Mordred

You obviously didn't read or understand a single formula I posted if your still declaring this to be a problem. In a vacuum the group and phase velocity are both constant. A vacuum isn't a dispersive medium. Perhaps you need to understand that first. As mainstream science already does. Not that phase velocity has anything to do with particle velocity. Which is also important to understand. It is the group velocity that is important to redshift. Redshift isn't due to dispersion. If it was it would have some funky side effects on spectronomy measurements of the hydrogen 21 cm line

When In a vacuum the following electromagnetic relations for phase and group vecocities [math]\omega=ck [/math] [math]v=\frac{\omega}{k}=\frac{\partial\omega}{\partial k}=c[/math] The group velocity will equal the phase velocity both will equal c to all observers. The constant c is frequency independant. See dispersion relations given here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation

Unfortunately the OP isn't using any of the correct formulas to properly correlate phase velocity or group velocity in terms of the energy momentum equation. The phase velocity is not the velocity of the particle the group velocity is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave Group velocity (equal to the particle's speed) should not be confused with phase velocity (equal to the product of the particle's frequency and its wavelength). In the case of a non-dispersive medium, they happen to be equal, but otherwise they are not. you can read further on that link but if you ever do the calculations you will find that for any particle less than c the phase velocity will always exceed c. However that is a product of its frequency and wavelength as noted by that link. It does not represent the velocity of the particle even in the case of photons. edit one side note phase velocity is not a true velocity but an apparent velocity it will not allow superluminal communication even if it's value exceeds c. You are dealing with group velocities in redshift equations whatever of the three primary types and not the phase velocity for the reasons above. Primary reason is the phase velocity carries no energy. Which is why it doesn't violate causality. (In a vacuum the phase velocity and the group velocity of light is equal) particularly since a vacuum is NOT a dispersive medium with a refractive index. Phase velocity has nothing to do with your claims above in point of detail a dispersive medium is precisely when the phase velocities become distinctive from the group group velocities. (As different wavelengths respond differently with the refractive index) primary example a prism.

Negative mass under GR isn't possible. Secondly even if a BH were radiating mass it would not account for a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. Your theory cannot work once you consider the size scales from the radius from a BH as well as the uniform nature of expansion. BH'S even supermassive are miniscule compared to the volume between large scale structure distributions of galaxy clusters. The voids between the LSS is incredibly immense there is no way these voids cam be influenced by mass radiating from a BH even assuming such a thing is possible. If you wish confirmation look at how many Mpc the volume of the universe entails. Entire galaxies only average a few Kpc is diameter. Yet even with the Supermassive BH'S in the Centre of our Milky way there is absolutely no influence here on Earth from those BH'S and we're only a few Kpc from them. Secondly flows are detectable via plasma there is no indication of outward flows as opposed to inward flows from any BH. Your theory has zero possibility of any viability. If you really want to learn how expansion works then you need to study the thermodynamics behind the fluid equations of the FLRW metric. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations There is one argument that you cannot account for with your theory. The universe was expanding before the first star or BH existed even before the first hydrogen atom could exist.

With a BH there is no spacetime path for DM to escape the event horizon.

Each quanta represents a real photon and not a virtual photon. You are correct on the descriptive for VP in terms of mass/energy being the main property difference however those formulas above describe observable action. This is the external or real observables. All operators are observable little trick to understand QM and QFT formulas. Coincidentally there was a recent study posted in our News section that relates. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120031-exotic-physics-phenomenon-observed/ The articles literally study the Abanarov Bohm effect and those papers show the photon polarizations with regards to the E and B fields.

