# Thread: Unification Approach With Curvature, Gravitational Waves and Temperature?

1. I in fact worked on a topic related to this for my first paper to the gravitational research foundation, in which I derived an equation satisfying the Schrodinger equation for Parallel Transport in a curved spacetime interval (see also third reference):

Which had been derived under fundamental assumptions concerning the uncertainty of the system, due to the presence of the Wigner function ~ giving theoretically, a quantum solution to non-commutative geometries.

When appears, we intend the quantum uncertainty in

This uncertainty is known as the Wigner function, found here to have implication with ''quantum gravity'' using non-commutation rules.

it isn't hard to see why these are solutions similar to the ordinary Schrodinger equation of the form:

Showing also that it was bound by the commutation rules applied (surprisingly and remarkably concisely) as:

I've been studying gravielectromagnetism and since felt it is probably the strongest contestant to unifying gravity ''in some way.'' I feel like getting back into the non-linear Hilbert space I had been investigating for the first essay to the gravitational research foundation;.

For a smooth manifold, the tangent bundle of is the affine connection, itself distinguishes a class of curves called affine geodesics, (Kobayashi and Nomizu). The curve is given as:

and the derivative yields the ordinary notation, which featured in my previous work on a non-linear Schrodinger equation

Where is the usual gravitational field (connection) and is the Covariant derivative.

The previous equation is a curve-distance equation, defining the minimum of the geodesic. The product of commutators not only has intrinsic uncertainty attached to the spacetime, but as is well-known, they also form the Riemann tensor . It simply takes form as

With [] a notation for the Planck length. The commutation relationships are calculated the following (usual) way, equivalent to the Riemann curvature tensor:

Also with, I found a non-trivial inequality bound identical in form to the quantum bound:

Concerning the curve equation the product of the wave functions which have lengths of velocity in the Hilbert space is given by:

... But (maybe) more fundamentally, from the same geometrized Hilbert space, we have found a definition of ''how temperature arises'' within the theory. Certainly motion is included for those wave functions who have a velocity and time derivative in the length of the Hilbert space... and motion of atomic and molecular systems is the reigning explanation to how objects may heat up. Some of these equations will be provided for the next parts,

This equation, was a classical momentum equation, which we second quantized and replaced spatial derivatives with Christoffel symbols formed from a Bohm guiding equation.

where we find a familiar form from previous equations:

Wither way, they will describe gravitational physics. The second rank tensor of the Covariant derivative acting on the Christoffel symbol is :

In the case of

The left hand side will be re-written as the four velocity.
The velocity of the classical wave under the Hamilton-Jacobi form as

Is known as the Bohmian guiding equation, In our case, we would like to seek solutions of

I think I know for sure how the dynamics in the temperature relationship geometry:

This equation in my eyes, established all the dynamics but first some hard premises I came to:

1) Though the Bohmian wave is indeed deterministic, this iswritten in spacetime itself... and requires that the wave functions are in fact very small gravitational perturbance, known as gravitational waves. So in other words, particles create ripples in in the space as gravitational waves - in fact, it is under current research to see if the detector can from subatomic gravitational waves, since the detector and detected are coupled in such ways. I postulated this soley from the equation of form:

The reason why I came to this conclusion, are for a number of things, but the real min reason, is just like the full curved Schrodinger equation I derived it has two solutions of the form (if you consider spacetime itself as an observable, as I do follow [1] ):

decomposing into bra-ket notation we get:

and it's conjugate

Both these curves encoded in the wave functions are linked to a geometric argument concerning spacetime. In other words, it is possible to say that the wave creates the curvature, as much as it is valid to say a particle does. The unifying idea here is that as the mass moves through spacetime, it inexorably causes the waves, and on and on the cycle goes.

We came from a totally logical, not add-hoc but some assumptions thrown in. The second quantization of a momentum operator with derivatives related to the gravitational field, is at least a tantalizing approach.

After my assumption of the wave function being gravitational wave ripples in spacetime, came to a surprising shock to find the following article too see if anyone was mad enough as me to think this way:

The velocity equation as well

Is really similar in structure to the accelertion/curve equation, save for the fact it features the Riemann curvature tensor.

