)⁶  = 0 , a = infinity

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Always jumping to the middle and end but never following from the beginning and you expect it to work?

[Vmedvil]

Good enough for me if it works in parts it will works together.

Sword = Dagger 

 

∇'(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-Dagger)φ) + λ((φ-Dagger)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)

Next Part 

I don't like how this next part is written the Reynolds number part specifically. 

[Mordred]

why not? define your entangled state is it going to be single particle or many particle? I have a real hard time seeing how you can piece meal different treatments into different sections then expect to get intelligent answers in your equations.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

why not? define your entangled state is it going to be single particle or many particle? I have a real hard time seeing how you can piece meal different treatments into different sections then expect to get intelligent answers in your equations.

It is like peicemealing DLL together in a program as long as they are general enough it should work, but I don't like it using reynolds number, because I don't know if that holds true on this level.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

If your purpose is to develop GUT theory others can use piecemeal methods is garbage as you will be the only person who will ever know how you developed your equation.

You won't even have sufficient understanding to be able to teach it to anyone else.

What good is it ever going to do if no one else can follow your work ? via switching formalism, piecemealing different equations etc?

Lets do an example.

1) Provide a holomorphic projection map of your different field manifolds from your Euclid space to the Fock space via the Ghost operator. Provide the diffeomorphisms that result from these connected/disconnected manifolds.

2) What are the principle constraint equations pertaining to the Ghost operators as they pertain to the Euler and Noether's theroem.

3) define each principle fibre bundle of each manifold and define the principle operators of each as well as the boundary conditions for each fibre bundle.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

28 minutes ago, Mordred said:

If your purpose is to develop GUT theory others can use piecemeal methods is garbage as you will be the only person who will ever know how you developed your equation.

You won't even have sufficient understanding to be able to teach it to anyone else.

What good is it ever going to do if no one else can follow your work ? via switching formalism, piecemealing different equations etc?

Not for others, for a computer, as long as the computer understands, I would never inflict the math required for this equation upon a human. The language part of their brain would bleed, don't want to cause any strokes. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Then you only require 1 formalism every operation that can be transferred to a computer can be done using the standard gauge groups under G when properly done including string theory. They follow one specific formalism under G for the quantization rules. That is the whole purpose behind lie groups in the first place

How much flexibility do you want in your program? N-body codes can do a lot

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

18 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Then you only require 1 formalism every operation that can be transferred to a computer can be done using the standard gauge groups under G when properly done including string theory. They follow one specific formalism under G for the quantization rules.

My only hope after this is done is to get Particles over time that looks like this.   

^ Causality 

> Time

To an accurate enough point that it can be used to calculate "Real Universe"of that, I don't care the formalism it is about accuracy of the equation.

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

LOL try a simulation of 1000+ particles for simply doing galaxy rotations on a computer, I did that once in N_body and locked up my comp for 3 months for a few rotations.

[Vmedvil]

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

LOL try a simulation of 1000+ particles for simply doing galaxy rotations on a computer, I did that once in N_body and locked up my comp for 3 months for a few rotations.

Oh, I have a computer that can calculate it, and it is not one constructed by Intel or AMD or Nvidia or Radeon or even D-wave.

What do you think a planet stripped of resources by these things IQ or computational power would be SI Nano-factories, Furthermore what about a Star System or Galaxy.

Nano-factories Video Animation from game.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

I think they follow set rules as per a flow chart in the background development, Hence a set formalistic structure. I have written lots of programming codes, though my programming is more geared towards Robotic and plant automation applications. The same basis still applies, the less calculations you need to adapt formalisms the better for computational times. You want the reductions via the group structure not added caclulations in translations.

For example division by 2 is simply a bit shift left operand saves on clock cycles.

Think about a matrix and tensors what function could the indices serve if every entry serves as an operand?

ie this for example

http://www.ece.ubc.ca/~msucu/documents/matlab/examples of programming in matlab.pdf

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

I think they follow set rules as per a flow chart in the background development, Hence a set formalistic structure. I have written lots of programming codes, though my programming is more geared towards Robotic and plant automation applications. The same basis still applies, the less calculations you need to adapt formalisms the better for computational times. You want the reductions via the group structure not added caclulations in translations.

For example division by 2 is simply a bit shift left operand saves on clock cycles.

Think about a matrix and tensors what function could the indices serve if every entry serves as an operand?

ie this for example

http://www.ece.ubc.ca/~msucu/documents/matlab/examples of programming in matlab.pdf

In any case, here is the Outbreak equation for Synthetic Virii, the one for other Self-replicating Synthetic machines are the same. 

P_f(t,R₀) = P₀   * (1/2)*(∑R₀ =R1+R2+R3+...+Rn)² * Δt

R₀ meaning Infections per day or replications per day for "real universe"

Lets say Ebola-measles then R₁ = 2 , R₂ = 18

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Yes and to program such things requires structure and mathematical formalism. Are you trying to write your own code or be reliant upon others code?

here is the pdf's (probability density functions in Mathworks as one example click on each hyperlink

https://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/pdf.html

Notice the Rayleigh distribution and Poisson distribution is already included? that took me less than 30 seconds to locate

Edited December 7, 2017 by Mordred