Mordred

Is there any science involved in the above ? Heat is a scalar quantity and has no charge. Color is a property associated with how light interacts with a body. Quantum spin is intrinsic to a given particle.

I am 100 percent positive that you have no knowledge of how the Breit Wigner function for the mass density distribution and survival probability works in the relativistic form works in terms of particle decay for you to draw any valid conclusions of how it applies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Breit–Wigner_distribution This distribution function also applies to Muon decay. Key note however this decay formula isn't the only one used. Though it is often applicable for unstable resonance. You need the Feymann path integrals and how they relate to the CKM and PMNS mass mixing matrix to properly understand how scattering relate to decays. (S Matrix).

The volume of spacetime is huge, some galaxies has enough plasma to produce new star formations however a nearby galaxy may not. I would go over the mathematics of the virial theorem in regards to Jeans instability which leads to filament cluster formation and voids and the relations between the two but very few readers would understand them. Suffice it to say as matter gets attracted to the higher densities in filaments the amount of matter in voids reduce and gravity within the voids weaken as a result. This allows the void to grow while the filament becomes more dense. A side note this is also the same process that allows a matter only universe to expand. In essence expansion also involves this process as well as Lambda. The process has nothing to do with the vacuum.

Nice detailed answer +1

A better question is why [math] 10^{-43}[/math]. Would it help to recognize that number is one unit of Planck time with our current observable universe to the volume of 1 Planck length. The temperature being equivalent to Planck temperature. The Planck units are in essence boundary conditions on which our ability to mathematically describe in essence breaks down into Infinities and nonsensical results. You often only hear the space and time axis in essence flipping roles for the GR descriptive but cosmology must also include both macro and quantum effects. So its good to understand how the limits of the macro and quantum theories apply. (String theory also recognizes these limits) One detail as mentioned in this thread is were describing our Observable portion in essence the limits of shared observable causality with our current universe. Time being a measure of rate of change or duration you in essence need a dimension in order to have something to measure or even something that must be able to change. However one must also realize that the t=0 represents the collective worldlines of all particles in our observable portion extrapolated from the closest we can mathematically describe and potentially measure. In the closest to pointlike we can describe. It does not represent any time outside our region of shared causality. In essence [math]10^{-43}[/math] is the origin of time for all potential worldlines in our observable universe that are extrapolated to the beginning of our observable universe (as the emitter event).

I made a full roast chicken then placed on the BBQ with Applewood chips. Cooked long enough to lightly crisp the skin and have a slight Applewood flavor. Lol didn't have leftovers after the wife and grandkids got at it.

Correct

Based on current curvature ie the error margin. If the universe were finite and you halted expansion it would take roughly 880 billion years to arrive back at the original point of departure (treating as a finite sphere). The LCDM model hasn't completely eliminated the possibility of a finite universe as there is that error margin.

Lol good a visual as any.

Quite honestly I'm trying to figure out how wave particle duality works in this instance. The pointlike attributes can be superluminal but the wavelike being subluminal lol. Glad the title of Beaz article " Is Tacyons real " seems appropriate.

Lol how indeed, particularly with the particle as a field excitation view such as QFT. This qets tricky when dealing with quantum non locality. There is a lot of misunderstanding on what that term actually means. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.07050 There is similarities in the commutation in terms of nonlocal commutations between paly Weiner and the Hilbert commutations mentioned in the article. This is one area the two have similar meaning (lol considering Paley Weiner is essentially applying a Hermitean space. The reasoning would be identical. (commutations vs non commuting variables)

Ok having looked at your soliton based theories a bit (though I have encountered certain applications for soliton before) Let's get back to Bells hidden variables. You have already recognized the superluminal information exchange aspect (Ie spooky action at a distance) Now solitons are from reading those articles Lorentz invariant, so really they behave much like particles under time dependent and independent treatments. You can readily define them to the four momentum of QFT. The Feymann path integrals also follow Lorentz invariance and employ the four momentum for all intensive purposes. This holds true regardless of assymetry or symmetric relations involved in both theories. So I really don't see how symmetry and assymetry will assist you in dealing with the causality violations with the spooky action aspect of hidden variables. Though quite frankly no action is needed to explain entanglement the theories such as Bohm are still around lol. Quite frankly I'm not going to look too deep into soliton based theories except as an assist in this thread. I prefer the standard QFT treatment and view of a particle. I would the hidden variable passage I quoted above is still applicable to the soliton treatment with regards to hidden variables. Keep in mind my studies have all been cosmology applications as opposed to bothering with quantum interpretations etc. Obviously QFT, String theory, particle physics etc have applicability in Cosmology. Superdeterminism I understand it as the lack of choice in detector settings by the experimentor. The freedom of choice loophole. So I don't see the connection to solitons or symmetry or assymmetry. (Also keep in mind I don't bother with philosophy (metaphysics type arguments lol)

Thanks now I know where you got the above image from so what your attempting makes more sense. I will study this more thoroughly later on.

Please don't use a drop box post the article on this site as a pdf. Why would the left hand configuration require less energy ? When applying Higgs mechanism to Leptons you can apply the mass mixing angles ie via the PMNS mixing angles and CKMS mixing angles. I am very conversant in how Higgs applies to mass terms of individual particles. Do you have a good link on Faber's model. I'm not familiar with it.

