New Equivalence Principles?

[Vmedvil2]

Your definitely right I do not understand what you are trying to do with the first equation. You have too many terms that would be far simpler to describe under gauge symmetries that the RHS would be far simpler in the long run. If you did a parts by integration you would discover many of the RHS terms are reducible to a few simple relations under symmetry and that you have numerous terms being repeated in terms of energy of a system state.

 Don't make the mistake of trying to separate physics from math, math is the language physics uses, it follows every math rule there is no separate group physics math or math math. Physics applies math.

 

The physics method to describe everything you have in the first equation is to use the Langrangian for each degree of freedom in a state. However physics already does this under the SM qauge symmetries.

 

something along the lines (without filling out the actual langrangian.

 

[math]\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{relativity}+\mathcal{L}_{Higg's}+\mathcal{L}_{Yukawa}+\mathcal{L}_{Dirac}+\mathcal{L}_{ghosts}[/math]

 

All of the above already use Euclidean as the inner product spaces of each term applies under Euclid coordinate basis. Voila this is the action under the standard model which accounts for rest mass and energy already. Other than the renormalization problem for gravity describes a GUT.

 

Why does every term you have in the first equation describing a central potential system denoted with your gradient operators ? The first rule of cosmology is the cosmological principle (homogeneous and isotropic ) which is not a central potential.

 

For the record every equation or post I have ever applied is the mainstream physics under mathematical terminology. Physics terminology are all describable under mathematical basis. mainly (calculus, differential geometry and linear/nonlinear algebra) for the main math studies.

 

LOL you guys should really read 100 Roads to reality by Sir Roger Penrose, it describes the bulk of physics in one book over a 1000 pages, but its all done including the mathematics. He is one of the leading mathematicians (though I laughed my head off when I read his Zing zang EM model, mathematically it is well described)

 

Yes, but i am just messing with you I knew you would get it but some people don't always use the same terms for similar process, but it is the energy density as points or field density as points a circular vector bundle.

Edited August 4, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

ah that explains the gradient terms. We x posted while I was adding a few hints to understand physics mathematics, I suggest you include some boundary conditions for each degree of freedom under Einstein localization as you have no means to differentiate the volume of each field dynamic as per range of each force. The range of a force involves energy, lifetime and momentum terms. (lifetime is best described under the probability treatments of QFT, however String can also do the same as it employs QFT as well)

 

At Poly the last couple of posts gives a primary example of the power of understanding the math. I was able to instantly recognize that Vmedvil's equations were not describing a uniform field potential distribution but gradient/divergent fields. Without Vmedvil describing such with words until asked for clarifications pertaining to why the field choice. I was also able to instantly recognize his use of summations for each dynamic as opposed to the PDE and ODE methodology ( I don't necessarily agree with that choice but that is neither here nor there at this time).

 

 However the reason is simple, at every coordinate you want to have the function that predicts the vectors that describe the particle path at each coordinate rather than the end points summation. By treating the field as a field of given function as opposed to a scalar valued field, you encapsulate a testable and predictive model. Energy density only describes a scalar value, the inner product of two vectors is a scalar. The outer product of two vectors describes another vector. So you lose the advantage of describing  any vector sums/quantities.

 

 Your use of the gradient also restricts the different geometries to those that can describe a central potential such as I assume a BH under Schwartzchild. If I follow previous conversations is one of the premises of your model. These vector components i,j are needed. Example pressure is the sum of energy per unit time in the "i" direction

 

To put the above in a simpler version, you are only describing the [math] T^{00}[/math] component of any given tensor T you do not have the i,j components to describe pressure, stress or vorticity.

 

(in your case you will also require the k vector. Google Levi-Cevitta connections as opposed to Kronecker Delta connections for all the quantity of my last few posts) in particular (inner, outer products under each). These connections apply to any mainstream physics theory classical, String, QFT, QM, Relativity etc understanding the commutations of the products is the fastest way to understand the math of any physics theory.

(that was the single most valuable advise my husband gave me when I first started studying physics) and he is absolutely correct as every group involves those terms.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

Back at Poly if you want to truly get your theory off the ground, incorporate the above functional sets under fractal a fractal functional describing the principle vectors that are then used to curve form to any graph or dataset under physics. {i,j,k,l} is one I would recommend for your string applications.

