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

[Vmedvil]

54 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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?

Lol, no I know how to code something like that, that is easy my point was that there are things that can process something like that.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

On 12/6/2017 at 7:12 PM, Mordred said:

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

Okay, after much thought about this I think I am going to leave the Ghost Field Lagrangian undefined as not enough is known about QE to define it properly but that is actually a "good ghost field" so it stays as I do think they are virtual particle exchanges causing the linked states, that Watson Hamiltonian for atomic movement and molecular bonds will be added as correct and accurate for molecular bonds in "Real Universe".

But I don't like that last term for V in this.

Add Molecular bonds and atomic vibration etc Transform Ĥ_s =  ((ħ²  /(2E_rest/C²)) ∑³_{a =1} (d²/dX²) + (1/2)∑³_{a,β = 1}  μ_aβ(P_a - Π_a)(P_β - Π_β) + U - (ħ²/2)∑^3N-6_s=1(d²/dq²) + V)

∇'(x,y,z,t,ω_s,ω_p,M,I,k,φ,S,X,Z,μ,Y,q,a,β) = (((ħ²  /(2E_rest/C²)) ∑³_{a =1} (d²/dX²) + (1/2)∑³_{a,β = 1}  μ_aβ(P_a - Π_a)(P_β - Π_β) + U - (ħ²/2)∑^3N-6_s=1(d²/dq²) + V)((|(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)

And so not one gets the two totally different X variables confused, Transform X into moment of Inertia basically, which do share the same _i X₂ =((C²/E_rest)∑^N_{i = 1} M_iR_i)

∇'(x,y,z,t,ω_s,ω_p,M,I,k,φ,S,X,Z,μ,Y,q,a,β) = (((ħ²  /(2E_rest/C²)) ∑³_{a =1} (d²/d((C²/E_rest)∑^N_{i = 1} M_iR_i)²) + (1/2)∑³_{a,β = 1}  μ_aβ(P_a - Π_a)(P_β - Π_β) + U - (ħ²/2)∑^3N-6_s=1(d²/dq²) + V)((|(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)

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Have you ever considered that piece mealing random equations might just be the wrong approach all along and that it might just be better to step back and study the proofs of those equations ? I realize your only interested in simulation development but honestly the best tools is the symmetry groups.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

29 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Have you ever considered that piece mealing random equations might just be the wrong approach all along and that it might just be better to step back and study the proofs of those equations ? I realize your only interested in simulation development but honestly the best tools is the symmetry groups.

Well, yes each part has its function only valued once unless other parts required it too for consistency none of it is double valued.

29 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Have you ever considered that piece mealing random equations might just be the wrong approach all along and that it might just be better to step back and study the proofs of those equations ? I realize your only interested in simulation development but honestly the best tools is the symmetry groups.

You want to do it my way?  L_universe = (∇_Charge,∇_Color,∇_flavour,∇_gravity  - ∇_{Dark Energy})

charge possible states per point (1,2/3, 1/3, 0,-1/3,-2/3,-1)

Color Possible states per point(R,B,G,0,G,B,R)

Flavour possible states per point (I,II,III,0,III,II,I)

Gravity/Dark Energy possible states per point of space (Energy,Mass,Spin,0,Energy,mass,spin)

(Universe Volumetric Planck State @ size of universe in radius) =(3/4)π ((1/(t_pC²)) L_universe R_Universe)³

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

so [latex] SU(3)\otimes SU(2)\otimes U(1) [/latex] includes all the above electrodynamics, Higgs,color, flavor It is all the SM particles under symmetry. You don't need other groups SO(5) and above unless your going supersymmetric. I even linked ghost fields specific to those groups under g instead of G.

The Hamiltons all correspond under these groups, The Special orthogonal groups are double cover under the above.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

so [latex] SU(3)\otimes SU(2)\otimes U(1) [/latex] includes all the above electrodynamics, Higgs,color, flavor It is all the SM particles under symmetry. You don't need other groups SO(5) and above unless your going supersymmetric.

Ya, that equation holds all the information of the larger one in much less detail just my showing it as a set of state coordinates for every length Planck, should be a huge number for all planck lengths for that radius of the universe with a state for every one.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Do where is the problem? every particle interaction and dynamic is defined by the above groups with the Hamilton. Do you need specific equations when all you require is the displacement from coordinate a to b in your scatterings etc as per S-Matrix ie Feyman diagrams for particle intersctions? Every interaction and interference is defined by action under those groups.

Why would you need E rest, relativistic, nuclear binding etc when its all detailed under lie algebra?

