Mordred

Think of a sine wave you have the positive number real part then you also have the imaginary negative number portion. Ie on an x, y graph your sine wave has a range of -y to +y for the amplitudes of the sine wave along the x axis. So too does the Zero point energy eigenstates. The creation and annihilation operators employ this in discrete units of quanta. It is fundamental to the ladder operations of the Schrodinger equations. You have both positive and negative frequency portions the negative frequency portion is the imaginary number set while the positive frequency parts are the set of Real numbers.

Well the geometric mean is a type of mean average. However the geometric mean only applies to the Set of real numbers. Zero point energy involves the set of imaginary and real numbers so wouldn't be applicable in this case. Zero point energy is the main basis behind the cosmological constant problem in terms of the quantum catastrophe. (120 orders of magnitude too high) I have no idea how you would apply time in a circular fashion either it wouldn't match any of the symmetries of how time is treated as a vector. (Arrow of time) as one example . You would need to have non linear relations. Which I don't see how you would apply that.

Think of it as the average value. I really don't know how you plan on applying time as a sinusoidal.

You evidently have a different time period for the BB. Seems your defining it by the CMB surface of last scattering than by the [math]10^{-43} [/math] time. GW waves only occur after the latter time and the relic GW wave signature is theorized to exist in the BAO oscillations on the CMB surface. I believe your referring to the inconclusive BICEP2 findings when they first thought they detected GW waved. The neutrino background is also after 10^-43 sec.

Sort of points out the problems that arises when using the rest mass descriptive instead of the invariant mass. Reminds me of the endless debates that occured when rest mass was the standard terminology.

Might help to consider you cannot have a length contraction without simultaneous time dilation. The two go hand in hand and are not seperarable. If you have a frame described by length contraction you must also have a corresponding time dilation of equal ratio to t4he same gamma factor. (A good way to examine this is the invariance of c to all observers) in order to preserve that invariance you require both length contraction and time dilation.

The direction becomes evident when you describe time on a number line. Positive direction implying an increase in the set of real numbers. Ie 1,2,3... Seconds yes the values are scalar but the set can be given a vector quantity under graph. Which becomes essential under relativity by assigning time units of length via the interval ct.

Who says we cannot simulate two BHs on a direct path merge. We are capable of doing such but takes more computing power than readily available equipment. Though I can do some first order calculations to ballpark it. (Beyond thinking of the relevant formulas off the top of my head lol)

And yet a different culture could have a complete different set of mathematics. Say for example instead of a base of 10 it's a base of 26. How would pi correlate under that base ?

No wouldn't simulate any of the essential dynamics

I would imagine the chirp ring down would simply have a faster rate. As far as the actual merging the total mass energy release should be the same. Edit well it could be a bit more violent due to the momentum terms.

Fair enough but lets ask a question how can nothing spit out something ? That's sounds like something I made up back when I was 12 and thinking of the philosophical question If everything has a beginning and an end what is the absolute beginning of the universe ? back then the answer I came up with was noting +nothing equals something which is absolute nonsense lmao How would you even describe Nothing in physics ? rather boring examination. No volume, no temperature, no field values, no information rather pointless. So we can safely say QM has no goal to describe something that has zero information to describe. We can safely assume all of physics tries to describe any physical (which under particle physics actually corresponds to observable quantity, relation, etc.) we recognize certain effects while never directly observable can lead to observable effects ie indirect evidence example virtual particles.

Citation please I'm familiar with a lot of Wheelers work but not that expression. The purpose of this thread according to the OP specified QM treatments and the eventual goal. So how is anything you've said so far this thread pertinent to the OP ?

Are you even trying to make sense ? Mathematics is a methodology used to describe what we measure. The universe doesn't give a hoot how we measure and describe it. So everything in your last post is literally irrelevant. It is also absolutely meaningless to the discussion of the OP.