No the photons would not accumulate. One thing to realize is that photons are the quantization of the EM field [math]A_\mu[/math] the E and B fields are part of the EM field and are in essence different phase polarizations of the same field. The frequency modes of the EM field in a given volume gives rise to the photon number density (quanta of each field). These frequency modes also degrade or if you prefer disperse through destructive interference. In QED we can calculate the photon number density via the creation and annihilation operators. Though the formulas take time to understand fully you will immediately see the symalarity between the E and B fields. [math]E(r,t)=\frac{i}{2c\sqrt{V}}\sum_k\omega_k[A_k(t)e^{ik\cdot r}-A_k^{*}(t)e^{-ik\cdot r}][/math] [math]B(r,t)=\frac{i}{2c\sqrt{V}}\sum_k k[A_k(t)e^{ik\cdot r}-A_k^{*}(t)e^{-ik\cdot r}][/math] now without going into too much detail you should note that only the k for the magnetic field energy and [math]\Omega_k[/math] differ in the two above expressions. The latter is the E field energy though in both cases its proper to square those terms through another formula which I won't get into as some care must be taken with the two independent polarizations E and B of the EM field [math]A_\mu[/math] the main point is that in both cases the photon number density of both the E and B fields are both represented in units of quanta, each unit of quanta is a photon so in your box the number density will depend on the frequency modes given off by the light bulb. ( though you can gain a slightly higher number via temperature which is also part of the EM spectrum.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(waves) see here for the polarization waves of the EM field. Further details see here in terms of EM radiation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation Some of the other equations that will relate to the two I provided are contained here under photon polarizations which is linked to the EM radiation link above. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization It will help explain the two above equations.

The point is the time scale to trap light with perfect mirrors is extremely brief. You also seem to think light isn't part of the EM spectrum. Photons are the mediator gauge boson for the EM field this includes mediating the magnetic field though the electric field and magnetic field are one and the same. So if you have a magnetic field you also have photons though offshell.

When was the last time you trapped light without a source? Further more light is part of the EM field.

Yes those equations work well. The cosmological constant value can vary a bit depending on dataset. So as long as you have a good approximation your doing good.

No Planck mass isn't a fundamental limit. It's one of the few that isn't.

Planck units are typically extremum values they represent maximum or minimum theoretical bounds. Ie highest or lowest possible limits.

So given that extremely high value would you not say it represents a maximum power. Ie a theoretical maximum much like Planck length is the theoretical minimal observable length ? Ie I would suggest it's value falls into that quoted criteria as being too large for any practical use.

Have you calculated the constant value for Planck power? You might want to do that first [math] P_p=\frac{c^5 }{G}[/math]

Fair enough however Planck power has a specific value. It would be interesting to see how you match that value with the cosmological constant. Planck power is one of those units that if it has a practical use it would involve an extreme energy transfer in one Planck time. (There is a reason why that link mentions some of the Planck constants has no practical use.)

This really isn't a very good paper in so far as it doesn't deploy any GR equations in its analysis. Anyways its fine to employ Newton mechanics in terms of spacetime force provided you also realize that the Shell theorem also applies. The paper use of power applies to Dyson luminosity which is a relation velocity to luminosity relations that involves the EM field via Kaluza Klein. An EM field in this instance is coupled to the spacetime metric via a conjecture that all rotating bodies would acquire a magnetic moment thus giving a magnetic moment to velocity power ratio. The theory never really went anywhere you may find occasional studies on it but it's highly hypothetical. It's fundamentally a combination of the EM field to spacetime for stellar bodies so it's localized around those bodies.

Here is another factor to consider Watts=voltage*current. Which doesn't make much sense for Lambda no potential difference. No current.

The thing to keep in mind is unlike say a pressure tank, a battery or a capacitor where energy can be stored and power is transferred at a rate to perform work on some external to the storage device the universe doesn't perform work outside of itself. All the energy is contained within our universe, there is no transfer of heat, energy or mass from outside our universe from inside to outside our universe. Our universe is in essence an isolated system (speaking thermodynamically) an isolated system cannot perform work outside of itself. To put it bluntly in every paper, textbook, article I have ever read on cosmology and the FLRW metric in terms of the universe not once have I ever encountered any usage of power density or even power being involved in any model of the universe I have ever read in 35 years.

