Theory of Everything  

  
Go Back   Theory of Everything > Tools > Mathematics
Reload this Page inward vs. outward orthogonality
Register Website Toe Club Your Blog Arcade

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
inward vs. outward orthogonality
Old
  (#1 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really nice
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,317
Thanks Given: 728
Thanked 123x in 121 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 74
   
inward vs. outward orthogonality - 04-17-2006, 01:55 PM

A necessary and sufficient condition for outward orthogonality is such that the quantum field operator can be represented by its orthogonal matrix satisfying O^{T}O=I and O=\bar{O} where O^{T} is the transpose and \bar{O} is the complex conjugate. The square matrix I is the identity matrix, implying the existence of an inverse. However, an inward orthogonal quantum dynamic field operator does not have an inverse, is self-transpose and equivalent to a Hadamard matrix.


Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
the big toe twiches.
Old
  (#2 (permalink))
Moderator
mkirkpatrick is a splendid one to beholdmkirkpatrick is a splendid one to beholdmkirkpatrick is a splendid one to beholdmkirkpatrick is a splendid one to behold
 
mkirkpatrick's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 7,340
Thanks Given: 348
Thanked 703x in 655 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rep Power: 94
   
Smile the big toe twiches. - 04-17-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
A necessary and sufficient condition for outward orthogonality is such that the quantum field operator can be represented by its orthogonal matrix satisfying and where is the transpose and is the complex conjugate. The square matrix is the identity matrix, implying the existence of an inverse. However, an inward orthogonal quantum dynamic field operator does not have an inverse, is self-transpose and equivalent to a Hadamard matrix.
I can feel an itch in
our TOE here Antonio,how soon can we scratch??



kind regards michael.


Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself?
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
04-18-2006, 07:12 AM

Antonio,

What is the physical difference between inwards and outwards orthogonalities?

By the way, the terms "inward orthogonal quantum dynamic field operator" and "Outward orthogonal quantum dynamic field operator" are a bit too long for (and seems like the most complex name ever in) physics. we could use; Inorqudyfiop and for outward; Ouorqudyfiop (they seem long, but they are east to remember cause they are so strange words).
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really nice
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,317
Thanks Given: 728
Thanked 123x in 121 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 74
   
04-18-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
how soon can we scratch??
As soon as we change Pauli's, Dirac's, and Einstein's matrices into Hadamard matrices and there after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
What is the physical difference between inwards and outwards orthogonalities?
Inward orthogonality is not measurable. On the other hand, outward orthogonality is measurable by eigenvalue method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
they seem long, but they are east to remember cause they are so strange words
A rose by any other name smell just as sweet. Square of energy as quantum of spacetime is just a Hadamard matrix.


Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
04-18-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
Inward orthogonality is not measurable. On the other hand, outward orthogonality is measurable by eigenvalue method.
But if outward orthogonality is measurable and has an inverse, then it means that the measurement of it is inverselly equal to the measurement of the inverse of outwards orthgonality, and thus, there must be negative space.
Did you realize this?
Is it plausible in your theory?
Is it a fallacy?
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really nice
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,317
Thanks Given: 728
Thanked 123x in 121 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 74
   
04-19-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
there must be negative space
Actually I am working on a negative spacetime manifold as negative of square of energy -E^2.


Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
04-19-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
Actually I am working on a negative spacetime manifold as negative of square of energy .
And is there any geometric sense on it? Remember, matrices (including Hadamart's) are valueless without the support of a cartesian coordinate system, or at least a geometric representation.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
negative curvature
Old
  (#8 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really nice
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,317
Thanks Given: 728
Thanked 123x in 121 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 74
   
negative curvature - 04-19-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
And is there any geometric sense on it?
The reality of negative curvature as hyperbolic geometry. Just like tensors, this geometry is independent of any coordinate system.


Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
04-20-2006, 04:42 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
The reality of negative curvature as hyperbolic geometry. Just like tensors, this geometry is independent of any coordinate system.
But the negative curvature in hyberbolic geometry implies a positive value of length. Unless we use a coordinate system for it, but you said it is independent of coordinate systems...
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
absolute value
Old
  (#10 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really nice
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,317
Thanks Given: 728
Thanked 123x in 121 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 74
   
absolute value - 04-20-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
But the negative curvature in hyberbolic geometry implies a positive value of length.
That is the reason why there shouldn't be just one curvature but two linked curvatures, and their squares are absolute values of quantized spacetime. Again, they are coordinate free quantities.


Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com