Mordred

You found a relevant link in so far as it's main gist. In LQG you use wicks rotation which can be described as a mirror image of the waveform to determine finite boundaries of a wave-function. Whether or not that wave-function is sinusoidal or not. This allows finite quantization's of the numerous degrees of freedom in one loop diagrams. See renormalization. The one loop corrections mentioned under the divergences section is what plagues gravity in regards to the mass term. In LQC the earlier versions applied wicks rotations for the various particle degrees of freedom of the Langrangian's for the " effective action " for each field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization further details on the Langrangian's of each field (strong, Higgs, EM weak and somewhat gravity (still needs work)) can be hound here. Action correlates coordinate displacement of a particle to a field in accordance with the conservation laws of the standard model. In order to do this is expresses ratios of change between relations between the kinetic energy of the particle and the potential of the fields in question. The link is in the form of perturbation theory using the four momentum and the Klein Gordon and Dirac equations for Lorentz invariance. with regards to temperature in you link, there is a correlation between temperature and particle number density of a blackbody temperature. For example using the Bose Einstein statistics or the Fermi Dirac. The former for Bosons, the latter for fermions, (mixed states uses the Maxwell Boltmann) one can calculate the number density of any elementary particle given the blackbody temperature. Being QM/QFT this incorporates the quantum harmonic oscillator (which applies to both particle and field). The problem with gravity is that you end up with infinite one loop corrections to maintain various conservation laws.

Why do you keep thinking 5 dimensions for time or that parallel universes are even needed. Time is accurately described by one dimension. A dimension is an independent variable.

Ok lets get some better details here is the QM methodology on photon transverse and longitudinal wavefunctions. The paper also discusses the electrons. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/pml/div684/fcdc/photon-wave.pdf You will see how the Maxwell equations are involved including the Schrodinger equations, though as the photon is relativistic the Klien Gordon equation is a better option however the Dirac equations are Lorentz invariant. Which the paper checks for Lorentz invariance. I chose this method via the Scrodinger as it will become important in regards to decoherence that was mentioned earlier this thread. Decoherence also involves the Schrodinger equation.

As far as testing the speed of light there has been literally 100's of different tests. Some of the more commonly used methods involve lasers. We have also used stellar objects such as Jupiter's moons thought the latter only gave us a close estimate. The Michelson and Morley tests tested both the speed and the isotropy of light speed. The results is what gave us the current speed. Simply changing those measured speeds to match some "seems weird feeling" isn't useful. The speed must match observed measurements not some numerology or gut feeling of wanting a different number. Particularly since physics can readily avoid difficult to work with numbers by using natural or normalized units.

loop quantum gravity avoids renormalization of gravity through the use of Wicks rotation. It is the divergences of gravity that prevents it from being properly quantized to have a proper quantum theory of gravity.

and yet precision tests of the speed of light disagree with you

The EM field is a macroscopic illusion ??? better clarity on that bit please

Here is the arxiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.02087 The claims of a crisis is somewhat in error. Our models would work equally well with a closed curved universe including inflation. Lmao Chaotic eternal inflation actually used finite closed universes for its potential multiverse model to handle runaway inflation. Though that particular inflation model has lost ground with evidence

I would also suggest a nuclear bomb could readily destroy a pyramid. I certainly wouldn't trust my life in one in a nuclear attack and risk being buried alive.

There is another factor involved that isn't mentioned. The mass of a galaxy can be determined by the mass to luminosity relation. However when you compare that mass to the galaxy rotation curve you should get a Kepler decline. This is due to the baryonic mass distribution. However we don't see this, instead we get a rotation curve that can only be gained through a uniform mass distribution. We can account for gravitational redshift in our measurements so relativity is accounted for where applicable. It does have effects on sprectrographic measurements in particular the 21 cm hydrogen line. It was the mass/luminosity measurements that led Zwicky to first realize that something was missing in terms of mass.

Well quite frankly I wouldn't trust that reference or take it too far. The author is drawing conclusions based on relations between two equations to start with. That would be like stating plumbing is the same as electricity as the fundamental formulas has similarities in ratios of change. Gravity is only attractive never repulsive, gravity is symmetric in its stress tensor while the EM stress tensor is antisymmetric. Gravity has spin 2 while EM has spin 1. Those differences the Author ignores he doesn't look into the gauge groups of each field or look at the polarization differences. Nor does he note that you can shield an EM field but not a gravitational field

Well one problem I see is your comparing pentacenes with photons. There is significant differences between the two. Those differences goes beyond probability functions. A single photon for example has transverse and longitudinal wavefunctions determined by the EM field which is defined through the Maxwell equations. Those wavefunctions are not the probability functions. You still have those wavefunctions after measurement. I'm sure you can recognize significant differences between quantum elementary particles to a multiparticle molecule such as pentacene

Ok you found the relevant formulas for the quantum harmonic oscillator so I won't need to post them. The Planck constant is applied due to the quantization wave nature of all particles. All particles have discreet wave functions this means only that wavelengths divisible by the Planck constant are possible. The zero point energy essentially means that absolute zero is not viable. There is always harmonic oscillations and thus a minimal non zero energy state present. In classical harmonic oscilators there is no uncertainty in position or momentum the uncertainty applies in the quantum but not classical regime.