I know the following will probably confuse you if you haven't studies thermodynamics but here goes First law of thermodynamics expressed for an adiabatic ( no net inflow or outflow of energy or enthalpy) [math]0=dQ=dU=dU+PdV[/math] Q is total heat assumed to be constant, U is internal energy of matter and radiation in the universe, P is pressure, V is the volume. One finds energy density via [math]u=\frac{U}{V}[/math] and thus [math]du=d(\frac{U}{V})=\frac{dU}{V}-U\frac{dV}{V^2}=-(p+u)\frac{dV}{V}=-3(p+u)\frac{da}{a}[/math] if you divide this equation by [math]d\tau[/math] you get the equations of motion for the FLRW metric [math]u=\rho[/math] now for radiation [math]du=-4u\frac{da}{a}[/math] thus u is proportional to [math]a^{-4}[/math] for matter [math]du=-3\frac{da}{a}[/math] thus u is proportional to [math]a^{-3}[/math] now in both these cases as the universe expands the temperature decreases now for the cosmological constant we need to employ a time derivative [math]\dot{u}=-3(p+u)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}[/math] now a consequence is that the more negative the pressure becomes the less the energy density decreases as the universe expands however energy is created as the universe expands by Lambda so its pressure is minus its energy density p=-u or [math]p=-\rho[/math] the total heat is constant in all the above so there is no power in terms of work/time in terms of the FLRW metric power density is never used as there is no transfer of heat outside of our system defined by adiabatic expansion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process this gets complicated in terms of reversibility and a further problem of isentropic processes the work must be performed outside our system which doesn't make sense when discussing the universe when our system is the universe volume. There is no outside of the universe for a transfer of work to occur. So how would you define power in this instance ?

From the first link in English As an electromagnetic wave travels through space, energy is transferred from the source to other objects (receivers). The rate of this energy transfer Where is the energy transfer for the cosmological constant ? [math] power=\frac{work}{time}[/math] Start there however it gets more complex thermodynamically. Specifically the first law of thermodynamics. However you might want to start with the distinction between energy density and power density https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density_vs_power_density

Congrats she is a cutie

Well for one thing you can't fall through spacetime. Also future events are not predetermined. Travelling the the past is a causality violation and thus considered impossible.

Well being weakly interactive it would behave much like neutrinos in so far as a neutrino can pass through a light year of solid lead without an interaction. Assuming DM is right hand neutrinos

All measurements of all types of mass is frame dependent. In order to find a rest mass of a particle for example you have to find a centre of momentum frame where the momentum =0. That requires those scattering experiments I mentioned. The question you just asked is another one of the those questions that led to the new terminology as the term relativistic mass was often misunderstood by laymen as being the observer dependent mass. As Swansont mentioned the rest mass term is only valid in its own reference frame other observers in other frames of reference will measure that mass differently as well. I will give you an example on the LHC they take protons and accelerate them to near light speeds. From the scattering collisions they produce particles with far higher rest mass than the original two protons. Good example is the Higgs Boson. The principle of equivalence states one further important detail. Inertia mass=gravitational mass This means that if you give an object kinetic energy (inertia) it has the same equivalence as giving it gravitational mass

If you look closely enough the Young sun paradox is also an attempt to explain why the Earth wasn't frozen over at that particular time period. The geological evidence found on Earth don't jive with the current theories involving the required greenhouse gasses from soil samples. Both conditions at the Earth and Mars would have been frozen over due to a smaller cooler sun. I only presented two possible solutions there is more research into that problem. It's been around for 25 years and is still being worked on today. It is one of the open questions in astrophysics for our solar system evolution. Let me ask you a question if the temperature never supported liquid water how can you have lakes and rivers from glaciers to cut canyons ? Particularly since a low atmospheric pressure leads to a different evaporation process of water vapor being broken down into H2 and oxygen from solar radiation. If it's below it's tripline threshold not sure if I spelled that right lol not my expertise. Personally I am more inclined towards volcanic activity causing greenhouse gases but time will tell.