To make things clearer, when one is to discuss what may be termed of here as a Hamiltonian operator, which in a given case, is in terms of a tense of a metric-gauge -- then, one is here referring to a holonomic substrate-based phenomenology, of which may be considered as a quantum-based phenomenology of scalar magnitude -- of which may be measured here, when in terms of the Hodge-based index of the discrete number of discrete quantum units of such physical entities of iteration, that are to here be participating in such a respective event, of any of such given arbitrary associations of the like. Yet, when one is to, instead, be discussing, what may be termed of here as a Hamiltonian operator, which in this given case, is in terms of a tense of a gauge-metric -- then, one is here referring, instead, to a scalar amplitude-based phenomenology, of which may be considered as a quantum-based scalar as to the amount of interaction that is to be taking place here -- in any of such given arbitrary associations of the like. So, whether or not one is referring to a Hamiltonian operator as a substringular eigenmember of a particular holonomic substrate, Or, if one is, instead, referring to a Hamiltonian operator as a scalar degree or a scalar amplitude of a particular quantum-based event -- this is based upon whether or not one is to then be referring to the said respective given arbitrary Hamiltonian operator as of either being of the general genus of being either of a metric-gauge conditionality (as a holonomic substrate that is acting upon its substringular environment), or, as being of the general genus of being of a gauge-metric conditionality (as a discrete amplitude of a substringular-based activity).
I will continue with the suspense later! To Be Continued! Sincerely, Sam Roach.
No comments:
Post a Comment