Yes I understood that. The soliton is a quasi particle as opposed to a virtual particle. However it would still follow the rules for the field propogator in your Feymann diagrams it too must apply the conservation laws of the Eightfold wayen. As the mass and momentum would be off shell you wouldn't be able to determine any precise number density The off shell values would be indeterminimant. In this sense it won't necessarily preserve conservation of energy momentum except as the full propogator action. All particle production occurs in pairs regardless of quasi, virtual or real due to the numerous conservation laws such as charge, isospin, parity etc. However in terms of hidden variables the quoted section on Bells hidden variables is still applicable. One thing you seldom see examined with hidden variables is that wavefunctions are 3 dimensional with longitude and transverse components. So this must applied in path integrals. As well as hidden variables. Those conservation laws also apply when the entangled particles are initially prepared. This also applies to spin helicity as per photon helicity etc. You are involving a projection of spin according to the direction of motion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicity_(particle_physics)

Just in case your not already aware ( the equations are primarily covariant in your image which could be intentionally chosen)and also for other readers. You should identify your indices according to the Einstein summation convention for your indices. This will also apply to the Kronecker delta relations for symmetric antisymmetric and mixed terms. More of an informative side note under gauge group theory. The SO (3.1) Poincare group (spacetime under four vector etc) is a double cover [math]SU (2)\otimes SU(2)/\mathbb{Z}^2[/math]. This will correspond to Fock space and the Hamilton. The [math]\mathbb{Z}[/math] is the helicity or parity operator. This will correspond to the right hand rules which the creation and annihilation operators follow as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fock_space How this applies to Bells test is somewhat covered in the next link here is a relevant quote (page 16) " But it has been proved by Bell, that if one tries to attach random variables behind each observable and try to find (complicated) rules that explain the princi- ples of quantum mechanics, then this reaches an impossibility. Indeed, taking the spin of a particle in three well-choosen directions, one obtains three Bernoulli vari- ables, but their correlations cannot be obtained by any triplet of classical Bernoulli variables. " https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://math.univ-lyon1.fr/~attal/Mescours/fock.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjnhJXuzNnnAhXRtp4KHUyvBOAQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1Dx4vdZCiDWHQC4sGKL2vo The article specifically covers Fock space and the hermiteans. Hope that helps.

If your going to agree with Einstein then you must agree with the proper definition of energy and the proper definition of mass in terms of kinematics. Mass isn't a substance either it is the property of resistance to acceleration determined via couplings to a field for particles.

It's too bad you evidently don't understand what is truly going on with nonlinear Compton scattering. This article does not support your theory that matter is light. The details are in the paper did you miss the part where the virtual electrons are made real by the photon interaction. In essence you are delivering momentum to the virtual particle pair. It is not suggesting that electrons are photons.

Don't think of energy as some separate entity. Energy is simply the ability to perform work. It is a property not some substance in different forms. There is numerous errors above concerning the differences between photons and electrons. I would suggest some further study. Particularly in how particle decays occur. However you haven't listened to many of the previous comments thus far. At least as far as to incorporating mainstream physics to see where your model is essentially invalidated by mainstream physics.

What makes the question even more complex is the tachyon wavefunctions must be subliminal. There is a particular rule for this though I would have to dig for it as I can't recall the name atm. If I recall correctly Beaz mentions it in one his tachyon articles. Edit I was right it's Paley Weiner theorem http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html

Another important detail is there is no validity to an observer outside the universe. Nor is there any observer outside causality. In order to have any observer you must be within causal range. This obviously includes any form of interaction or measurement.

Your missing way too many essential details and steps in the above. Mainly you need to work initially from the Langrangian and get the appropriate creation and annihilation operators. Then use those operators in Fock space for particle number density for your Boltzmann distributions. The amplitudes are essential to identify the meson nucleon scattering etc. As this is far too lengthy to cover in a forum post here is an article covering the above. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/qft.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjqtujBgdnnAhUPvZ4KHVFQBmoQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3If2f9yyPR8GqX4UsWySMr This should get you started into how the field propogators propogate the operators. AZ well as how the operators operate on the propogators. With what you have above I wouldn't be able to identify which vertex legs would arise to answer the question mark in the above image. Also make sure you have the necessary causality of the amplitudes in the x and y plane for the commutations. Detailed in the above article.

The constancy of c is extremely well tested by the experiments above. There is a swath of two way light speed tests that were performed to incredibly high accuracy. They didn't just test for the eather they also tested the constancy of c.

A lot of the images you see are not what you see through a telescope. For instance you wouldn't see the bow shock of Betelgeuse through a telescope. You have to apply filtration etc. In some images you will also have artist rendering. (Though not in this particular case as it uses the Sphere telescope. That telescope uses polarization filters to filter out the brightness etc. The bow shock of Betelgeuse is approximately 11 light years across, it will vary as the interstellar medium itself varies. You also must factor in that Betelgeuse has been dimming which is also part of what the image is showing. Ie different convection cells at different temperatures.

GW events don't need a flash to accompany them. One of the difficulties in determining where a GW event originates is that you often have to triangulate from several detectors. This is aided somewhat by the cross polarizations and polarization angles however it is still a difficult process unless you can readily identify the source via other means such as a telescope or other signals. By the way that image is showing the bow shock of Betelgeuse movement. Somewhere roughly 30 km/sec.