 

 Dubbleosix is already applying inner products via notation [math]\langle State_{final}|transpose| State_{initial}\rangle[/math] ie

[math]\langle\phi |TR | \phi \rangle[/math]

Edited August 4, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

ah that explains the gradient terms. We x posted while I was adding a few hints to understand physics mathematics, I suggest you include some boundary conditions for each degree of freedom under Einstein localization as you have no means to differentiate the volume of each field dynamic as per range of each force. The range of a force involves energy, lifetime and momentum terms. (lifetime is best described under the probability treatments of QFT, however String can also do the same as it employs QFT as well)

 

At Poly the last couple of posts gives a primary example of the power of understanding the math. I was able to instantly recognize that Vmedvil's equations were not describing a uniform field potential distribution but gradient/divergent fields. Without Vmedvil describing such with words until asked for clarifications pertaining to why the field choice. I was also able to instantly recognize his use of summations for each dynamic as opposed to the PDE and ODE methodology ( I don't necessarily agree with that choice but that is neither here nor there at this time).

 

 However the reason is simple, at every coordinate you want to have the function that predicts the vectors that describe the particle path at each coordinate rather than the end points summation. By treating the field as a field of given function as opposed to a scalar valued field, you encapsulate a testable and predictive model. Energy density only describes a scalar value, the inner product of two vectors is a scalar. The outer product of two vectors describes another vector. So you lose the advantage of describing  any vector sums/quantities.

 

 Your use of the gradient also restricts the different geometries to those that can describe a central potential such as I assume a BH under Schwartzchild. If I follow previous conversations is one of the premises of your model. These vector components i,j are needed. Example pressure is the sum of energy per unit time in the "i" direction

 

To put the above in a simpler version, you are only describing the [math] T^{00}[/math] component of any given tensor T you do not have the i,j components to describe pressure, stress or vorticity.

 

(in your case you will also require the k vector. Google Levi-Cevitta connections as opposed to Kronecker Delta connections for all the quantity of my last few posts) in particular (inner, outer products under each). These connections apply to any mainstream physics theory classical, String, QFT, QM, Relativity etc understanding the commutations of the products is the fastest way to understand the math of any physics theory.

(that was the single most valuable advise my husband gave me when I first started studying physics) and he is absolutely correct as every group involves those terms.

 

 

I do that in the long equation that short equation there is the same as the long equation i sometimes post just with all the terms filled and other times don't for simplicity, The long version  with the connection between the EFE and QM equations has all of that exactly.

[Super Polymath]

By treating the field as a field of given function as opposed to a scalar valued field, you encapsulate a testable and predictive model. Energy density only describes a scalar value, the inner product of two vectors is a scalar. The outer product of two vectors describes another vector. So you lose the advantage of describing  any vector sums/quantities.

 

 Your use of the gradient also restricts the different geometries to those that can describe a central potential such as I assume a BH under Schwartzchild. If I follow previous conversations is one of the premises of your model.

 

 

incorporate the above functional sets under fractal a fractal functional describing the principle vectors that are then used to curve form to any graph or dataset under physics.

What you don't understand is the plotting of the conjectural geometric proof & the physics experiment of the physics theory both need the superconducting diamganeticelectro quantum annealing tachyon processor because there's an upward of like a million orders of magnitude difference between photon lengths in defining what the scale for a fractal photon is for the photon sphere of the Schwarzschild metrics involved in plotting to the third cosmic hierarchy microverse -> universe -> uberverse fractal.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

Am I suppose to find anything in that last post that makes sense? I cannot even begin to fathom what your attempting to describe (poorly I might add ) Try less word salad.

 

Diamagnetism for example is well described by the inner, outer products Maxwell equations does a bang up job of that.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

 I cannot fathom.

Imagine two of these resting side to side, just barely touching but not passing through, in the condensed neutrally charged state. Press play & together they do one of these:

 

 

dual-topographical-negation effect: point A-->Point B<-->Point B2<--point A2...