Well that's funny because your providing metaphysics arguments. Lets start with the part about a void. What part of a void cannot exist under QM do you disagree with ? Little hint the only model under physics that involves the term void is the FLRW metric to describe the regions between LSS. Other than that the term isn't part of physics. A void would be the absence of all matter and energy under QM that cannot happen. Better teminology would be a vaccum state or simply a field

A true void never exists under QM the lowest possible energy state is zero point energy. In regards to your math. If I provided all the calculations you probably wouldn't understand them. You would have to take them on faith as to their accuracy. I could literally give you the QFT formulas of a particle/antiparticle correlation to zero point energy in terms of the creation annihilation operators for matter and antimatter (all virtual ie quantum fluctuations) and I can then provide a formula showing infinite energy potential of that complex scalar field. It wouldn't help you understand the model and would only confuse you. The only way to truly understand any physics model is to understand it's mathematics. Not the metaphysics of it. The thing is the actual universe from nothing model title is a misnomer. It isn't truly from nothing the nothing refers to the value zero being the resultant of the formula provided. The quantum fluctuations the model uses isn't a true absolute energy value. It is a baseline value of a mean average. A field is an abstract mathematical methodology that assigns a value or mathematical object at every geometric coordinate. By simple real life you can measure some quantity at any location. So they certainly exist even with above definition. For example you can measure a temperature at any location. You can then describe that as a scalar field. With an EM field you can measure it's ability to attract or repulse at any location. You can model the attraction repulsion effects under a vector field. A field is just the properties under examination being described under a coordinate basis. It isn't a thing unto itself.

then you getting wound it wrong the something from nothing model is described as a balance between field potential energy and kinetic energy. [math]pe-ke=0[/math]

I will use 75 km/s/Mpc just for the variation. [math] t_0=\frac{1}{H_0}[/math] =[math]\frac{1}{75 km/sec/Mpc}[/math] 1 pc=[math] 3.09*10^16[/math] metres 1Mpc=[math] 10^6 pc=3.09*10^22 metres=3.09*10^19 km[/math] now substitute [math]\frac{1}{H_0}=\frac{1}{75\frac{\frac{km}{sec}}{Mpc}}[/math] [math]\frac{1}{H_0}=\frac{1}{75\frac{\frac{km}{sec}}{3.09*10^19 km}}[/math]=[math]\frac{1}{2.43*10^{-18}\frac{1}{sec}}=4.12*10^{17} sec[/math] convert that to years and you get 1.3*10^10 years but this is an empty universe. You should be able to run the other calc now for todays Planch 2015 or 2018 result and apply the 2/3 ratio. (of course that won't quite get you the exact answer until we take into how matter, radiation and lambda evolve in a homogenous and isotropic (uniform distribution the energy density should be the same everywhere) however when you state that under QM your already referring to the mean average. It is no different the formula for zero point energy is [math]e-\frac{1}{2}\hbar w[/math] one common used formula to describe this in terms of a cosmological constant was [math]\Lambda=\frac{E^4_{planck}}{\hbar^3 c^4}[/math]

Yes to the first but on the second (which affects the first) instead of the y axis replace the y axis with ct. Your Lorentz transforms being two frames of importance is the x and x prime and ct and ct primed. Here is a primer https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~tosborn/EM_7590_Web_Page/Resource%20Materials/Lorentz%20transformation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwihsuGZ_rrkAhURip4KHYFJCgoQFjAOegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2q6445SkfrxpQV8FkQ34jD This one is handy as it includes the Minkowskii diagram showing the hyperbolic rotation.

c itself is still constant under rapidity to all observers. You can see that via the inverse hyperbolic function used to describe rapidity (acceleration causes a rotation of the Minkowskii metric). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity [math]w=arctanh(v/c)[/math]

This is the proper treatment but the interval is given units of length via ct

Think of mass and energy as flips of the same term but account for total mass not just rest mass. Matter particles are just the fermionic family of SM particles. Bosons with no rest mass can have inertial mass.

Fair lets improve this as there is an inaccuracy. the cause and effect is correlated to the distance a light signal will take to transverse where the observer velocity must be less than c. The speed of light is not a valid reference frame due to separation distance in that frame being [math]ds^2=0[/math] which would imply the photon is everywhere at once which is nonsensical. in a Cartesian coordinates [math]ds^2= ct^2, dx^2, dy^2+dz^2[/math] notice we use the interval ct . this gives v=c a unit of normalized unit of length.

without mass not matter. Mass and energy always go together Matter only accounts for fermionic particles. There are bosons that have an invariant mass. One way to measure is with an accelerometer Recall mi=mg

The model descriptive for an infinite universe (more accurate in this case ) would be an open universe. With closed universe being finite. For the latter case it could be something like the surface of a ball. Ie loop back onto itself ( toriod shapes got discounted on CMB measurements). Give you an example after the 2012 Planck results and the slight positive (closed) error margin. A study if closed and on that dataset if you were to stop expansion a light would take 880 Billion years to transverse and loop back to the emitter. Though measurement of a critical dense universe (flat) ie extremely close to it we are also viable for an infinite universe. (Open) due to Lambda cosmological constant.