Mordred

What that particular link doesn't mention is the frequency dependency of when you apply Thompson vs Compton scattering. This is given by the Klein Nishina formula https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein–Nishina_formula Though you were correct in correcting me on Thompson scattering. (I had confused it with Compton scattering) The non relativistic assumption breaks down [math]hv=m_ec^2\sim 0.51 Mev [/math] when [math]hv\ge m_e c^2 Mev [/math] you are now dealing with Compton scattering. Which must be dealt with quantum mechanically The inverse Compton scattering is particularly applicable to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunyaev–Zeldovich_effect So in essence we use both Compton and Thompson scattering with our cosmological models but which scattering to apply depends on the circumstance. I question the Z range mentioned above as there is in essence no free electrons for Thompson scattering at z=1 and Z=2. If memory serves correct one must apply Compton scattering to an atom taking into account the Compton wavelength of the atom. This is one of the reasons why the CMB is referred to as the surface of last scattering as it refers to the transition stage when Thompson scattering no longer applies Ie the transition from an opaque universe to a transparent universe. There are stages at different Z as per the Lynmam Alpha papers I linked but you will note they do not apply at z=2 or z=1.

lol I lost count how many times Posters railing against GR use the statement it didn't predict the cosmological constant etc etc. I always reply that it outside the scope of GR to do so, that is up to particle physics in general.

Here is the pertinent details in this Arxiv article and how this applies to the Lymann alpha forest https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.0267&ved=2ahUKEwjOrLTuj_znAhVXGDQIHYgzDd4QFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2s_QsN4ELA8qUYnXW7GziI

I will have to go through this after work on Thompson scattering is employed in astronomy applications. In particular how it is employed to measure the composition of a plasma.

If what you refer to as Thompson opacity involves Thompson scattering it would not. See here for reference on opacity due to Thompson scattering https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~gk/A403/opac.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibhNeb6vvnAhVpGTQIHcIMBPYQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2D_4k-7oQ3OiawbOyTGcCL

Lol perhaps that's it. Lets put it this my degree may be titled "Philosophies of Cosmology" however metaphysics was never part of the curriculum. Michel you really must try to seperation a representation of reality from being actual reality. All mathematical models including spacetime is a representation. They are tools to describe reality not reality itself.

Lol if you can't accept metaphysics models then don't use them. You certainly don't require metaphysics to understand physics. I for one never use metaphysics.

Side note if this grey is comprised of some form of medium then it would affect different wavelengths of light differently as the IGM does. The principle would be the same.

If it's a personal model you can mention it with your mathematics in our Speculation forum. This grey your referring to isn't mainstream physics. This forum is reserved to strictly mainstream physics. However we don't rely strictly on redshift to determine distance particularly in the Z ranges you mentioned but also employ interstellar parallax.

Agreed one of the biggest sources of confusion between models is what constitutes a representation vs reality. GR in essence is mathematical representation. When you get right down to it the entire body of all physics models are only representions of what we can observe or measure. Though physics can and does conjecture on non measurable quantities by applying known measurable physics. One detail I have learned from intensive study of different physics models from classical, GR, QM,String theory, MOND, FLRW metric etc etc. Is that all these different models and treatments often describe the same measurable physical dynamics in different ways. Each has its own pros and cons. However all models are representations.