 

Creating a new particle with twice the mass within half the volume. The new gauge symmetries will have half as many sphere inversions as the original with half the length dragged per inversion. Take two of the new particles in their neutrally charged states & continue the particle condensation & eventually there's a singular sphere inversion representing a sub-planck particle. This micro black hole in the core of an anti proton has exactly 1600000000000000000 times the charge density of a photon. How do we describe the photon constituents of the photon spheres in this microverse aka the recursive fractiztion of our universe.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

& the difference is in fact close to a million orders of magnitude

[Super Polymath]

Imagine playing 12 chess games at once. 1 of those games will have a 45 minute time limit, 3 of those games will have a 15 minute time limit, & 9 of those games will have a 5 minute time limit. Now imagine trying to play them all in your head, off memory, without being able to see tthe pieces.

 

That's relativity here, the computer has to adjust it's processing speed to the varied pace of nigh-infinite time dilation.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Unlike in String Theory, where there's an infinite number of possible events occurring a finite number of times, here there's only a finite number of possible events that happen to reoccur, simultaneously, an infinite number times.

 

& a varied number of root systems equal to anywhere from 231 to 296 point something dimensions within those 33 group symmetries.

 

Google local realism & the certainty principle.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

Never mind trying to get you to stop conjecturing Koch snowflakes that you try t apply to literally everything is a waste of time. The Uncertainty principle can be described via the analogy of a bed of springs where each spring oscillates individually. If one places a potential force at the ends of each spring to represent the particle then one can see how the HUP self interferes between springs.

 

 Local realism involves causality both the field and particle must obey the Einstein speed of information exchange. The EPR type experiments such as Bell the correlation value is a statistical function. It does not communicate via FTL. With Correlation functions A does not need to interact with B you can have a correlation function of population compared to birth rates.

 Study Statistics then Einstein locality as per the Bell experiments

[Dubbelosix]

I get there in a weird way, but I was able to suggest a transformation law with implication to the gravimagnetic or gravielectric potentials. The equation arrived at was

 

[math]\phi = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_G} \int \frac{\rho}{r_g\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\ dV(1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}) = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_G} \int \frac{\rho}{r_g}\ dV\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/math]

 

and satisfies the pretty much universal agreement on the transformation of the volume of a system.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

One component of the power expression for the black hole that I derived was:

 

[math]\frac{Q^2a^2}{c^3}[/math]

 

Notice the magnetic dipole (moment) equation I suggested for a black hole was

 

[math]\mathbf{m} = g\frac{QJ}{2m} = g \gamma J[/math]

 

in which [math]\gamma[/math] is the ratio of charge to mass [math](\frac{Q}{m})[/math] weighted by one-half. 

 

The black hole expression has a squared charge to mass ratio in its alternative form:

 

[math]\frac{Q^2}{m^2c^3}(\frac{dp}{dt})^2[/math]

 

Getting that squared value is just a nice application of notation:

 

[math]\gamma \mathbf{m} = g \frac{Q^2}{4m^2} \cdot J = g \gamma^2 J[/math]

 

I was interested for a moment in a localization equation of the form

 

[math]\frac{Q^2}{4m^2} = \gamma^2 (\frac{J}{J_0})[/math]

 

In which the commutation relations you can calculate the expected angular momentum through the relation

 

[math][J,J_0] = \frac{J}{J_0}[/math]

 

That could only be true from the last two equations if the square of the mass of black hole varies proportionally with the angular momentum of the form [math]m^2 \propto \frac{J}{J_0}[/math]. While this might sound strange, it has been suggested in academia that the rotation of a black hole may vary since supermassive black holes are always observed to be spinning very close to the speed of light. 