The Conclusion Equations Are:

I managed to get the generalistic form on the left and takes form

2.

3. Some physicists consider the vast cosmological universe as remarkably simple... part of this is true since cosmological parameters describing the physical functions of things simply come down to equally simple numbers. While this does show a remarkable simplicity, I have no reason to actually think the universe is at all, simple. One thing I have persuaded myself of, is that symmetry will link ALL the forces, carrier particles or pseudo vectors, we will find a harmonious and symmetrical theory of reality. Whether or not this symmetry existed before asymmetry is a new kind of question... it's a chicken and egg scenario, believe it or not based on entropy and its interpretation of it during the very beginnings. One lead towards this understanding, is not through some hot dense Planckian object (which does not need be of Planck length, like a Planck star) that exploded in a hot big bang.... but instead, a hand put a cold dungeon into life giving rise to a theory I have come to call ''the cold big bang.''

Of this post in question, the most remarkable prediction is that a guiding equation in terms of spacetimbe strongly indicates the wave function is nothing more than gravitational ripples in space; If you would like to see a demonstration of the wave function, this is the closest example from IBM:

These waves around the particles can be interpretated as stationary gravity waves

4.

5.

6. Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
?

7. You were asked to stop blogging

8. Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
You were asked to stop blogging

Correct me if I am wrong, but how can I prove a theory if I am not allowed to post it? The challenge of this subforum is literally, to challenge it.

9. no one has shown any interest in the topic, so continual posting IS blogging.

p.s. its at best a Hypothesis, NOT a theory. Theory has a VERY specific meaning in science, and you are not using it correctly.

10. Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
no one has shown any interest in the topic, so continual posting IS blogging.

p.s. its at best a Hypothesis, NOT a theory. Theory has a VERY specific meaning in science, and you are not using it correctly.
1. Just because I post more than one thread that is not blogging, it's called up-dating new results.

2. If no answers, that's not my fault... in fact it is likely an indication I am proving my ground.

3. The only way this could be blogging is if I was not willing to answer genuine questions.

4. You've been posting in here, so you show interest, but it seems to be of negative nature.

11. Wrong, its considered blogging to continually post to a thread that one one else is posting to.

No one posting is not in any way "you winning", its everyone else not bothering with it for various reasons.

No I don't show interest, I show annoyance at people ignoring clear warnings that were given by the moderator of the forum.

12. Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
Wrong, its considered blogging to continually post to a thread that one one else is posting to.

No one posting is not in any way "you winning", its everyone else not bothering with it for various reasons.

No I don't show interest, I show annoyance at people ignoring clear warnings that were given by the moderator of the forum.

Sorry, but you are far off the mark. I am a blogger by the way and its not a pre-requisite to answer people back. Now, you are only proving my point, you are showing interest in this thread... whether or not negative or positive and I am replying. Now.... unless you have some question, some additional information be so it, but don't try and bully me because I wish to update a theory. If no one answers, it means either no one cares or I am doing a good job, either way, it's not your choice to make for others.

13. See you in a week.
UNLESS you get replies from members discussing the topic - e.g. posters correctly pointing out that you are essentially blogging - then you should make no further posts.
And no, getting no replies or dispute is not an indication that you are "proving your ground".

14. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
See you in a week.
UNLESS you get replies from members discussing the topic - e.g. posters correctly pointing out that you are essentially blogging - then you should make no further posts.
And no, getting no replies or dispute is not an indication that you are "proving your ground".
WARNING: This is, without any doubt, a reincarnation of Reiku:
Dubbelosix: Supersock - The Lounge - Science Forums

On the linked forum he has been blogging about a paper for the gravitational research foundation, as mentioned in the OP here:
http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/3...on#entry364624.

15. Thanks for that exchemist. To be honest I suspected from the start that it was Reiku but couldn't find any confirmation.
Now I have it... he's gone.

16. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Thanks for that exchemist. To be honest I suspected from the start that it was Reiku but couldn't find any confirmation.
Now I have it... he's gone.
And confirmation, straight from the horse's mouth, in post 7 here: Question For A Chemist - Physics and Mathematics - Science Forums