Jump to content

FlawedBeing

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FlawedBeing

  • Rank
    Lepton
  1. Lolol By definition, God stuff, especially trying to invoke science to show that Gods exist, is pseudoscientific. A quick look on Wikipedia/Intelligent design: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
  2. Intriguing that the cosmos can potentially be described in terms of rich matrix operations/structures. Very intriguing indeed. Hmmm Thanks Mordred.
  3. Thanks, and I also find that the Minimal Supersymmetric Pati Salman seems to be my target. The gauge group namely namely \[ (SU(4) × SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R)/Z_2 \], seems to concern supersymmetry, i.e. it seems to be a good candidate for what the RHS of \[ C^∞(M) \] may look like.
  4. I have not studied that GUT. A glance at that Pati Salam GUT, and things already seem exciting, seemingly very relevant to what I was looking for! Thanks Mordred. The last type of grand fundamental physics I looked on, was this recently published call to participate, via Stephen Wolfram (wolfram language creator/genius). Now, I'm going somewhat off topic about Wolfram "Wolfram: Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics… and It’s Beautiful" The Wolfram Fundamental Physics Project page. No, your response seems considerate and useful.😤 It is giving me something to think of/process, similar to Mordred's response. Thanks joigus.
  5. So, I thought that supermanifold structures are very complex, consisting of Poincare space, i.e. both normal space time and anti-commuting coordinates. I garnered that normal space time could constitute some simpler structures, including the use of SU(n), U(n), etc, looking for example at sources like this paper: http://uw.physics.wisc.edu/~himpsel/449group.pdf Thereafter, I was thinking that some sheaf/supermanifold from supersymmetry, since a combination of both normal space time, could be expressed in terms of the constituent structures from normal space times, i.e. the simpler gauge groups, since I thought the sheaf/supermanifold concerned a supergroup. 1. Yes, that is the paper. I didn't see a link icon, so I thought it was some forum constraint on new members forbidding links. 2. All the items on the left hand side in the picture are complicated wholes, formed by the right hand side items, i.e. where rhs=combinations of gauge groups. I wanted to find out whether \[C^∞(M)\] was also expressible in terms of these gauge groups, and what the right hand side for \[C^∞(M)\] would look like. Notably, \[CP^{n−1}\] doesn't seem to concern supermanifolds directly?
  6. As seen in the attached image, the paper "Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Models, (June 4, 2000)", on page 9 describes a manifold/projective space in terms of gauge group relations, including SU(n) , U(n) etc. How can one represent a \[C ^\infty (M) \] sheaf/supermanifold from supersymmetry (See Wikipedia/Supermanifold), as relations of simpler gauge groups? The gauge groups are such an elegant way to understand physics, and this could help me to better understand physics.The world reasonably needs more physicists, and maybe less soccer players.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.