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Do where is the problem? every particle interaction and dynamic is defined by the above groups with the Hamilton. Do you need specific equations when all you require is the displacement from coordinate a to b in your scatterings etc as per S-Matrix ie Feyman diagrams for particle intersctions? Every interaction and interference is defined by action under those groups.

Why would you need E rest, relativistic, nuclear binding etc when its all detailed under lie algebra?

Those are the strengths or values of Mass, Length Contraction/Time dilation, and SNF etc, like X and Z for orbital states. Y is flavour state while F is Electromagnetic state. T is Temperature and so on.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

No they are functions that include scattering diagrams Feyman that takes all these equations and works with the elenents that are common among them. Something you have never bothered to look for.

Ie my continous hints to study the mathematical proofs of each equation your using. To find the variables that are common to 2 or more seperate equations.

Specifically the scalar and vector quantities thrmselves. ie What tensors are about organizing

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No they are functions that include scattering diagrams Feyman that takes all these equations and works with the elenents that are common among them. Something you have never bothered to look for.

Ie my continous hints to study the mathematical proofs of each equation your using. To find the variables that are common to 2 or more seperate equations.

Specifically the scalar and vector quantities thrmselves.

If you want to put it that way, they are the scalar values next to bundles of vectors.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

A bundle is a manifold of a principle  vector field thats the power of group theory.

Ie how do you calculate the projection map without using the M and N tensors under G

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_bundle

every term on that page is detailed via group theory which uses scalar and vector quantities at its core for the tensor group symmetries via vector calculus.

Start with understanding the Natural units I posted previously because your Langrene and Hamiltons use them specifically. every QFT treatment use Natural units....

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

A bundle is a manifold of a principle  vector field thats the power of group theory

Well, the big equation is how all effect each other over time, whatever that is. The small short one is showing the state of space @ every point for those properties. 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

You will never get the big equation with the method your using.

Lets demonstrate calculate the range of each force for starters If you can't do that your program isn't accurate 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You will never get the big equation with the method your using.

Lets demonstrate calculate the range of each force for starters If you can't do that your program isn't accurate 

The range of gravity is R_s  they all have been the others create it. Still a Quantum Gravity Equation and not to define the others but to define gravity.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

No that is absolutely wrong. I gave you this information in this thread previously.

Did I waste my time here?

What about the Pauli exclusion principle? does your formula calculate the number of electrons per the principle quantum numbers to determine the allowable number of electrons in an orbit?

Can it calculate the mean lifetetime of a particle? which applies to the first question? ie part of the answer

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No that is absolutely wrong. I gave you this information in this thread previously.

Did I waste my time here?

What about the Pauli exclusion principle? does your formula calculate the number of electrons per the principle quantum numbers to determine the allowable number of electrons in an orbit?

They are all infinite they go to the edge of the universe. X and Z contain that information. Max speed = C(speed of Light) + H(Hubble Constant)ΔKiloparsec

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

No the strong force is [latex]10^{-15}[/latex] metres it is not infinite as per gravity and the electromagnetic.

You don't even know this ? it is detetmined by the mean lifetime of its gauge bosons.

Correction to above 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No the strong force is 10−32 metres it is not infinite as per gravity and the electromagnetic.

You don't even know this ? it is detetmined by the mean lifetime of its gauge bosons.

No, it gets weaker and weaker as it goes past that point but it never goes away seeming like nothing as it does not effect calculations enough to be detected nor can be measured by experiments not being exact enough.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html#c2

1 minute ago, Vmedvil said:

No, it gets weaker and weaker as it goes past that point but it never goes away.

wrong the further you seperate two quarks the stronger the force of attraction

A nobel prize was issued for proving this

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html#c2

wrong the further you seperate two quarks the stronger the force of attraction

A nobel prize was issued for proving this

Yes, but it falls to near nothing at the femtometer.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

I don't get this I was taught range of force in high school specifically grade 8

[Vmedvil]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I don't get this I was taught range of force in high school specifically grade 8

well, that can't measure the magnitude to a Planck length can they, what scale was that measured at.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

What does that have to do with range of force which only requires classical equations to calculate?

Mean liftetime and velocity that is all you need

[Vmedvil]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What does that have to do with range of force which only requires classical equations to calculate?

Well, the Dimension is still there just compressed, otherwise, if you moved over a point of space without it, you would instantly lose that force until you crossed one that had it, even magnitude of near zero or Zero shows that it exists in that region or can be interacted with, otherwise it would be Null and not there at the point forever.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

That makes absolutely no sense every dynamic under physics involves differental geometry. Why do you think that is part of the prerequisites including vector calculus which also applies geometry?

How do you model a vector without it?

How do you think Wolframalpha works magic?

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred