Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The book recommends grade 12 calculus. It deals with the SO(5) model and teaches how to read the feyman diagrams as well as lie algrebra basics It's the first book I studied on particle physics. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The book recommends grade 12 calculus. It deals with the SO(5) model and teaches how to read the feyman diagrams as well as lie algrebra basics It's the first book I studied on particle physics. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 No prob I just found this handy reference in lie algebra. I just glanced at it looks handy. Note the lorentz group page 26. http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0005032 The O(3.1) is part of this group as. 3*3 matrix with 1 positive rotation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 I'm not seeing the distinction. How is this different from any other classical model? What's the mechanism of E&M? The mechanism of EM is charge. What else drives EM besides charge? (And I finally learned that the quote function wouldnt work with IE but does fine with chrome) There is also different conservation rules involved. Conservation of Lepton number Conservation of charge Conservation of flavor Conservation of isospin Conservation of color Conservation of momentum Conservation of energy What you posted wasn't a new model it's an understanding of the current one with misconceptions. Key one being space as a fabric (latex) I prefer to see it as the old one with new understandings, not misconceptions...Your opinion is sturdy, like the truth to you. You should know that it's relative... I'm not seeing the distinction. How is this different from any other classical model? What's the mechanism of E&M? E&M? is that something different from EM or a typo? Just noticed it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I prefer to see it as the old one with new understandings, not misconceptions...Your opinion is sturdy, like the truth to you. You should know that it's relative... Opinions are always relative lol. Those conservation rules are important to consider when involving gluon interactions. As well as quark interactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 Mordred, I was checking out the book by Cahn and on the first page of the first chapter called SU(2) They show a 3x3 Grid and talk about an x, y, and z...is that left to right, up to down? Im seriously lost on the first paragraph and have no idea Opinions are always relative lol. Those conservation rules are important to consider when involving gluon interactions.As well as quark interactions. I never overlook a conservation rule...ha...seriously though, have you seen me misquote GR when I talk about it? The only time i misquote is when Im talking about SFT (space foam thoery) and you dont agree with my findings...more than ever, I feel like I get it...but i got it in a way that you dont get...I can live with that...i suppose i see your declarations of my misconceptions a bit useless to a discussion of my entry entitled "A new model for general relativity" which presupposes that it will have ideas seen as misconceptions by GR and those who follow it confusingly to a T...I have endured 4 or 5 entries saying such things...If my ideas offend you, and you dont want to discuss them, and only redirect me to other ideas after telling me I dont know what Im talking about, I suppose Id rather have you just not say anthing...I was hoping to discuss them..To do that, you would need to attempt to see it as I see it...and you are not...which is fine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Here is one of the better GUT articles. Of key note Is the running of the gauge constants. (Strength of each force). As you raise the temperature the 3 forces reach a state of thermal equilibrium. Forming the electroweak force. At 246 Gev the universe reaches the VeV. The coupling occurs prior to this I can't recall what FeB offhand. If I recall roughly 168 GeV. Now the Higgs denotes the vacuum expectation value. However if you continue raising the temperature the seesaw mechanism kicks in roughly 10^16 GeV. Coincidentally this is close to the temperature when inflation occurs. This mechanism is also involved in giving the quarks and leptons mass. Just a quick and dirty GUT explanation. Think of it this way define space time foam? Is this a form of aether? If that's the case there was a recent thread showing the problem with an aether. Lol coincidentally he also had foam in his descriptive. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81656-the-universe-is-a-continuum-of-matter/ By the way I never get offended. I enjoy helping others learn. However I teach what's in the textbooks. New ideas are great but one needs to learn what those models teach correctly before developing new models. How else can you test your model if you don't compare them to the existing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 Here is one of the better GUT articles. Of key note Is the running of the gauge constants. (Strength of each force). As you raise the temperature the 3 forces reach a state of thermal equilibrium. Forming the electroweak force. At 246 Gev the universe reaches the VeV. The coupling occurs prior to this I can't recall what FeB offhand. If I recall roughly 168 GeV. Now the Higgs denotes the vacuum expectation value. However if you continue raising the temperature the seesaw mechanism kicks in roughly 10^16 GeV. Coincidentally this is close to the temperature when inflation occurs. This mechanism is also involved in giving the quarks and leptons mass. Just a quick and dirty GUT explanation. Think of it this way define space time foam? Is this a form of aether? If that's the case there was a recent thread showing the problem with an aether. Lol coincidentally he also had foam in his descriptive. Grand Unification Theories...didnt recognize GUT... Did you wanna hear mine? Eh, its probably as far off as my understanding of geometry and spacetime...but do you really think I thought to create one without studying the previous examples? I dont misquote the force carries of simple QM...you do I will laugh with you at the aether guy...ha! what a pooper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 If you think about it I supplied you the tools to develop your model. Aka all those links and references. Grand Unification Theories...didnt recognize GUT... Did you wanna hear mine? Eh, its probably as far off as my understanding of geometry and spacetime...but do you really think I thought to create one without studying the previous examples? I dont misquote the force carries of simple QM...you do I will laugh with you at the aether guy...ha! what a pooper! Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) This one guy on the forums said that compressing mass gave it more mass...ha! Can I just say that you did not supply me with anything that has fed my theory yet...it still exists as it was before i "met" you...and as it has existed from the beginning of this thread...you have showed me proof of what my findings state...very reluctantly ha Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Lol no one's perfect. I've been looking for simple lie algebra covering the symmetry groups. I never could latex the matrix particularly from a phone with auto correct that doesn't recognize science terms. Grr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 I really want to know who created the graphic of the 3d compression model of spacetime that SFT predicted...Its the only graphic I have ever seen like that besides the one I had in my head...ive been scratching it into piles of mashed potatoes...I would really like to talk to the guy who made that graphic because he or she is the one who can explain how GR geometery actually works...because he modlled it accurately... Lol no one's perfect. I've been looking for simple lie algebra covering the symmetry groups. I never could latex the matrix particularly from a phone with auto correct that doesn't recognize science terms. Grr A phone? ok...youre almost excused..I could never do this on my phone...eyes are killing me allready Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The tools are to be used and read by you. After all you need to become the programmer recall one of my earlier posts on model development? That model is an accurate 3d coordinate map of GR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 Dont you get it man? I saw the same geometry as you and used different tools...Isnt that a fact at this point with the similarities of the geometrical descriptions I made and the equations you used that i have no idea how to interpret? It is to me...So...i will research lots of stuff all over the place...I was looking for commentary on my theory here...We both get it... I dont get to go to other threads to discuss this thoery...thats not cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Keep in mind GR is a coordinate metric. Look at the Minkowskii metrics to understand it. The SR book I linked has the appropriate metrics to explain that image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 Look to comment 89 in this thread and read my experiment of how to test for SFT... What if this time were the only time I would ever get to discuss my perspectives at all? What if you were the only one who had the chance to discuss them with me...its quite romantic as science should be... Theories in the night, exchanging glances, wondering in the night, what were the chances, they could find a common perspective in order to really communicate truths between each other without sending the other off for 6 years of math degrees, before the night was throouuuuuuuugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I do get it. Does that mean you stop there and not learn how to show that to others with the tools of mathematics? After all you want to improve your model and ideas. Lets take an example. For several years I tried to replace the cosmological constant using thermodynamics basically a high density region will naturally spread out to a lower density by increasing its volume. Sounds perfectly plausible. We see this in our everyday experiences. Good example is a sail or how temperature spreads out. If I had stopped there I would have never learned that this doesn't work for the cosmological constant. It's not homogeneous and isotropic nor can it be constant. So I tried other methods and metrics to make it work. Including ADS/CFT. Never did succeed. So I know that idea cannot work. I suppose this is becoming a thread of many deep subjects... One of the fellas mentioned having an experiment or test for my theory and I have one. I don't know where to find the elements needed for the test. but here it is... I need two massive objects, mostly alone in space...a Binary system..."mostly alone in space" means far enough away from other gravity sources that they would not effect the results.... One of the traits of the foam space model is that 2 areas of compression can add together to create changes in time and length dilation out in the middle of empty space...Why? the compressed space time region of one star hits the compressed space-time region of another star, and the compressive product is more than both alone. So, I suppose we would need to get into a spaceship and fly from one star to the next...through this journey, we would reach a point, in space-time, between the stars where the gravitational influence from the one in front of us is growing larger than the one behind us...the gravitation should make a smoothe slope from one to the other in this transition...in between 2 stars with the correct masses and distance apart, there should be a region of spacetime where the time dilation and length dilation increase but the gravity does not increase, simply changes the direction of acceleration. My version of a wormhole would take place in the empty space between 2 or more massive objects...like galaxies...where the cumulative compression of one galaxy mixes with the cumulative compression of the other or other galaxies, the create an area in empty space where the grid of spacetime has been smashed almost to the point of being a black hole...and you can travel through the "tunnel" created by the merging gravitational fields faster with less energy...space time is already compressed here...as if you were moving fast through space, or standing next to a massive object...to find these regions you would need very accurate knowledge of where the Gfields combine to create this effect...and with the correct vector, could travel right through it very fast... So there ya go...a test...All I need to figure out is how gravity propagates away from massive objects...what is the rate of dispersal? I know with gravity, that you must take the entire force of gravity and divide it by the amount of square footage on your given sphere...then you make the sphere larger, divide again, and the value of gravity has now shrunk simply because it has been spread thin as the sphere increases in size...But I really need to know...at what distance does gravity lose 25 percent of its energy? 