 

[math]\gamma \mathbf{m} = g \frac{Q^2}{4m^2} \cdot J = g \gamma^2 J[/math]

 

[math]\frac{\gamma \mathbf{m}}{c^3}(\frac{dp}{dt})^2 = g \frac{Q^2}{4m^2c^3} \cdot J(\frac{dp}{dt})^2 = g \frac{\gamma^2 J}{c^3}(\frac{dp}{dt})^2[/math]

 

This suggests we can form three equivalent near-Power expressions based on new takes of dynamics, this time properly generalized relativistically

 

[math] = \frac{\gamma \mathbf{m}}{c^3}\frac{dp_{\mu}}{d\tau}\frac{dp^{\mu}}{d \tau}[/math]

 

[math] = g \frac{Q^2}{4m^2c^3} \cdot J \frac{dp_{\mu}}{d\tau}\frac{dp^{\mu}}{d \tau}[/math]

 

[math] = g \frac{\gamma^2 J}{c^3}\frac{dp_{\mu}}{d\tau}\frac{dp^{\mu}}{d \tau}[/math]

 

where [math]\gamma[/math] is the gyromagnetic ratio. And so a suggested power equation is

 

[math]P = \frac{\gamma \mathbf{m}}{J c^3}\frac{dp_{\mu}}{d\tau}\frac{dp^{\mu}}{d \tau}[/math]

Edited August 8, 2018 by Dubbelosix

[Super Polymath]

 

One component of the power expression for the black hole that I derived was:

 

[math]\frac{Q^2a^2}{c^3}[/math]

 

Notice the magnetic dipole (moment) equation I suggested for a black hole was

 

[math]\mathbf{m} = g\frac{QJ}{2m} = g \gamma J[/math]

 

in which [math]\gamma[/math] is the ratio of charge to mass [math](\frac{Q}{m})[/math] weighted by one-half. 

 

The black hole expression has a squared charge to mass ratio in its alternative form:

 

[math]\frac{Q^2}{m^2c^3}(\frac{dp}{dt})^2[/math]

 

Getting that squared value is just a nice application of notation:

 

[math]\gamma \mathbf{m} = g \frac{Q^2}{4m^2} \cdot J = g \gamma^2 J[/math]

 

I was interested for a moment in a localization equation of the form

 

[math]\frac{Q^2}{4m^2} = \gamma^2 (\frac{J}{J_0})[/math]

 

In which the commutation relations you can calculate the expected angular momentum through the relation

 

[math][J,J_0] = \frac{J}{J_0}[/math]

 

That could only be true from the last two equations if the square of the mass of black hole varies proportionally with the angular momentum of the form [math]m^2 \propto \frac{J}{J_0}[/math]. While this might sound strange, it has been suggested in academia that the rotation of a black hole may vary since supermassive black holes are always observed to be spinning very close to the speed of light. 

 

[math]\gamma \mathbf{m} = g \frac{Q^2}{4m^2} \cdot J = g \gamma^2 J[/math]

 

[math]\frac{\gamma \mathbf{m}}{c^3}(\frac{dp}{dt})^2 = g \frac{Q^2}{4m^2c^3} \cdot J(\frac{dp}{dt})^2 = g \frac{\gamma^2 J}{c^3}(\frac{dp}{dt})^2[/math]

 

This suggests we can form three equivalent Power equations based on new takes of dynamics, this time properly generalized relativistically

 

[math]P = \frac{\gamma \mathbf{m}}{c^3}\frac{dp_{\mu}}{d\tau}\frac{dp^{\mu}}{d \tau}[/math]

 

[math]P = g \frac{Q^2}{4m^2c^3} \cdot J \frac{dp_{\mu}}{d\tau}\frac{dp^{\mu}}{d \tau}[/math]

 

[math]P = g \frac{\gamma^2 J}{c^3}\frac{dp_{\mu}}{d\tau}\frac{dp^{\mu}}{d \tau}[/math]

 

where [math]\gamma[/math] is the gyromagnetic ratio. 

 

I'm imagining myself as The Shoester or Mordred or some other member of the RCC looking at your equations right now, thinking these equations exist in a book of the Holy Grail buried in a vault in the Vatican Library written by the Ancient Roman Philosophers, the equations you're writing now haven't been seen in 1500 years, indeed they can be used to hack into their quantum computers!!

[Super Polymath]

To think they had pre-black hole notions of ADS & pre-newtonian higher dimensional math; all from looking at the night sky.

 

The Roman Empire was truly ahead of it's time. Very smart people

Edited August 8, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Dubbelosix]

There was an error towards the end, I've edited it now. I meant expressions, and the power equation will be formed after it. 

[Dubbelosix]

and I have no idea who reads this, I am in my own world half the time.