Miche123456 time is given dimensionality of length by using the interval ct. This is not the same as a spatial coordinate but depends upon the distance light travels in a given amount of time. Time itself isn't a thing. It is a property measuring rates of change of duration. I know I have told you this before numerous times. The only way to really understand time dilation is to look at what causes the signal delays from particle information exchanges in multiparticle systems. This is where the mass term comes into play as mass is resistance to acceleration. Any field of matter or force field can cause signal delays depending on how strongly those fields couple. It is the collective couplings that the mass term describes. This coupling does affect clocks and aging identically as both are still multiparticle systems. One of most common misconceptions involve thinking different measurement devices should be affected differently. However all physical objects are multiparticle systems so the physics apply equally to every object. Regardless of involving decay rates, signal exchange, interaction rates etc. An event only occurs at a specified 4d coordinate (map) that event did happen at that specified spatial and time coordinate. Observers in the future of that event can measure that event. So that event will be measurable to future observers. However an event only describes a Specific location at a specific time. Any change in the 4d coordinate location describes a new event. For example am object at rest in the same spatial location will have multiple spacetime events as time at that location changes. If the object moves it moves to a new event. A strong hint treat every spacetime coordinate(map) as an event. Change the value of any of those coordinates you now describe a new event. An event is not a time location (nonsensical ) as time isn't a spatial location. Nor is it a spatial location. It is a spacetime location. As Minkowskii famously stated one cannot treat space and time separately. (The coordinates allow us to map the events) it does not mean the coordinates are the events. I can arbitrarily change the coordinate system used to describe an event. Just as one can arbitrarily describe an object under a different number of dimensions. Example Kaluzu Klien. 5d. The mathematics and geometry are nothing nothing more than representations. The metaphysical arguments are in essence how to interpret those representations ( lol I expect some debate on that statement)

The interstellar medium can be accounted for as the medium affects different wavelengths of light differently depending on the composition. Through this we can compensate for any interstellar reddening by examining the response to different frequencies. Stars will appear to be redder than actual as shorter wavelengths are more easily scattered than longer wavelengths. (This is not the same as redshift) this reddening is also distinctive from redshift. Galactic redshift affects all wavelengths as opposed to selected frequencies of extinction reddening. So by using spectronomy one can readily avoid any affect the IGM will have on distance measures. The 21 cm line when measuring hydrogen is a long enough wavelength that it the IGM is transparent and is essentially unaffected. ( As one example) however blue wavelengths will often suffer scattering.

Can you identify and prove any location in our universe is truly empty under the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ? A coordinate is an assignment.

No that isn't enough. Rather than try to latex all the steps I will link a lesson plan. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://physics.gmu.edu/~dmaria/590%20Web%20Page/public_html/qm_topics/harmonic/&ved=2ahUKEwit56aWkffnAhUiGTQIHdHNDK8QFjAmegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0Xj29xXrtC_pZ9_IruaD_p If you look at this the solution will depend on the particles principle quantum numbers. If I were to get the eugenenergies and eugenstates using string theory or QFT the solutions will vary however in all three the principles are the same for orthogonality conditions and hermitean. Other related articles will employ the ladder operators (the creation and annihilation operators serve this purpose) Here is a brute force method using asymptotic analysis. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_04S13_Lec08.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwit56aWkffnAhUiGTQIHdHNDK8QFjAjegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw264tFks4Y_ZaWfwThAUR7M This will add some further details and is a more undergrad level. https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv3openstax/chapter/the-quantum-particle-in-a-box/ I would identify the commonalities between the three links. Specifically what conditions must be satisfied. I would think about this question. Specifically identify the difference between a harmonic oscillator vs an anharmonic oscillator there is also an inharmonic oscillator. (Just a side note on the last). Now one of conditions all three links mention can be satisfied by a harmonic oscillator. Without mentioning the specific condition (as you should study each one ) can those conditions be met with an anharmonic oscillator ?

Both harmonic and anharmonic oscillators describe numerous waveforms. They are in essence waveform categories. So as Swansont mentioned is that you need to properly define your particular state you wish to focus on. For example I have no idea if you have the skills to look at the hermite polynomials for the eugenstates and eugenenergies.

You can't steal a formula nor can you steal a workable model. Although you don't have to worry about either as you haven't presented anything that amounts to anything following the scientific method. Your membership agreed to specific rules on this forum. If you cannot abide by them then go somewhere else. One of those rules is that the details must be posted on this site without the need to click on other sites. This site is perfectly capable of latex the most complicated formulas. What does any of this have to do with the supposed evidence of the two slit experiment ? Are you not familiar with coordinate time vs proper time? GR handles time dependence on coordinate location quite well. What you have above with Earth time vs cosmic time is well described under GR under coordinate time.