Multi particle systems Incorporated with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. When I get off work I will post the relevant formulas.

As Markus mentioned there is good agreements on electroweak symmetry breaking itself in so far as the timing and temperature it would occur at. Other forces such as the strong force still requires some work. The sequence will vary a bit from model to model. Particularly with supersymmetric models not so much with the standard model. Though in the latter case the Higgs seesaw mechanism needs some more research to better refine the symmetry breaking timings. Another factor is both baryogenesis and leptogenesis is still presenting problems as to how those occur. There is hope better studies into the Higgs sector will provide some answers.

I suggest you look closer in the solid state case. One can assign a negative mass when compares to a larger mass value. That doesn't help you with your hypothesis.

Does a coulomb of force sound like the Planck force ? Perhaps you should look up the values of each they differ significantly in value. Secondly if you have two electrons the coulomb force between then isn't unknown in the direction. Remember your rules for two charges of the same polarity as opposed to two opposite charges. The Planck force is a theoretical upper limit to the maximum Observable force. Such a force would only occur at cosmological horizons such as a black holes event horizon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law

Think of Planck force as a theoretical maximum Observable force. Coulomb force between two electrons is a vector as force itself in any form is a vector quantity. Anytime you apply a force you are describing a vector.

No vector fields apply to the quantum regime as well the treatments will differ somewhat when you account for the uncertainty principle and wavefunctions used in QM however through the principle of correspondence one must be able to produce the classical results in the macro world. Let's assume for a minute that the cosmological constant is charged. I would like you to consider what influence that would have on other charged particles. For example the Earth has a magnetic field. Take a look at the Van Allen belt. Now granted that is a spherical point source that arises from the Earth's magnetic core however one can certainly see that it affects the interstellar medium concerning other ionized particles. Secondly if you have an electric field you must also have a corresponding magnetic field. These two fields have different polarities to one another. In essence it would be impossible to have a charged field behave in the manner that the cosmological constant does. An EM field is polarized with two distinctive polarizations. The cosmological constant is a non polarized field. The spin 0 statistics has zero polarizations. While the EM field with spin 1 has two polarizations. Gravity at spin 2 has four polarizations. Hence it it easy to discern a gravity wave from an EM wave. The former is quadrupolar while the latter is dipolar. The cosmological constant has no known polarizations. Now onto the term Observable. Under QM and QFT I'd something is observable it must have a quanta of action. It must must have sufficient mass/energy to induce kinematic change. Individual virtual particles by themself doesn't however an ensemble of VP can. This is part of the distinction to what is often referred to as a real vs a virtual particle. (Though under particle physics) you can also have resonant and quasi particles. Resonant particles are unstable and have an extremely short mean lifetime. However resonant particles are measurable. Quasi and virtual particles are not measurable individually. Coulomb force is measurable so it is observable.

Using Planck force isn't an issue it does not require a charged field. However coulomb force does which is the issue with the cosmological constant. Planck force is a derived unit that doesn't depend on a particular field. The Coulomb force however is specifically for the EM field.

Why would you feel they are present in the energy density of the cosmological constant ? There is zero evidence that the coulomb force is involved.

That's a better quality paper, the harmonic oscillator is fundamental in QM. So you can find plenty of information on it.

Any field with a directional component would describe a vector field. The cosmological constant we know is a scalar field by how galaxies seperate from one another. If you had a directional component then galaxies would seperate with an inherent direction they don't there seperation preserves the angles between galaxies you cannot have that in a anistropic expansion. You can only have that angle preservation with an isotropic expansion. Google balloon analogy a try placing dots on a ballloon then measure the angles both before and after you inflate the balloon.

None of the mathematics in that paper describes an anharmonic oscillator. I read the paper as it was posted in another thread and I wouldn't place any faith in it. It relies on a negative cosmological constant which there is zero evidence for such.

That particular paper is speculative and relies upon a negative charged cosmological constant with which there is no current evidence for. I wouldn't place any faith in it.