50, 75, 100...I need to realize that scale before I knew how far apart planets of a certain mass have to be to make the additive compressive effect actually show up in time dilation and not gravitational force...Then I need a spaceship and a team of mathematicians to figure the results....anyone got a spaceship? The problem your going to have with this is Keplers laws do work. Let's explain we have the sun and the Earth. Each has its own gravitational field. In Keplers laws the two bodies orbit the center of mass. Luckily the Sun is far more massive than the Earth so the center of mass is the sun. In other system such as two similar suns this isn't the case both suns orbit the center of mass. Edited January 8, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I do get it. Does that mean you stop there and not learn how to show that to others with the tools of mathematics? After all you want to improve your model and ideas. Lets take an example. For several years I tried to replace the cosmological constant using thermodynamics basically a high density region will naturally spread out to a lower density by increasing its volume. Sounds perfectly plausible. We see this in our everyday experiences. Good example is a sail or how temperature spreads out. If I had stopped there I would have never learned that this doesn't work for the cosmological constant. It's not homogeneous and isotropic nor can it be constant. So I tried other methods and metrics to make it work. Including ADS/CFT. Never did succeed. So I know that idea cannot work. I didnt find my answer with the tools of math...I was hoping to teach about that process in this thread...thats all The math will be awesome to learn...there's much to be learned... PS...the cosmo constant is actually the force keeping all those gridlines from just entirely collapsing into the earth...in SFT... and something to also note...there may be dark energy and dark matter, but maybe not in the amounts they suggest with GR, because the cosmo constant could also be at work...there could be dark energies and a constant...figure how to change those equations to make them work, will ya? ~ I do get it. Does that mean you stop there and not learn how to show that to others with the tools of mathematics? After all you want to improve your model and ideas. Lets take an example. For several years I tried to replace the cosmological constant using thermodynamics basically a high density region will naturally spread out to a lower density by increasing its volume. Sounds perfectly plausible. We see this in our everyday experiences. Good example is a sail or how temperature spreads out. If I had stopped there I would have never learned that this doesn't work for the cosmological constant. It's not homogeneous and isotropic nor can it be constant. So I tried other methods and metrics to make it work. Including ADS/CFT. Never did succeed. So I know that idea cannot work. The problem your going to have with this is Keplers laws do work. Let's explain we have the sun and the Earth. Each has its own gravitational field. In Keplers laws the two bodies orbit the center of mass. Luckily the Sun is far more massive than the Earth so the center of mass is the sun. In other system such as two similar suns this isn't the case both suns orbit the center of mass. I get that....why does it keep my test from working though? thinking...... I just need two converging gravitational fields...I fly directly through that center of mass...and see if time and length dilation occur as I enter, pass through and leave it.. That center of mass is what I predict will show that the two fields combine by further smashing spacetime in a place with no mass... Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 You might want to look up shell theorem with regards to your model http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem I didn't say my model prevents yours from working. I was able to disprove my model idea. You will need to try to do the same to yours. Model development. Premise of the model. Mathematical proof of the model Testing and supportive evidence of a model Disproving a model. A model only lasts if it cannot be proven wrong. So you need to examine how it may be proven wrong and figure out how to correct it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 The problem your going to have with this is Keplers laws do work. Dont get sidetracked...this is where you said Keplers laws would trouble my experiment...Im asking you how now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 If you read peer reviewed papers model proposals are always compared to the pre existing models. After all the purpose of a model is to improve our understanding. If it doesn't improve our understanding then it's no good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 Must work! Thanks much for giving the experiment a read...you may be the only one! If you read peer reviewed papers model proposals are always compared to the pre existing models. After all the purpose of a model is to improve our understanding. If it doesn't improve our understanding then it's no good. Dont get sidetracked...this is where you said Keplers laws would trouble my experiment...Im asking you how now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The shell theorem and the center of mass. I saw that problem in post 89. It's correctable via your second to last post I didnt find my answer with the tools of math...I was hoping to teach about that process in this thread...thats all The math will be awesome to learn...there's much to be learned... PS...the cosmo constant is actually the force keeping all those gridlines from just entirely collapsing into the earth...in SFT... and something to also note...there may be dark energy and dark matter, but maybe not in the amounts they suggest with GR, because the cosmo constant could also be at work...there could be dark energies and a constant...figure how to change those equations to make them work, will ya? ~ I get that....why does it keep my test from working though? thinking...... I just need two converging gravitational fields...I fly directly through that center of mass...and see if time and length dilation occur as I enter, pass through and leave it.. That center of mass is what I predict will show that the two fields combine by further smashing spacetime in a place with no mass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) You still havent described the problem...I think you cant because you cant...if you dont, this thoery seems solid... The real question occurs to me...where would your understanding be without the knowledge of these prewrittin directives you like to point out instead of using you own words? I don't want to get snooty...But describing something in one's own words is very indicative of true understanding... Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Went and re-read your 89 post. You included the center of mass component in your beginning descriptive. However the wormhole aspect needs some thought. In answer to the rate that gravity decreases [latex] f=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/latex] And please don't be insulting I am spending considerable time trying to help you Edited January 8, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now