I concur +1 to the OP. Here is some assist in learning. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Page 2 of Universe Geometry which will help with the FLRW metric. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Couple of free textbooks. ttp://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4598 "Introduction to Loop Quantum Cosmology by Abhay Ashtekar http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields That should get you started in the FLRW metric and the Mathius Blau article will cover how GR applies to the FRW metric in the later chapters.

Is there any need for three dimensional time when everyone knows time applies to all three spatial dimensions in the first place ? We give time dimensionality by defining an interval (ct). However this never implied a time interval only applies to one spatial coordinate only. The Lorentz boosts can apply to all three spatial dimensions. Time is simply a measure of rate of change or duration. It isn't a thing unto itself to have units pertaining to a volume.

The age of the universe isn't a length and heat has wave lengths in the infrared spectrum. Ie thermal imaging cameras.

Still waiting for the required math. As you claim it checks out... I for one can quarantee it won't particularly since I have performed experiments involving particle spin.

Repeating the same errors doesn't make it true. However as color is already mentioned above let's look at spin. I have an electron at 1/2 spin but it requires a 720 degree rotation to return to original state. A spin 1 particle takes 360 degrees. So how does your conjecture work with the above ?

Obviously you have never looked at different minerals under a blacklight. If you did you would know color is how light gets reflected or absorbed by the material. Ie different wavelengths of light (hint how does a rainbow form on water droplets. )

The cosmological constant which leads to the acceleration of expansion is still being nailed down. Without Lambda the universe should eventually decelerate and eventually start collapsing depending on its critical density value however Lambda changes that due it's constancy regardless of volume. In particle processes as the volume increases the pressure and temperature decreases so too does the density hence the critical density term which originally described the point at which and expanding universe will commence collapse. This isn't true for the cosmological constant itself as it stays constant per cubic volume you have in essence continuous expansion with no potential for collapse. (Unless somehow Lambda does not stay constant in the future) I always prefer to focus on one misconception or error a time. The first misconception I chose is the term Field. The other misconception is that expansion doesn't originate from some point outward. Expansion has no preferred location or preferred direction. (Homogeneous and isotropic). One cannot point in any direction and state the BB happened in that direction. The entire observable universe expands uniformly and was all contained in one Planck length at 10^-43 seconds. (Planck time).

Pressure is derived via the equations of state in cosmology. Matter for instance in cosmology applications exerts zero pressure. The entire FLRW deceleration equation takes pressure into account in accordance to the ideal gas laws for an adiabatic and isentropic fluid. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) With this one can calculate the individual rates of expansion in a matter, Lambda, radiation only universe. In each case our universe will expand even without dark energy or dark matter. Though understanding how a matter only universe would expand requires applying the Shell theorem to Newton's gravitational laws. As it is essentially pressure less. There is no need to involve QFT for a macroscopic effect. QFT is excellent and highly accurate in the quantum regime however one doesn't require the quantum regime to explain expansion nor how to calculate the rate of expansion. Fields can be any arbitrary set of values one chooses to assign at each coordinate. The field doesn't even require to be real. A prime example is the tensor fields described by the Einstein field equations that is simplified by the FLRW metric. A field is any mathematical representation even one that has probability functions at each coordinate. Such as QFT which also gives the probability of a particle being created at each locale. For example applying the blackbody temperature of the universe one can derive the probabilistic number density of each particle species. (Though this can also be done with classical mathematics via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics.) One can also apply the S matrix and path integrals under QFT to those two equations. Both methods will get the required accuracy.

Oh my it would take forever to highlight every error above. So let's start with what a field is. A field is an abstract assignment of values or mathematical objects under a geometry treatment. It isn't a thing unto itself. Don't worry myself and others will point out numerous other errors above. Yes thermodynamics are involved in cosmology (it is one of the primary aspects of expansion) however the above is nowhere near accurate in how thermodynamics is involved.